GDC Video: Alec Holowka on Holistic Game Design
Alec Holowka of Infinite Ammo presented together with Andy Schatz (MONACO) and Adam Saltsman (CANABALT) at the Independent Games Summit this year. Their talk "Savvy Indie Solutions to Difficult Development Problems" posited three unique approaches to game design. Holowka's focus was on holistic game design, where lengthy development times were endured so that the sum of the parts or overall vision remained the center of attention.
You began your talk by pointing out that reviews will separate a game into its components in a way that would sound ludicrous in a movie review. Do you find this habit of compartmentalization is symptomatic of the way people think about games?
Alec Holowka, Infinite Ammo: It’s not necessarily that reviews are the problem, but it is an example of how people go about discussing games in a formal context, as if they're just a bunch of things stuck together.
Were there vital issues you wanted to address at this particular time, or was it more of a summary of what you had learned over time?
It was a little of both. This year a lot of people at the Independent Games Summit were there to say “games are only this one thing,” especially during the rants. “This is what games are. They aren’t anything else.” To me that notion is shortsighted. In talking to developers I wanted specifically to say, “Here’s this wide open space. Go find your own thing that makes you excited about making games and explore that.” Basically it was a positive, inspirational message to do what you want.
Do you see Marian as unexplored territory?
Yeah, it’s complicated because it has a number of different systems that are all hopefully going to interact well with each other. There’s a core gameplay mechanic, there’s a narrative element to it, and then there are all these other gameplay systems that will hopefully overlap in interesting ways, such that the player feels this is like a living, breathing world.
One of the things that Aquaria did fairly well was it had a certain degree of mystery, where you were not sure exactly what the rules of the world were. Even the story left certain things open to interpretation.
As a game designer, you are constructing each of the pieces of the puzzle. Does that put you at risk of losing the holistic approach while getting caught up too much in compartmentalizing each of the components?
Yeah, definitely. The GDC talk was meant to be about the differences between mainstream games and indie games. In mainstream game development, when you have a team of fifty to a hundred people, you have to organize stuff into different compartments. Otherwise, it becomes really confusing. It’s harder to manage a giant team without saying, “Okay, you artists need to produce these art assets by this date. You musicians need to compose this kind of music by this date.” Whereas with indie game development it can be a lot more free form.
For example, on Marian I am doing the music, the game design and the code. At any point in the process I can decide to be inspired by art that one of the artists came up with, and then start taking things more in another direction. It is easy to fall into the habit of solving production issues by just separating things and simplifying them. I think it’s really important to remember that all these things should be connected in some kind of meaningful way.
This is an advantage that you would have over someone on a larger development team?
Yes. We don’t have to suddenly get fifty people to get to change gears. We don't have stockholders who are going to get mad at us. I try to hold myself to deadlines and set milestone goals, but we can also wait an extra month or whatever if we know the results are going to be better.
You joined Kyle Pulver on depict1, writing the soundtrack to the Global Game Jam entry. Does it appeal to you to have the chance to occasionally turn your attention to a more modestly sized product that can be completed in a short amount of time?
It’s nice on working with a smaller project to be able to go through the whole process and see the results. With Marian, it will have taken years to get to release it officially and see people react to it.
I've worked with Kyle on two or three games now, and we have a similar way of thinking about things. Though he is more focused on pure gameplay, and I come from more the overall experience, we end up liking a lot of the same games anyway. It’s been fun to work with him on stuff because he will send me the prototype of a game and the pieces I write for it come out super easily. I can literally sit down at the piano, play some stuff, and it sounds right. I build a track around it and in a couple hours it’s done. That does not usually happen when I’ve worked on projects with other people.
Is it difficult to maintain this ideal of holistic design the more people are involved in the process?
It depends how the team is set up. On Marian there are seven people on the project, but I sort of have the final say. So far I have not had to exercise those rights. Everyone kind of gets what I’m going for, more or less. They suggest ideas and if they don’t immediately fit, they often end up morphing into something that fits. I think I have been pretty careful about picking people that are creating things that align with the vision I have for the game.
[Independent game composers Alec Holowka and Laura Shigihara at the 2010 Game Developers Conference. Images courtesy of Infinite Ammo. Photo and video by Jeriaska.]
Comments
Hey, I didn't get a chance to say so after the talk at GDC, but I really enjoyed what you had to say during that session. Best of luck with Marian!
Posted by: Sparky | April 2, 2010 3:24 AM
Hey man! I didn't run into you at all this GDC...
We'll have to make up for it next year. :)
Posted by: Alec Holowka | April 2, 2010 6:00 AM
Holistic Game Design sounds very much like our own philosophy too.
But we call it 'Mucky Hands'
http://www.denki.co.uk/2009/09/23/mucky-hands-design/
Posted by: Chicknstu | April 2, 2010 9:42 AM
He says we shouldn't break games down because we don't do it for movies. Maybe we need to be breaking movies down. There've been plenty of movies with a great story but bad directing, or other combinations, and games are no different. It's worth acknowledge all the parts then coming up with an over all review, since it helps you figure out why you think what you think about the whole project.
Posted by: Josh | April 3, 2010 12:14 AM
We do brake movies down while the overall experience evaluation prevails at the end, we do brake down every single thing we care about and spend time with. I find presentation long winded, unconvincing and far fetched. :(
Posted by: ori | April 3, 2010 3:46 AM
I agree that we do break down a lot of things that we evaluate. We have the choice to look at something as a collection of bits or a cohesive whole. It's probably most effective to think about both. I'm -not- arguing that we should -ignore- the fact that things have components.
Why I'm advocating looking at the whole instead of -only- looking at the parts, is that I think we've got "looking at the parts" of a game figured out pretty well. There seems to be less of a discussion about how components of a game can work together in interesting/exciting ways.
For example a game could have really limited graphics for a reason - perhaps it helps establish a certain atmosphere that makes people perceive the gameplay differently... Or a game could have really limited gameplay for a reason - perhaps at a certain part of a game it is exploring a theme of "restriction" and temporarily limits the player's actions. Perhaps on it's own this gameplay wouldn't be that interesting, but it could be seen as a meaningful/valuable experience when evaluated as part of the whole of the game.
While I think it's valuable to examine components separately as well, many people seem to make the mistake of evaluating an entire work based on the separate components. In the case of games, it often happens with "game stories". People argue that if you removed a game's story from the game and read it like a novel, it wouldn't make for a great book. Obviously! That's not a very useful criticism. The story for a game was written to be experienced intertwined with many other elements. Removing any one element and inspecting it while turning a blind eye to the context is pointless. (except as an exercise in studying the mechanics of game production)
I also think that while most game players look at games as a "whole" - a lot of developers fall into the trap of thinking about the pieces separately because of the way game production works a lot of the time.
Posted by: Alec Holowka | April 3, 2010 6:15 AM
Hey, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. Great idea to invoke a little discussion here around your talk via twitter..
So- 'Artgame' is a silly name, cause all games are made out of artistic elements? Yes they are, but I think there is a difference between games made out of these elements, and games which are meant to be art. To me, 'artgames' is not this much about their artistic production, but intention. Don't know.. may we call them 'artful games' and 'artgames' then. But of course.. kinda difficult- with that, we have to define what art is. :(
Nice point you made there with this list of possible starting points for game creation. For how to tell stories through/in games, I think it's also a very good thing to look how other artforms create stories. So- looking at a poem, a movie, a picture, ... how do they 'get' you? What do they tell and how? And can you use this for a game? Very inspiring..
You also said, that a static story is still important to games. All different Components should be channeled in this direction to experience this story. -So why not watch a movie? Games are interactive, right? So yes, we are still at the stoneage of games. How do you plan to tell stories (better) than movies/books/etc., with space for interaction of the player? And what do you think about the latest FinalFantasy (with all these rants about the linear levels and story)?
The example of Mario and his story.. well, I don't think it's that much about the story- more like dynamic meaning. All this jumping and eating of mushrooms (and growing! Why does he do that?!).. That is very open to interpretation, and therefore, you build a own story -> interesting! Same thing with Jason Rohrer's Passage: With all that simple gameplay, visuals and music, everything is a part of a story, which is not given by the creator, but by the player. Only the rules of the gamespace tell us about Jason's view of the world. Maybe we don't need a authored story, but a created space, open for interpretative stories?
Posted by: Matthias Löwe | April 3, 2010 2:36 PM
Whether things are intended or not intended to be "artful" and whether or not people think they are is an entirely different matter and also very subjective.
I think saying that "these games are intended for art, the other ones without this label are not" is pointless in terms of investigating whether certain games have personal meaning or not.
With regards to your points about story, one can imagine a continuum on which could be mapped completely linear/rigid stories on the left and completely non-linear/player influenced stories on the right.
I think both approaches can generate interesting games, and some games end up somewhere in the middle. I personally think that somewhere near the middle is the most interesting point... where the game has some "story framework" created by the author and the player is also creating/fleshing out the rest of the story. But it doesn't have to be limited to being one of either extremes.
For example, Mario has a very simple context framework (Mario is a plumber, he enters the mushroom kingdom to save the princess) whereas Final Fantasy VI is more complex (we have the entire backstory of all the characters before we arrive at the moment when Celes is taking care of Cid on the beach).
Both can lead to very affecting results, and yet use different techniques.
I think it's weird to call design limitations "stoneage" stuff. A lot of "old" things still hold many interesting concepts, for example black and white movies, poetry, and novels. Even though they may not be the dominant mediums in our current age, they still have much unexplored potential.
So why make a game that has a more-linear-than-not storyline instead of a movie? Because it will be a completely different experience than watching a movie - the player will feel more connected to the storyline by being able to interact with the world and by having an influence over the events.
Posted by: Alec Holowka | April 3, 2010 3:59 PM
I think every medium has its place, and I'm glad people like Alec are doing their part to show that video games are more than just a child's distraction or an elaborate marketing gimmick to sell hardware. I think the message is most relevant to the players, the people who are being influenced the most on what to believe about game design. It makes me curious about opinions like Ori's up there, about the importance of this discussion.
Of course we break down the components of everything we like, but in a lot of cases the overall experience wins out. Why is it then, that so many players today feel justified judging a game solely on graphics? I think it's because players have been led to believe, based on the nearsightedness of the developer and the inadequacy of the reviewer, that these components hold a ton of weight, and it doesn't really matter if the game effectively did what it set out to do as an experience. In their mind, they think, "Well, if the graphics were going to be simple, why even make the game? Since it only uses two buttons and has very little sound, it'll just get a 2/6 from any big review site as a result of that. Who cares if it was fun?"
I think that's the sort of opinion that's being challenged with discussions like these, and I think for video games, the discussion is direly needed.
Posted by: FellaDudeMan | April 7, 2010 8:15 PM