End of an Era

I was not familiar with Chris Crawford other than vaguely being aware of the name. Reading this post and others on the website (like https://web.archive.org/web/20180820035048/http://www.erasma...), it’s hard to not get the overall picture of “person says everyone else is doing it wrong, without having done it right themselves”.

What I mean by that is that there are game designers like Jonathan Blow who have their own theories on what is a great game and are extremely critical of the industry not following those theories, and then have released games that succeed at demonstrating those theories. In Jonathan Blow’s case, you can disagree with the man, but you can’t disagree with the fact that The Witness is a wildly original, successful game (1M+ copies sold) that has a cult following.

That does not seem to be the case for Crawford’s work. Lots of theories, lots of indictment for the industry doing it wrong, but no actual demonstration of what “doing it right” would mean.

Saying that no one gets it and civilization won’t be ready for many centuries (as the article I linked above does) feels like kind of a cheap rhetorical cop out.

For what it’s worth, I disagree with his indictment of the video game landscape as being narratively poor. Lots of video games with great interactive narratives out there, and there are many players who have been deeply moved by such games (of course, which games that might be varies from person to person).

I think a good antidote when one finds themselves in those thinking patterns is to listen to what others have to say, and not dismiss them as not getting it because they don’t follow your particular (unproven) theories.

> I disagree with his indictment of the video game landscape as being narratively poor.

I think he would say they are narratively poor by his defintion that the narrative must be generated by the game/player combo and not just pre-programmed. People love "The Last of Us" for it's narrative but that narritive is something that can arguably be conveyed via book or movie. Crawford wanted something where the narrative itself was generated.

And no, he wouldn't count the choices players make in the average game. Whether to get go west or east. Whether to get the a sword first or the arrow. He wanted the story and character dialog to change. Few if any games do that. Of course today with LLMs it's likely some games will soon / have already done it to some degree and will do better in the future.

Going back to his older work, you'd need to feed a context to the LLM about each characters motivations and then update that context based on player actions so that as the game progresses the way each NPC interacts with the player, and other NPCs, changes in a way that's consistent with each character's intrisict motivations and their interactions with others.

People come up with complex shared narratives in multiplayer sandbox games like Minecraft/Roblox/Kenshi/etc. all the time.

In the single player realm, there are games like Dwarf Fortress, Caves of Qud, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, etc.

Point is, the landscape of what "narrative" means in video games today is broad and deep. If none of those are even remotely like what Crawford thinks is "right" - and he's not able to design a game that meets his standards himself - I'd argue his definition of "right" might just not be workable in the first place.

There's a kind of people who want video games to have all of the possibility, depth, and meaning of real life. A game where you could do anything, be anyone, but still have consequences matter and be far reaching (like "Roy: A Life Well Lived" in Rick & Morty). Well, that exists, it's called real life, but you're not going to recreate it on a computer screen.

> People come up with complex shared narratives in multiplayer sandbox games like Minecraft/Roblox/Kenshi/etc. all the time.

That sounds no different from comming up with narratives on a playground. That's not a designed narrative, that's people making up a narrative where none exists. Hey, the jungle gym in our secret base! The swings are space ship! The ground is lava!

I think we can all imagine what he wanted to build even if he failed to come close to building it. He wanted to make a story machine where you could play the game and converse with the characters in a free flowing way yet still have the game provide a setting and conflict. Imagine talking to characters in the holodeck on Star Trek. Ideally where, over the course of the game, the dialog and interactions are designed in real time within the constraints of the setting. And, the way you treat characters influences how they react. Be a dick to the bartender, all his connections are harder to get consessions from. Be nice to one romantic partner, get snubbed by another, etc... And not just by canned responses. Tell one character a piece of info and it gets leaked to their closest contacts who then change their behavior/dialog based on this new knowledge.

I'm glad you're trying to explain the difference.

I've been in too many conversations where this topic comes up, and it's very disheartening to me. Gamers insist there are plenty of great narrative games, and every example they give is basically a branching story with bunch of flags that gate which branches can be taken. If I give the Holodeck as a counter-example, well that's just too pie-in-the-sky.

These conversations remind me a lot of Paul Graham's Blub Paradox: "Blub is good enough for him, because he thinks in Blub." Current SotA narrative games are good enough for most gamers, because all they've played are branching story games.