I more or less started this series of posts with what I called Dansky's First Rule of Game Writing, namely, that words are always the cheapest fix until suddenly they are the most expensive. That line got a lot of rueful laughter and a lot of agreement, but today I want to dive a little deeper into it and talk about what it means. First of all, I absolutely believe this is true. When something gets cut or changed or added, it is much easier and faster to add, edit, or cut dialog around it, or rewrite backstory (assuming it hasn't already been put in a player-facing format) than it is to change a character model or a map or an animation, at least early in the project. Narrative folks should understand this and be flexible, because it comes with the territory and pushing back against a solution that saves time and money is not a good look. But. Too often this gets taken to extremes. When narrative is constantly called on to paper over the cracks caused by others' decisions, certain things happen. One is that as a solution, it is easy to overuse. Yes, it may be less work for narrative than for other teams, but it's still work, and it still involves throwing out work that has been already done. That comes with multiple costs, not the least of which is a morale hit. Constantly asking one team to be the only ones who bend can feel a little like they're being picked on, or worse, taken for granted. And that's a great way to demotivate people. Because with that comes an inevitable devaluing of narrative work. I've heard "It's just words" too many times in my career. Nobody says "It's just pixels" or "It's just lines of code" to other departments. The assumption that rewrites are a cheap and easy fix is incorrect; it is cheap, not easy. It takes craft and skill to seamlessly close the gap in a narrative when an entire level gets cut. It takes craft and skill to turn around a rewrite immediately because a recording session is coming up and another department failed to read a character design doc so the character details have to change. And on it goes, and on and on. The other half of the statement is that words suddenly get expensive, which is also true. Once you record dialog, once you put stuff into localization, all of a sudden changing those words gets pricey. Want to make a tweak to a level that contradicts a line that's already been recorded? That means hiring back the actor, plus the studio, plus the director. plus plus plus. And while pickup sessions are a thing, there is not infinite time or money to keep going back to the well every time someone wants to fiddle with something that was supposed to be nailed down for script lock. "It's just words" isn't true any more at this point, and other departments need to be cognizant of upcoming recording session dates and script deadlines in order take their requests timely. Otherwise, everyone's going to be unhappy.
A much more comprehensive way of saying what I've been trying to get across to a few folks. 😍 It's why I try to push that Narrative (sort of) the opposite to other things - inexpensive early, more expensive later. So much code has to get done before you can even have a game. So much art needs to be done, but never makes it past concept. But Narrative can start from sparks and lead to a full on fire. If you suddenly want to change things in the late stages, there are already so may knock-on impacts. It's a big part of why (thankfully) one of the Devs I'm working with keeps telling people that localisation has to wait until the Narrative is locked, even if doing some now might bring in a few more players (game is in Steam EA) in the short term.
From an actor's perspective (and without wanting to get into a bigger debate regarding union/non-union, minimum fees etc) - there is a lot of VO talent with their own studios who can turnover lines within the hour for precisely such purposes. And for smaller pick-ups, I'd say this is also potentially an area where discussions around AI voice should be happening more openly. Appreciate it's not the main thrust of your piece, just thought it worth adding
Nailing things down is a really important skill on its own, to minimize this happening. I worked at a place that just could not do this to save their lives — either the contracts were written so poorly that the clients were allowed to keep changing things indefinitely or the communications with said clients were repeatedly garbled by the ones responsible for passing information from them (or both) that all of us (writer, developer, artist) were asked to revise things consrantly. (oh, and as for revising writing — make sure it’s not baked into the imagery as a first step 😀
this is so true! There's another truth that other departments often fail to understand: just because a dialogue or a piece of writing is a few lines long and can be read in 3-4 minutes, writing or editing it doesn't take nearly the same amount of time. Just because it seems "easy" to put it together, actually it's not and cutting back my time to make space for somebody else's work will just hurt the overall quality.
The backflips that narrative designers and writers perform to accommodate changes and make it seem like the narrative was always planned that way and there are no gaps in logic, and on top of that making it exceptional and stand on its own... is as impressive as any feat or skill in game development.
We are world logic puzzle masters and we are only perceived as good as our tools and delivery systems. We take the constraints and create opportunities and sometimes 6 year long radio dramas.
People also forget the importance of keeping writers onboard after all the "writing" is done. Writers can provide narrative solutions to limitations or changes in production.
Great breakdown of both sides. Narrative should be flexible, but other departments need to understand the snowball effect of late changes.
Actor schedules can make it cost a lot of time, as well. Even if the in-house writers move fast.
CS @ Carnegie Mellon University | Game Designer and Programmer
6mo"The assumption that rewrites are a cheap and easy fix is incorrect; it is cheap, not easy. It takes craft and skill to seamlessly close the gap in a narrative when an entire level gets cut. It takes craft and skill to turn around a rewrite immediately because a recording session is coming up and another department failed to read a character design doc so the character details have to change. And on it goes, and on and on." That separation of "cheap" and "easy" is my key takeaway. Admittedly I sometimes forget that they're not always the same thing. It's a little easier for me to envision this scenario as a programmer, though--I'd find it a little frustrating having to be asked to constantly rewrite code and simplify the physics because, for example, the 3D modelers put a little too much detail into the locations and now the game can't run very well (I don't mean to throw shade, this is just an example). Code optimization is a necessary step in development, but I wouldn't want the burden to always be on myself and the other programmers. Maybe it'd be cheap, but optimization is a very tricky puzzle to solve.