Interview with Andrew Leker & Marc LeBlanc about Oasis
World building and domination in minutes
By Russell D. Carroll [March 20, 2004]


What do you think makes Independent games distinctive?
Andrew Leker: If, by independent games, you mean 3rd-party, I think they tend to be a little more creative, with less of a “designed by committee” feeling to them. If, by independent, you mean starving developers yearning to make their own, self-funded games, then the answer would be risk and passion. Self-funded games are fueled by passion, and passionate development often hand-in-hand with risk.

How did your studio get your start in working with independent games?
Andrew Leker: Mind Control Software absorbed all the staff and development of Ceridus Software in order to complete Alien Logic, back in 1994. So, I started with a studio devoted to independent games. We went on to make Silencer, Resurrection, WordStalk, and Oasis.

What is the most innovative feature of Oasis and how is it innovative in your mind?
Andrew Leker & Marc LeBlanc: Oasis doesn’t have a lot of “features” in the conventional sense. The player has 85 “clicks” to reveal his lost empire and rebuild it with roads and technology, while at the same time finding the Oasis and the Obelisk within it. Then the barbarians attack! The features are cool: we have advisors (who offer substantial powers), a cool tech research system, and road networks that allow trading amongst connected cities. However, the most innovative part of Oasis isn’t a feature, it’s a tension between limited turns and lots of opportunities on the player’s part. The player has lots of information toward the end of the 85 clicks, but should they search for treasures, add more miners toward new technology, connect one more city, find the Obelisk, or get try to figure out where those darned barbarians are going to come from? It’s a test of resolve and confidence that I really enjoy.

The initial design premise of Oasis was to create an “anti-minesweeper.” Instead of a game where every click is potentially game-ending and you’re trying to choose the least of several possible evils, we made a game where every click gets you something good, and it’s a matter of making sure that the sum of your clicks is good enough. The game is made up of lots and lots of carrots, and only one big stick (the barbarians attacking). This runs counter to the prevailing philosophy of many games and development studios. Generally there’s a sense of adversity all along the way. In Oasis, there are no “bad” clicks, just ones that aren’t good enough to keep the barbarians from setting your empire ablaze.

The most controversial “feature” of Oasis is the way that we mix turn-based and real-time game play. For most of the level, you’re playing a turn-based game where you have all the time in the world. Then you hit a real-time phase where you only have 10 seconds to deploy your troops, and then there’s the completely non-interactive combat phase, where the barbarians attack. The player doesn’t control anything, but the battles tend to be dramatic, as large hordes of barbarians often attack cities with smaller populations, but which are defended with superior weapons and technology. I don’t do anything for 30 seconds, but I’m riveted to the screen. It violates the nugget of wisdom that says that the player should always be allowed to make choices. Players often have the initial “hey you got your peanut butter in my chocolate” reaction, but when they try it, they generally like it.

What do gamers appreciate most about Oasis?
Andrew Leker & Marc LeBlanc: I think that’s hard to say with Oasis. Some gamers like the tension between all the good choices they can make, especially in the last 10 clicks. Personally, I like the sense of exploration, and the lucky feeling I get when I find a cluster of cities, or when I find the Obelisk after only one click. Perhaps what’s most appreciated about Oasis is the sense of drama that unfolds when a small city overcomes a huge horde, but only by the slimmest of margins. It creates a real sense of the underdog prevailing.

What was the most difficult part of Oasis to program?
Andrew Leker: Mind Control Software was lucky enough to hire Marc (Mahk) LeBlanc, of Looking Glass fame, last July. He is the project lead and lead programmer for Oasis.

Marc LeBlanc: Oasis isn’t really a “technology” game, so none of the programming was rocket science particularly. There was a fair amount of “thankless fiddling,” like all the tuning that went into getting the edges of the storm to crinkle in just the right way, and getting the swarms of little soldiers to look like they’re fighting. Also, DirectX code is harder to debug then it ought to be.

Other than your own game did any one of the IGF finalists or Student Showcase games stand out to you? Why?
Andrew Leker: Puzzle Pirates is a fascinating social game. Most of the games that I have worked on have been online multiplayer, so Puzzle Pirates really stood out to me as an extremely interesting social experience.

Marc LeBlanc: Yeah, I’ve played a lot of Puzzle Pirates. If they beat us out for any awards, it will be because they sapped so much of my productivity with their game. Any game that does that deserves to win.

What is your definition of an Independent Game?
Andrew Leker: “Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!” That’s my definition. It’s where you create a great game because you believe in it, even if there’s no prior art to support you. Although it’s also reasonable to define an independent game as one that is created with the developer’s own money. The IGF defines an independent game (applicable as an entrant in the IGF) as one that is not “funded or promoted by publishers that are part of the Entertainment Software Association or the ELSPA. The list of these publishers can be found at: http://www.theesa.com/members.html and www.elspa.com.” I like my definition the best.

Marc LeBlanc: To listen to some of my peers talk, “indie” is a synonym for “starving.” To listen to others, it’s a synonym for “bitter.” If forced to choose between these two, I’d pick the former.

How do you think Independent Games will evolve in the future?
Andrew Leker: My answer is two fold: First, the barrier to entry is dropping each year. This is mainly due to improvement in tools and technologies. In addition, events like the IGF awards draw attention to the importance and rewards of independent game development, drawing even more potential developers into the craft.

The second answer has to do with the types of games that tend to be made by independent game developers. The IGF entrants are generally smaller games that take more risks and evolve more with time. This leads me to think that independent games will generate lots of new ideas in the smaller game categories. Eventually, the format of the Mass-Market Ultra-Casual (MMUC) games may become so standard that there’s a steady mix of well produced games of original and derivative content popping up each month.

What is the biggest challenge facing Independent games?
Andrew Leker & Marc LeBlanc: Lack of resources, especially money. The Internet makes it possible for independent developers to derive revenue from their games, but development takes time, and time equals money. Students have an advantage here, in that many students have free time that’s already paid for in a sense.

As one of the leaders of Independent Games, what is next for you?
Andrew Leker & Marc LeBlanc: Oasis will ship with a major publisher, to be announced shortly. Then we’ll pursue one of our other independent titles, possible Everybody Dies or Demon’s Gold. They’re both great games!