Back To Special Features
The following interview was conducted with Chris Taylor, the lead designer of Total Annihilation and the founder of Gas Powered Games. Ivan Trembow: First of all, what was initially the rationale behind leaving Cavedog Entertainment to start your own company? Chris Taylor: Starting my own company has been a goal of mine since I got into this business 12 years ago. After finishing Total Annihilation, a lot of opportunities opened up for me, and I made the decision to go for it. Ivan: What are the advantages and disadvantages of having your own company as opposed to being in more of a corporate structure? Chris: The disadvantage is that you have to worry about things like running the business, managing the money, working with lawyers and accountants, and so on. The advantages are really huge, mostly that you have much greater control over the game, the people you work with, and the direction that the company is going in. Ivan: What was the inspiration behind the name Gas Powered Games? Chris: Gas Powered Games is a name that I came up with along with dozens of other names while brainstorming. I liked it for multiple reasons. First, I have always considered electrically powered stuff to be inferior to gas powered stuff, especially R/C Cars. Although I guess my really bad experiences were with electric lawn-mowers, but there's no point getting into my sex life. I also liked the irony because computers are electrically powered... plus GPG is a cool acronym. Ivan: What do you think it is that ultimately led to Cavedog's downfall as a company? Chris: Ha! I wouldn't touch that question with a ten-foot pole! Ivan: Looking back to the original Total Annihilation, what parts of your vision for the game do you feel you were able to successfully implement into the finished product? Chris: I could talk about this four hours... Well, the very first few ideas that drove the game design were all about taking real-time strategy games into 3D. If a game is in true 3D, you can calculate all the elements of battle realistically, like height advantages, terrain blocking fire, slow movement due to hills, and so on. Also, because the art requirements were drastically different, there was no need to do things like pre-render every single turret position of a tank. This meant that we could have tanks firing while they retreated, which is ' something that had never been before and had a profound impact on the gameplay. I knew that if I could get it all set up in 3D, we would get a bunch of "design wins," so to speak, which would take the experience to the next level. Once we got the engine up and running, we found that there was even more cool stuff available to us than we could have ever imagined. Things just started to fall together, one after the other... it was a great experience. Ivan: On the other hand, what were the game's biggest shortcomings in your personal opinion? Chris: In a word, polish. We just got the last of the features in there and then sent it off to manufacturing. Time was very tight, and there wasn't time to collect feedback from people who played all the way through the game's 50 missions. Total Annihilation is often criticized for its simple story, but what people don't realize is that we hardly had enough time in the day to get the game done. The original budget was very small, and taking time away from making tanks shoot in order to talk about the story line was the furthest thing from our mind. The fact that we got so much stuff packed into the game was a miracle in itself. The game took 20 months from start to finish, and the first three months were just me prototyping the game's basic functions and supporting library code. Ivan: Since Infogrames still owns the rights to the Total Annihilation franchise, would you ever consider one day re-uniting with the series much like Sid Meier has with Civilization after all these years? Chris: It sure would be cool to make another Total Annihilation game, no doubt about that. Who knows, perhaps one day... Ivan: Where is the real-time strategy genre going over the next few years, and who's going to take it there? Chris: I think technology will play a large role in the way the genre evolves, but I also expect interface to be among the top three things to change. Also, I think a design that scales depending on the mode of play will be key to some of the changes. Players who want large, protracted battles or quick skirmishes should be able to get both options from the same game. I expect that we will see a lot of attempts at putting the camera down onto the battlefield for a dramatic view of the action, but in the end it will stay positioned overhead, despite the fact that the engine can render it from any angle. I think all the top developers in the business will make contributions to the genre, and I certainly hope to jump into the fray at some point with another entry. Ivan: What about action/RPGs in the Diablo vein? Where's the genre headed, and who's going to take it there? Chris: I think Blizzard is the only company who can take Diablo to a different place. Most of the developers out there, including us, have something different in mind. That's what makes this business so much fun... everyone has a different vision of what the genre means. Hopefully, everyone will lock onto a form of gameplay that works well, and we can all enjoy playing each other's games. Ivan: What can developers of action/RPGs do to make their product stand out and avoid the dreaded and usually accurate label of "Diablo clone"? Chris: I think everyone needs to design their own game, and not look over their shoulder. If you love what you're doing, it won't be a clone. And the important thing to remember is that you should never be opposed to good ideas taken from other games, even if you run the risk of being labeled a clone. Games have dozens of core design elements, and taking the really good ones isn't the problem. The problem is when all you do is hold two games up side by side and make comparisons and start saying things like, "They have three races, so we need four." Ivan: Given the fact that it's ten times more expensive for consumers to keep up on the latest PC technology than it is to keep up on the latest console technology, is the PC gaming market really viable for the masses? Chris: Consoles have a long way to go before they can replace what the PC does. I believe that when that day comes, they will simply have "become" PCs and nobody will have noticed the slow transition, or you could also argue that the two systems will meet in the middle. This is not a simple question, but I believe that as people start utilizing consoles for the same things they have come to expect from the PC, the cost of consoles will rise and eventually the only thing to differentiate the two devices will be where they're found in the home. Ivan: Console games generally sell much better than PC games, but the PC also has its fair share of advantages as a platform. What is it about the PC that makes many prominent developers such as yourself continue to focus on it? Chris: I would like to believe that PC gamers are a very different bunch than console gamers, although there is a lot of overlap between the two groups. PC gamers are people that demand the latest and greatest in technology, and want gigantic games that just can't be experienced on anything less than a state-of-the-art PC. Console gamers have to stick with a snapshot of technology for 3-5 years before they get an upgrade, and this isn't something that the hardcore PC gaming audience can wait for. The PC is the best place to create and explore the extreme possibilities of game design. Ivan: Who do you admire most in the games industry? Chris: I admire a lot of people, and in some cases, whole companies. Blizzard is definitely a favorite because they consistently create great games. Ensemble has done an awesome job with the Age of Empires games. My long-standing favorites for game design are Peter Molyneux and Sid Meier. Ivan: Who in the games industry do you think might be just a little bit over-rated? Chris: Woah! That's another doozy I can't touch! Ivan: Even if you're not going to develop games for the PS2, have you at least had a chance to see or use its development tools? If so, what did you think of them? Chris: I have not looked at the development tools for any of the new console systems. My goal is to stay really focused on Dungeon Siege until it's finished. Ivan: Will Gas Powered Games eventually develop for the Xbox? Chris: When Dungeon Siege is finished, we will probably explore it further. Ivan: If you decide not to make games for the Xbox directly, are you open to the idea of letting Microsoft port your games to the Xbox? Chris: We are open to anything that makes sense, especially if the game plays well on the Xbox. Send your thoughts on this interview to ivan@mastergamer.com
© 2001, ivan@mastergamer.com