Recent years have seen attempts by adventure game designers to move onto other genres and infuse some of the adventure spirit or design ethic into new kinds of games. Do you think this is a compromise, or a step forward?
AC: Writers write, designers design, artists create art. Everyone would love to work on just titles they want, but that's not very realistic, is it? The fact is, we need to make a living and I, for one, would rather do what I'm good at and passionate about on ANY game than do something I couldn't care less about.
In an interview with Gamespot, Tim Shaeffer said something to the effect of "People use interface too much to define what an adventure game is", and said that he felt that what made a game an adventure was the way the world was "brought to life". This brings to mind a comment you made: "If we were given the green light for Tex and all we had to do was add more "arcade-like" action, I know for a fact that Chris and I could come up with some running and gunning "Tex style" that would in no way interfere with what makes Tex Murphy who he is." In what sense does the interface impact the kind of story you can tell? Adventure games are often regarded as a sort of "interactive fiction" on a purer level than other genres. Do you think this is true?
AC: This is a huge philosophical question and I doubt I can fully answer it for you in this forum, but here (in a nutshell) are the points I think are most important:
(1) Everyone loves a good story;
(2) A story is good when it gets you emotionally and intellectually involved;
(3) A game offers the opportunity for the most involving story experience possible, but ONLY IF IT'S DONE WELL – if it's done poorly, it's a much poorer experience than a "non-interactive" story experience;
(4) You must have a good story to start with (obviously), but in a game the player must feel that s/he is moving the story forward, not being led or pushed; the best way to accomplish this is by tying the storytelling to player accomplishment – the added benefit of this is that story becomes reward, rather than obstacle;
(5) The gameplay should compliment the story, both in style and challenge level – story can be told in virtually every genre, so the gameplay and U.I. will depend on what type of game you're making. Tex Murphy games didn't offer much in the way of fisticuffs or shooting, but that isn't to say that they couldn't. Being a detective has a certain measure of physical violence inherent, and CJ and I always discussed the possibility of incorporating it.
As for Tim Shaeffer's viewpoint, I'm not sure what he means by the interface defining the game, but I couldn't agree more with the importance of bringing the "game-world" to life. But that isn't accomplished with good visuals alone – again, it's about emotional and intellectual involvement...the same elements essential to a good story.
When Under a Killing Moon launched it was marketed as an "interactive movie." To this day the Tex adventures might be the only great games ever to use this billing. What did that mean to you? Was is just about the use of FMV, or was it something more than that?
AC: Personally, I was always against the use of that term because I thought it set an impossibly high expectation.
