For those of you that don't know, Orson Scott Card is a prolific science fiction writer responsible for the Nebula award winning Ender's Game series. For those of you who do know, you're probably bouncing around in your chair right now, and I'll have you know I'm doing the exact same thing. I've been hopeful for games based on the Ender saga for years now. In this interview with Gaming Today , Card talks about his many ideas for games based on his novels as well as the progress of the Ender's Game film.
Card says about the games:
Part of the deal with Warner Brothers was for them to develop the many videogames that are possible from the book, without waiting for the movie. They never fulfilled that - which was the only part of the deal with Warner Brothers that actually made me angry. Movies are hard to make - but to make many good, profitable Ender's Game games is a no-brainer.
He actually reviews seven different game concepts all stemming from Ender's Game itself, not to mention the following five novels in the series. One is based on the Battle Room, a focal point of the first in novel which the child soldiers of the book fight in teams in a zero gravity enviroment. As engaging as the stories of the novels were, i can envision an amazing gameplay experience if these concepts were executed correctly.
Card also has some interesting commentary on the topic of violence in video games:
Players, like audiences, are able to distinguish very clearly between cartoon violence and real violence. Grand Theft Auto provides real-world scripts; Coyote-and-Road-Runner cartoons do not. Playing Space Invaders may make me more likely to shoot rows of aliens attacking slowly from above, but it is not likely to cause me to drive more aggressively or beat people up. To say "video games cause violence" is stupid in the extreme, like saying "novel reading causes teenagers to have sex" just because SOME young-adult novels are perhaps more sex-centered than is helpful. The question is always: Which videogame are you talking about?
The full interview is well worth the read. The film has ben in talks for some time (thank God Jake Lloyd grew up before the role of Ender was avaliable), but this project could be a truly amazing one if brought to fruition. For those of you who remember Card created the story in Advent Rising, I'm sure you are just as excited about the idea as I. There really aren't enough creative games on the market about six year olds soldiers trying to kill each other in space. Get on it, developers!
Contest:
1:16 AM on 06.18.2007 | 
I hope jake lloyd dies in a fire, or gets aids
I don't think anyone could get an enders game video game right. unless it was orson scott card himself, just the camera problems alone for the battle room game would make me want to kill whoever made it, because I know they'd try to force one way as up on me... but as we all know... in zero g there is no up...
I think he means its harder to get a film into production. Which seems to be true as so many scripts/ideas/etc. spend a long time in limbo before getting greenlighted.
Also, Orson Scott Card is probably my favorite author. I've read the whole Ender series and Ender's Game is probably the best suited for a videogame (although Speaker for the Dead is my favorite).
I fear that the games would never live up to my expectations though.
You're right, the books are so unremarkable that two of them won both the Hugo and Nebula award.
Card's admittedly a decent writer. Incientally, he's also a bigot. I would also point out that he's stupid enough to continue to believe (and advocate) that global climate change is not happening.
It will be interesting to see if those views are espoused in his video games as well.
I'd love a real version of the "Fantasy/Mind" game or at least see it in action in the movie.
I'd argue that the trouble with Advent Rising was the developer's inexperience in balancing interaction with story. When I attended E3 2005, I spoke with Advent's lead designer Donald Mustard for a few minutes (he had mentioned in an interview that they were short on writers and I wanted to offer my services), and he expressed some concern about the difficulty of crafting a rewarding interactive experience that didn't sacrifice story control and dramatic timing. I believe GlyphX was dealing with the same issues that Warren Spector discussed in The Escapist not too long ago. They were reaching into territory that until then belonged solely to Deus Ex, and they were first-timers. I wouldn't be so quick to write off a game based on Card's work just because of those growing pains. I believe Card even admitted to encountering the same difficulties himself.
Of course, Mustard and co. are at it again with Undertow on XBLA, and it only takes one look at the teaser to see that they're still trying for that mythological approach. I hope they can apply what they learned from Advent to avoid some of those pitfalls this time around.
It's controversial cause the military, the damn government, were training kids to command fleets at that low of an age. It was controversial about the whole thought of not even telling them what they were doing, by hiding it under the facade of a game. Even more controversial is the complete genocide of the Formic's. The book did a lot of things to the mind, and at the time no other author was balsy enough to do it.
And if you had even read it, you'd know it kick'ed massive amounts of ass. But seeing as how you responded to the article, I'm going to lump you into the same catagory as "Spent the money to get it to see the next American Pie movie".
Go read it. Then read it again. THEN you may comeb back and post intelligently on the subject.
Mind you, "space marines vs. bugs" was an old premise even before Space Invaders, let alone any recent title you can think of. The fact that Ridley Scott's Alien came out in the seventies did nothing to diminish the quality of Metroid, R-Type, Jet force Gemini, Halo, or any other game featuring vaguely insectoid antagonists. Hell, H. P. Lovecraft beat everyone to the punch back in the forties. Unlike PwnDaddy, I don't doubt that you read the book, but your reasoning for the belief that it wouldn't make a good game needs more justification before it can carry enough weight to change everyone's mind. Which I assume is your intended goal.
@PwnDaddy
Easy there, tiger.
Ender's Shadow was my favorite. Kids in Space!
Hey Ender, what do you think? (If you happen to read this article)
@ KilgoreTrout XL:
lol, I know only little about the guy, but what you're stating is kinda a shallow representation of what he's actually said. He's a Mormon, so you might as well be calling nearly every Christian out there bigots. He's actually kinda laid back when it comes to homosexuality compared to most Jesus fanboys. And his deal with global warming has to do more with the cult of scientific dogma. He's got issues with both Darwinism and Intelligent Design for the exact same reason. I don't agree with him much on the topic, but he's got a good point that closing your mind completely to any contrary evidence just because it doesn't support the popular belief is never a wise idea.
even better than Enders Game!!***hides under desk***
Did anyone read his Homecoming Saga? It was him ripping off Dune with a bunch of Mormon concepts shoved down your throat at the same time. I'll never purchase another OSC related materials as long as I live. Him and the LDS can take a flying leap up their own anuses.
We must have a different definition of "laid back." I'm referring mostly to Mr. Card's thinly veiled rant on gay rights in his "Hypocrites of homosexuality" essay, but I understand his statements there to be a good representation of his worldview. Imprtantly, Just because Mr. Card assures us in that essay that he is not a bigot does not necessarily make it so.
For instance, this quote, one of many, doesn't stike me as particularly tolerant:
"Furthermore, if we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our fear of the world's censure into silence in the face of attempts by homosexuals to make their sin acceptable under the laws of the polity, then we have abandoned our role as teachers of righteousness"
As for Christians and Mormons who ascribe to these views, I never said I wasn't calling them bigots either. And with all due respect, I believe that there's nothing shallow about calling a person what he is. In my opinion, I've hit the nail squarely on the head.
As for global warming, He bashes a poorly-written essay to make it appear as if there's no science behind global climate change at all, when in fact there is a great deal. Wikipedia's climate change entry will direct you to dozens of scholarly articles on the subject, the vast majority of which agree that the problem both exists and is caused in large part by human activity.
Disappointingly, Mr. Card simply parrots the talking points of the right on the subject. The problem with conservative views on global warming is that they demand a level of proof for the phenomenon that can only be attained by changing the world's climate to catastrophic levels.
I'm personally opposed to letting it get bad enough so that there can be no doubt.
Compared to the "gays should be dragged behind a truck" crowd, he certainly is laid back. The entire Mormon church is that way, especially compared to say, the Baptists. He's a Christian, and he's been taught it's morally wrong. I don't agree with him at all. But if he thinks his magical sky wizard is telling him that buttsecks is a sin, so be it. Yet he has friends who are gay. Obviously, he tolerates homosexuality to some extent if he still associates with them. I have friends that are assholes about certain things. I don't always agree with some of the stuff they do, but I still remain friends with them because the good outweighs the bad.
Btw, the definition of bigot is as follows:
bigot
n. person with fixed and intolerant belief. A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
Perhaps you should go back and read what you posted before you throw that word around, hmm?
But maybe you win this one. I'm no scientist, and you're certainly right that scientific theories have been debunked in the past. It just doesn't snow where I live anymore, and my family has been living there for over 100 years. And I find I can wear sandals in November. That shit scares me.
As for your "gays behind a truck" crowd- you've missed the point entirely. First, that isn't the group which has a reasonable chance of refusing gays the rights of others in our society. Second, Card's intolerance comes in the form of "disenfranchisement with a smile," but it is no less severe.
In Card's words:
"This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. "
This is bigotry, albeit bigotry dressed up nice and politely.
I appreciate your rather high-handed invitation for me to review and reflect on my ealier comments. I decline, respecfully, to change them. Perhaps you should review yours as well. In doing so, I'd suggest you also peruse the source material upon which you profess such a firm grasp.
Our understanding of global warming is heading the same way. Card argues that theories against global warming are suppressed by thug-scientists who are part of an "academic orthodoxy that discourages opposing evidence" (My eye sockets bleed at his use of "orthodoxy"). Saying this spreads the misinformation that the theories of global warming are just dogmatic BS imagined by the same thug-scientists to... I don't know... get their 15 minutes of fame? And that's just shameful for someone of his education and stature. Absolutely there's jerks out there who will yell about global warming to their graves no matter what the evidence and politicians who use this to further their campaigns, but they're the loud and corrupt minority that you'll find in populations of every stripe. Focusing on them, which Card does, ignores the vast majority of scientists who repeatedly add to the volumes and volumes of good, hard evidence for our involvement in global warming against the handful of reputable ones who argue against it. If those guys find indisputable evidence against human related global warming then they will absolutely win. Out with the old, in with the new and that is all there is to it. But so far they've got only a few theories and what mostly turns out to be arguments against someone else's work. Card decides to side with them because of what, either a true misunderstanding of the world's hundreds of thousands of scientists, belief in a conspiracy theory of the same, or he just likes polemic arguments to start debates. Whatever his reasonings, by doing so as a public figure he spreads ignorance and mistrust of the wrong people.
And for Mr. Card to say he has homosexual friends, yet believe that they live in sin and should have less human rights than the rest of America and to do so while saying the words "equal citizens within that society"... Sadly yeah, this is the argument of a bigot. A hypocritical if he truly has gay friends, but a bigot none the less. He can never say homosexuality is moral due to his strong believe in the Mormon religion, but when it comes to hanging out with gays who must be of a high enough standard to be his friends, he can apparently forget their lack of equal rights long enough to have them at his dinner table. He needs to pick a camp or admit he's torn between his religious beliefs and his personal bond with his so-called friends.
Personally I believe bigotry goes both ways. Being intolerant of someone else over a matter of their faith or politics, no matter how foolish, is as bad as being intolerant of someone else because of their race or sexual orientation in my eyes. I don't believe in god, but at the same time atheists who do nothing but insult and belittle religious folk disgust me. But I also feel it's within their right to believe as such and to yammer on as much as they want. Even Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps. Card can believe in magic underwear and that his faith should be enforced by law. That doesn't make either of them any more likely of becoming reality. I never had any expectation of changing your mind on the matter, but I did want to point out that that I feel from the words you used you're guilty of the very same bigotry you accuse him of. And I'm sure you don't agree with me on that. That's the beauty of the marketplace of ideas. We can think each other is full of shit, but we can still discuss it civilally.
Once again, you can hate Card all you want for the things he's believes... but what the fuck does any of that have to do with a video game based on his book? Why even bring it up in the first place?
It's been fun debating, but I'm done here for now.