I love Amazon days. That's when I get a big new box from Amazon.com, stacked with shiny new DVDs and/or books. This time it was DVDs, and the one I'm most excited about is the second season box-set of The Sopranos. I'm ashamed to say that, while I'd heard a lot about the show from the news and from friends, I hadn't seen a complete episode until this Christmas, when my brother and I watched the entire first season in a week. And I couldn't wait to get the second season. The show is great. Very funny, very well acted, extremely well written, and production qualities are top-notch. The DVDs are widescreen, 16:9 enhanced, Dolby Digital -- this is the way all TV-shows should be released. Not a lot of extras, but who needs dessert if the main course is perfect? Definitely recommended.

I also got the season one box-set of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and if you read my January 20th posting, you'll know why.

What else? TRON, Moulin Rouge, Traffic, Atlantis: The Lost Empire. Good thing it's cold and dark outside, 'cause I won't be going anywhere this weekend.  ¶ 17:49   

  I read this morning that Stephen King plans to retire from writing after fulfilling his current obligations to his publishers: Five books to go, and then it's over.

I started reading King very early on, probably way too early (half the things he referred to made absolutely no sense to me: sex, what's that?), and while I was already writing and telling my own little supernatural tales at that point, his work was a definite inspiration when it came to creepy-crawlies that go Bump! in the night. For years and years -- perhaps even still -- King remained my favourite author. Not just because of his stories, but also because his characterisations and descriptions of periods and settings, his immaculate attention to detail and realism, taught me much of what I know about writing today.

I'll be sorry to see him go, for his voice to fall silent. While it's true that his work has become less and less original with the years, and certain novels, like Dreamcatcher and Bag of Bones, were somewhat dull retreads of old material (and not even good material; Dreamcatcher reminded me of The Tommyknockers, one of my least favourite King novels), they were always entertaining to read. And then there were books like The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Hearts in Atlantis, stories that were truly original and interesting. And his latest collaboration with Peter Straub, Black House, is a great tale, even though it does rely a bit too much on knowledge of some of King's other stories (something I ranted about a few weeks ago).

There aren't a heck of a lot of good horror writers out there, unfortunately. The genre has suffered over the years, and there's a lot of, uh, crap. I love a good spooky story, and I love the way King made (still makes) these stories come to life with likeable, original characters that we can believe in, and textured, evocative settings. But I can understand his reasons for quitting while he's ahead, while his books are still selling, and the reviews are still mostly positive.

The world will just be a little bit duller without Stephen King to brighten it up (or, more correctly, darken it down) once in a while.  ¶ 12:05   

  In the previous posting, I mentioned briefly how intriguing, how different, how liberating it is to work with the evolving story of an online game. Aside from the fact that the feedback is instant and constant, and the process organic, part of the reason why I like it is also that it's brand new territory; it's not something any of us have done before. In fact, it's something very few have even attempted to do. There aren't a heck of a lot of ground rules, aside from the rules that apply to all fictional forms.

One rule unique to online games that I've learned first-hand in the few months that we've been doing this is that an evolving real-time online world story -- basically a sort of "history in the making", something that can be looked back on six months down the line and appear logical and coherent -- can often be experienced as too slow-moving, at least when compared with the sort of stories that people are used to experiencing. It's natural that some players would want everything to move quicker, to be more exciting and action-packed, something more akin to watching a movie, or playing a single-player console title. But the story in an online game (not counting past history; more on that another day) can't move at an unrealistic pace. You can't dissolve from one scene to the next, indicating the passage of days, weeks, or months. You can't put up a title-card reading "Five years later", or "Meanwhile, in Devon". You can't have characters age, you can't expect the players to be online twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, right when you want them to, and you can't change things around so much that you risk alienating all those people who prefer the world the way it is right now.

In other words, it's a right bugger keeping people interested and engaged, in addition to keeping a realistic and practical pace.

I think it's important to realise what exactly the story's supposed to be doing. Think of an online game as being more like a TV-show than a novel or a movie; a TV-show with clear story-arcs that run through a season, or several seasons. Let's compare it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for example; as chance would have it, my favourite show. In Buffy, there are several types of arcs. Some run through one season -- like the whole arc with the Master, in season one; the Big Bad who had to be defeated, and who affected the characters and the plot on a regular basis. Each and every episode of the show didn't feature the Master. In fact, each episode was able to stand on its own legs, and thus make sense to the casual viewer who'd just happen upon the show while flicking through the channels. Each episode had to be entertaining and self-explanatory, whilst in some ways moving the season one step forward. At the same time, things couldn't move too fast. Success often hinges on familiarity, especially with a show that's still finding its legs. Viewers should be able to miss two, three, four shows, and still understand what's going on.

Same thing with an online game. Every game-session a player has -- and unlike a TV-show, we don't know what the session contains; that's up to the player -- must be valuable and entertaining in some way or another. But every session can't be about the big story-arcs. The story is flavour and setting, it's something that shapes the player's environment, something that hints at things to come, something that, when it happens, is doubly exciting because it doesn't happen every time. Players who expect big leaps in the story every time they log on to an online game will have to adjust.

But just as a TV-show like Buffy dares to change over time, so should an online game. Now in its sixth season, it's hard for a casual viewer to watch a single episode of Buffy and understand what the heck's going on. The arcs have become much more defined and all-encompassing; we now have arcs that run through several seasons, something that pleases the fans -- like myself -- but probably alienates the casual viewers. Where in past seasons, there would be standalone episodes, now each and every episode addresses the larger arcs in some way or another. Thing is, Buffy's no longer a show for the casual viewers. It's a show for fans who watch every single episode, and who are able to follow the convoluted (but brilliant) storylines and arcs.

Eventually, the same thing will happen with the story in an online game: Confident of its audience, of the players' knowledge of past history, present situation, and the prophesised (or hinted at) future, the story can really take off. Each game-session can now contain elements of the greater story -- the major arcs -- without confusing or alienating the players. The fans will expect it and understand it, and while the casual players may be confused and bewildered, that's no longer an issue. Like with a successful TV-show, there's Insiders and Outsiders. And the Insiders have all the fun.

Of course, this all depends on what the players themselves want and wish for. It's not a given that this is the future of story-based online games. It could be that players prefer the standalone "episodes", and don't really see the need for the long story-arcs. Or it could be -- like the case was with The X-Files -- that the fans get fed up with slow-moving arcs that never lead anywhere, and that they just want everyone to shut up about it and stick with the entertaining, action-packed stuff.

With an online game -- like with a TV-show -- we at least have the ability to change when change is required. Which is, I guess, a Good Thing.  ¶ 01:22   

  The past week has been sorta hectic as we're starting to pick up the pace on the Anarchy Online story after a relatively slow holiday run. Not that I'm complaining: the great thing about working with an online game is that you get immediate feedback on what you're doing, almost minute by minute, which is very different to creating a boxed game, for example, or a novel, or movie. In those cases, you might have to wait years before you get any sort of outside feedback. And while that teaches you to be critical of your own work, and gives you time to tweak and refine every little element, the online process is very liberating in that you can step back and modify things on very short notice. Something's not working out? Scrap it. Got a new idea? Use it. It's fun. It's different. But fun.

The other night I wrote a looong Blog about criticism and feedback and why it's good and why it's not so good, and then Blogger, in all of its infinite wisdom, ate the post. In retrospect, it's a good thing it did. It's not always wise to show your thoughts to the world, especially now when quite a few people are actually reading this stuff. It used to be different. It used to be that no one came 'round here. It used to be peaceful, dammit. But, heck, who's complaining? Highway's brought a lot of tourists this way, and business been pickin' up. Ayuh, soon they'll be constructing on of 'em malls up these parts, I'm sure. Might as well pack up shop and head on down south while I still got my health.

Right. That made absolutely no sense to anyone, including me. I think I need to go to bed.  ¶ 00:10   

  I'm currently reading Stephen King and Peter Straub's latest collaborative effort, "Black House". It's very good (and weighty; I love weighty novels), but there's one irritating thing about it, something that's bothered me with a few of King's recent novels: It constantly alludes to his "Dark Tower" series, which I haven't read. You'd think a sequel to "The Talisman" (the first King/Straub collaboration) would suffice with referencing that book, which was published in 1984 and has already become part of the hazy tapestry of my past fictional love-affairs. But, no. They had to throw in a whole bucket-load of references that I cannot perceivably understand, forcing me to begin reading a new series of I-don't-know-how-many books in an effort to understand one, lousy story.

Life can be quite cruel sometimes, can't it?

One of these days I'll start reading a simpler, easier novel; something by Tolstoy, perhaps, or Dickens; something that doesn't require trawling through the entire backlog of the author(s) just to understand the signficance of a single name or a made-up word. "Hearts in Atlantis" had the same problem, to a lesser degree, with the low men in yellow coats and the Crimson King. Again with the obscure references.

I did try to read the first "Dark Tower" novel ages and ages ago, but I never got past the beginning. Which is weird, because I usually like King -- especially his early novels. And I almost never give up on books; no matter how awful they are, I struggle through them. So. All right. I admit defeat. I hate not understanding obscure references. I'll go back and read every single "Dark Tower" novel.

There's a New Year's resolution for you. Forget about losing the weight, learning to speak Japanese or teaching myself to play guitar. Instead I'm going to dig into another epic fantasy-series. Like that's what I really need; more time away from reality. Hah.  ¶ 00:43   

  I don't like being misquoted or misunderstood. That's terribly annoying.

Regarding the interview I spoke about in my last Edgewise posting, a few people are making assumptions based on out-of-context quotes, and taking it to mean that the AO storyline is bust, and that I'm not dedicated to making it work. It's probably fair to say that I could have been clearer in my original statements. But here goes (keep in mind that I speak as an individual, not for Funcom; this is a private website).

My role on the AO story-team is to try and shape the "top-level" story, and history, of the Anarchy Online universe. This work began with a novel that describes what happened prior to the colonisation of Rubi-Ka. It continued with an animated series revealing the lives of certain key characters on the planet. And it continues with the constant development of more history, more NPCs, more dungeons, missions, monsters, and playfields that will be introduced in the future, all of which (hopefully) add to the overall story. In addition to myself, there are system designers, world designers, NPC and monster designers, and events-coordinators who feed on bits and pieces of the big story to create smaller stories. The purpose of all this is to make a world that feels real and substantial to the players, encouraging role-playing, encouraging participation in events, encouraging inclusion into the various stories -- big and small -- that occur in the game-world. This is something we intend to continue in the future; the story isn't dead. It's still in its infancy.

As for Midgard, that game was never intended to have a story-arc like AO's. In Midgard, players would form tribes, build villages, and then trade, ally, or compete with neighbouring villages, with an emphasis on the constructive rather than the destructive: i.e. not the player-versus-player driven conflict of the clans versus Omni-Tek. Each separate Midgard-world would be very, very different -- in a sense, each world would have its own story, but not a story in the traditional sense, not a story-arc. Not like AO. Midgard never robbed any ideas from AO, because they are, in every way, two very, very different games. Midgard is about life in 11th Century Scandinavia, with an emphasis on resource-management and village life. AO is about the wild frontier on a distant planet in the far future, with an emphasis on sci-fi concepts, a PvP-driven conflict, and a four-year story-arc. We designed the two games specifically to cater to different core audiences.

I believe that we have a cool story for AO. We've spent a long time coming up with the history for the world, and while that hasn't been consistently communicated to the players, we'll try to find ways to improve that. We're sticking with our plans to implement and run the story -- and that also means allowing the players to interact and contribute wherever possible -- and we constantly learn from our mistakes and successes. AO is the perfect game for the story that we have planned for it. Midgard is a completely different game, with a completely different type of story that was never intended to take anything away from AO...and it won't.

Feel free to complain about the story in AO; it won't appeal to everyone, that's a given. Feel free to demand that I'm replaced with someone who can actually construct a decent story; I'm certainly not the greatest storyteller in this business. Feel free to be honest and forthright; that's something we all need. But I am, believe it or not, trying to do the best job I can within the confines of the game. AO is coming along very nicely. It's improving with every patch. I believe in this story, and I believe that it'll get a lot better once we understand how this works, because no one's really done it before. Not like this.

And if you still think I'm full of shit...fair enough.  ¶ 13:23   

  January is such an awful, awful month. Christmas is over, it's back to work, and there's no break to look forward to for a long, long time. It's dark outside -- and I mean really dark, obscenely dark -- and the winter here in Norway is long and cold. The weather usually doesn't improve until April. Happy days!

As for work? Development of Midgard has slowed to a crawl (i.e. temporarily halted) so that Funcom can focus completely on Anarchy Online. Wheee! Okay, sure, it's a smart move, but it does mean that Midgard won't see the light of day anytime soon. It also means that my days are mostly about AO's evolving storyline.

A few words about AO and story: about a month ago, I was quoted in an interview as stating that Anarchy Online wasn't my type of game, and a lot of people took issue with that, seeing as I'm involved with AO on a daily basis. Well, heck, context is everything. The interview was primarily a Midgard interview. And, yes, it's true: Midgard is more my type of game. I suck at the traditional massively-multiplayer online role-playing games, and I don't have the time to really get into them and gain enough levels to have fun. That doesn't mean I think AO is a bad game. Quite the contrary; I'm impressed with all the work that's gone into it, and I think it's a hell of a lot better than most of its competitors. In fact, I do play AO -- not nearly enough, true, but that's usually how it is in this business; working with games all day long means you prefer to do other things when you get home at night. When it comes to the story, my work lies primarily with the top-level story; the major story-arcs, and the history behind the AO universe. My notes, plans, and suggestions are passed on to the people who create the content and events, and the Game Director then decides what to do with the story and how to implement it in-game while I focus on the out-of-game story experience. So my influence on AO is very limited, and though it's true that the MMORPG genre isn't my favourite genre, my work is peripheral to that as it focuses primarily on the story-technical side of the game.

Now. What's happening in the future? Like I said, as far as Funcom's concerned, it's all AO right now. No Midgard, no The Longest Journey II, no top-secret online project. Which means that, while I have more than enough to do, I'm also going to spend more time with my, uh, extra-curricular activities. I'm rewriting my "The Dark Places" screenplay, and I will try to shoot that this year, in addition to finishing up a number of other screenplays that have been in the works for ages now. I'm also going to start working on my second novel soon; what that's all about, you're going to have to wait and see.

When the dark, cold, and miserable winter lies heavy on the land, it's important to keep busy. The busier the better.  ¶ 12:10