Josh Mandel

By Randy Sluganski
June 1999

Besides being a gourmet cook and a stand-up comic, Josh Mandel is also the author of some of the most beloved games in the industry. Freddy Pharkas, Callahan's Crosstime Saloon and Space Quest are just a few of the products that Josh Mandel has either created or had a hand in developing.

Randy joined with Josh for a rock 'em, sock 'em, no-holds-barred interview that delves into the inner psyche of this creative individual. Josh was at first reluctant to speak, but once he got going, there was no stopping him.

First, the question that all America is asking: Josh Mandel--Howie Mandel, any relation?

No, no, a thousand times no! This question dogged me all throughout my comedy career. Yikes. I shudder at the very thought.

Have you ever blown up a rubber glove and worn it on your head in public?

Never, because you get that powder all over your forehead. I mean, that's what I heard. Yeah, that's it, that's what I heard from cousin Howie. I mean ... d'oh!

Can you talk yet about the project you are working on for Sega? Is it adventure-related? For the Dreamcast?

I'm not actually working on any one project, but rather overseeing the design of many of our first-party titles for the Dreamcast. There are none which I would classify as pure adventures.

You have been very vocal about your beliefs concerning large companies commercializing the industry. Haven't you become part of the system by working for Sega?

I like to think of myself as an infection, injected into a large company to try to shrink it, much like Preparation H shrinks hemorrhoidal tissues. I think Sega sees me that way, too.

Actually, I came to Sega for one reason: to work with Kurt Busch. Kurt was the head of Creative Services for Sierra On-Line several years ago, was the editor of the Sierra Magazine (later InterAction), and we worked together on a lot of projects. He had already worked at Sega (as editor of Sega Visions) and left, but the chance to work on the introduction of a product as cool as the Dreamcast lured him back. I was similarly enticed, by the chance to work with Kurt again, by the Dreamcast, and by Eric Hammond (the VP of Product Development here at the time; he's an ex-Sierra programmer himself and the designer of One on One, the original EA basketball game). I also wanted a chance to learn about the console side of the game industry.

I didn't feel I was selling out by working for Sega. I don't perceive any company--big or small--as inherently evil ... unless I see them doing things (or they ask me to do something) that I know to be wrong. In the console wars, as far I've been able to tell, Nintendo has been the "dirty tricks" company and Sega hasn't.

But in an exclusive article for Just Adventure, you wrote, "games like KQ:MoE and LSL7 have a distinctly different flavor than the seat-of-the-pants, funny, touching adventures that Oakhurst once produced. They are commercial." Roberta Williams in an interview with JA responded, "it's important that people understand, Josh Mandel included, that things change and tastes change. The adventure game has to change also ... If experiments are not done to find how to mainstream the genre or to make it more 'commercial' for today's audience, it will die ... and then everybody loses. Those 'purists' may have gotten their way to keep adventure games from evolving, but all they would have really succeeded in is helping to kill it." Two leaders in the field and two distinct opinions. Is there a middle ground here, or is one of you totally out of touch with today's market?

I don't think we're in disagreement. If anything, I think she was agreeing with me that KQ8 was an attempt to be more commercial. But I disagree with the characterization of MoE as "experimental," and I think the approach taken with KQ8:MoE was a departure for Roberta.

Commerciality has a negative connotation, but it's not a filthy word. A product can be commercial and have merit on other levels at the same time. Sequels are almost purely commercial, but it's rare to find a sequel that has artistic innovations at the same time ... they're most often refinements (and not always good refinements) of their original material. Healthy commercial innovation comes from the games that you don't know are going to be commercial until after they're released. Taking chances ... that's where the real new growth comes into the industry.

Historically, one of Roberta's strengths was her desire to innovate. KQ1 innovated in a pretty fundamental way; it's easily identified as the great grandparent to Grim Fandango and Gabriel Knight 3. But other KQs also went farther to innovate than most sequels, they tried to be more than just incremental improvements. KQ4 set a graphics standard, but, more importantly, created a demand--practically overnight--for a little thing called the "sound card." That was a risk; that was not merely catering reactively to an already-established taste. KQ5 then set a standard for graphics that lasted for years, anticipating the widespread adoption of VGA. Again, that was a risk, an investment in new technology that hadn't yet become mainstream.

With varying degrees of success, most of the KQs tried for something dramatically new.

KQ8, though, is not proactive, but entirely reactive. Today's market is heavily into 3D, so they put in 3D ... despite the fact that that "improvement" meant that they had to abandon artistic style, the style that only hand-painted graphics offer. That's not experimentation; there's no question that 3D is more popular than 2D. Today's market is heavily combat-oriented, so they did that, too, even though that abandons the "live-and-let-live" morality that KQ typically espoused. Again, that's not experimentation, just the adoption of a commonly used play mechanic to curry favor with the audience.

Basically, all of the new features in KQ8 were elements that might've been new to the series but were not new to many other (successful) action/adventure games. This is a more commercial--I would say cynical--approach than the "we've-got-something-you've-never-seen-or-heard-before" approach that characterized Roberta's notable successes. There was no forward-thinking, no risk-taking. It was a conservative approach, typical of larger companies who are trying to cater more to investors than to "evolving" the genre as Roberta claimed to want to do.

Why are you opposed to larger companies, such as Hasbro, eating up smaller companies? With their marketing muscle and deep pockets, isn't it possible that they could actually rejuvenate the adventure industry?

It's certainly possible that the genre will be rejuvenated by a large company. In fact, the odds are in the large companies' favor because small companies can no longer afford to compete without the cooperation of one of the few biggies with a stranglehold on conventional distribution. But I think it's more likely that some plucky homegrown band of developers will create an evolutionary game. They'll market it more or less by themselves, probably through the Internet, and it will catch on like crazy ... much like Ken and Roberta's garage operation did, or Wolfenstein 3-D, or many of the other rags-to-riches success stories.

This hot new developer may have to hook up with a large existing corporation (like the Millers did with Broderbund), one that can afford to publish and (hopefully) promote this new game. So the large company does serve a necessary purpose.

But large companies are also swallowing small innovative developers at a fantastic pace and, sooner or later, breaking them apart, turning them into sequel mills, and beauracratizing away the spirit that probably made the little developer's product successful in the first place.

It's not an every-single-time occurrence, but I'd peg it at 98%.

Look at Pyrotechnix. If they had remained independent--the way Valve has stayed independent of Sierra--Pyrotechnix might still be in existence today. Broderbund sold out to the Learning Company, massacring their Red Orb game division in the process. Origin now belongs to EA, who halted work on several of their proposed new series in favor of more sequels. Sierra On-Line sold itself to Cendant/CUC, a large corporation whose corrupt accounting practices wiped out those long-time Sierra employees who had spent years investing their life's blood in SOL. Blizzard employees were also bankrupted in that scandal; Blizzard then lost many of their best people to Fugitive Software. Then Sierra was resold to the French company Havas, and now most of the original Oakhurst SOL employees have been sacked and nearly all adventure game development has been halted. This is a good thing? Well, if you're the one who sold the company, yes, you made a lot of money. As far as the industry goes, the only accomplishments here are putting creative people on the breadline and reducing choices for gamers.

Dave Grenewetzki declined to renew Al Lowe's contract, and Al's latest game sold in excess of 250,000 units. That's not closing off an unprofitable genre; that's a rather deliberate effort to kill off whatever part of the adventure game market is profitable.

I know that sometimes these smaller companies must sell out to larger companies in order to survive. Dynamix couldn't meet its payroll when Sierra acquired it in 1990. But one also needs to examine whether or not it's worth saving something at the expense of its identity. If the goal is to make money by any means possible, obviously the answer is yes. If the goal is to uphold standards for the products, then the answer is no. Legend, for instance, survived by being acquired by GT Interactive. Is that good because it keeps people employed? Absolutely! But is it good that Legend, which once stood for the highest standards of interactive storytelling, is going towards making Unreal sequels and Unreal add-on packs? Hell, no, what a waste of some of the best talent in the industry.

Do companies need to lower their expectations for adventure game sales, or are the consumers just not being supportive?

Companies need to realize that sooner or later, adventure games--in some form--will come back into fashion, and whoever gets there first will win. Adventure games may not be lucrative right now, in fact they frequently lose money. But, as has happened with RPGs and strategy games, tastes change ... and the companies who are investing in adventure game development now will be in great shape later on. Other companies will be left in the dust, playing catch-up.

Investors are, sadly, not interested in the general health of the industries they invest in. So they encourage double-digit growth of their investments. But quality suffers as a result of explosive growth. Companies don't survive that kind of growth intact; they become chaotic, and they lose their best people.

There are all kinds of ways to support the adventure game industry. If you want to see the genre flourish, that doesn't mean you have to buy every adventure game that comes out. Nor should you, because if you do, you're supporting bad development as well as good development.

What can you do? The biggest thing is to write letters. And I don't mean email letters, because every Tom, Dick and Harry writes emails at the drop of a hat, and executives just trash 'em. Actually composing, printing, and sending a letter, one that's brief and well-written (and not full of typos, exclamation points and hot-headed accusations), is very powerful. Write to the companies that create games you like; tell them how much you liked it, why you liked it, and that you'd like to see more. Write to the companies that don't create adventure games, or have stopped doing adventure games, and ask them to start.

As you're doing that, make sure you send copies to plenty of people, such as the Director of Marketing and VP of Product Development. (Find out the names of these titleholders first, of course; letters to "The VP of Product Development" will be tossed out unread.) And some of the most powerful people you can write to are the chief stockholders and the Board of Directors. That will take a little digging; you'll have to get a copy of the company's Annual Report. (The companies will generally send you a free copy; just call them and tell them you're thinking of investing.) The chief stockholders love to get mail telling them what the consumers really think of their product line.

I've seen more action taken in this industry because a single consumer wrote a powerful letter (brief, neat, and to the point) to a major shareholder than I've ever seen from all the crudely written, chest-thumping Internet petitions.

Also, support the shareware text adventure community. The shareware text adventures are labors of love, not attempts to cash in. The next great thing in adventures may well come from one of these authors.

What are you suggestions for making the adventure genre viable once again? Or do you feel that it will be relegated to a web-site, mail-order cottage industry?

I like to think it's cyclical. RPGs and RTS games were not viable genres five years ago; now they have come back into favor. I don't see any reason to think the same won't happen for adventures. Tastes change.

You have worked with a lot of famous game designers. Who do you respect the most? Is there anyone you would never work with again?

I can't pick just one name as far as designers I respect the most. I like Christy Marx, Steve Meretzky, Brian Moriarty, Jane Jensen, Bob Bates, Glen Dahlgren, Ron Gilbert ... and I can't think of a single designer I'd never want to work with again. I can certainly say there's a publisher I'd never want to work with again: Take 2 Interactive, the folks who published Callahan's Crosstime Saloon. Take 2 reneged on contracts and payments (as they've done with many other developers); they initially advertised the game as a western (nobody there had bothered to play it, they just saw the word "Saloon" in the title and figured it was a western); they shipped a beta version to consumers; they never bothered to do a press release; they did only two ads for the game (the last ad was in January magazines, but they didn't ship the game 'til late April); and they cheaped out on the package contents. They are the bottom of the barrel of the games industry, as anyone knows who bought Battlecruiser, or Iron and Blood, or who bought Black Dahlia for its falsely advertised DOS support.

Which of your games are you most proud of? Which one do you wish would disappear from your resume?

I'm most proud of Freddy Pharkas and Callahan's. There are elements of both I'd change, though. I never really wanted all the scatological humor in Freddy, because I thought Blazing Saddles had covered that to perfection with the campfire fart scene. And I had expected with Callahan's to have a chance to go back and cull out those gags and puns that didn't work to my satisfaction. There wasn't time.

Can't think of any games I'd like to have disappear from my resume, but I kinda wish I hadn't agreed to co-author The Laffer Utilities. Fortunately, only three or four people bought it.

You are renowned for your culinary skills. Who would you rather see make an adventure game--Julia Child or the Galloping Gourmet?

Julia Child, definitely. I like an adventure game with lots of butter and cheese.

Can you pinpoint the beginning of the recent malaise in the adventure genre?

It started when consumers stopped buying games for their content and started buying games to show off their hardware. Suddenly all these little game companies, employing a few artists and programmers, had to expand enormously to survive, with sound stages and recording studios and a stable of professional actors. Games that used to cost less than $100,000 to develop now cost millions, and the little shops could no longer compete. Innovation became too risky, marketability became paramount, and we started to get tons of licensed crap and me-too games.

How does one become a writer for the PC gaming industry?

Writers and designers in the industry are, as they always have been, mostly promoted from within ... and from job titles that did not originally call for writing and designing. I was hired as a producer. Al Lowe was a programmer. Scott Murphy was Customer Service. Mark Crowe and Jon "Lighthouse" Bock were artists.

If I were starting out, I would get a job--any job, but preferably an art or programming job--with the company I want to design for. I'd kick ass for awhile, become the kind of indispensable employee that everybody wants on their team. I'd contribute to the design wherever the designer would allow. And I'd keep doing that until somebody in management decided to put me in charge of a game.

Or I'd take the other kind of route: establish yourself as a writer in more mainstream fields first (write a book and get it published, write a screenplay or teleplay and get it produced) and then go to a multimedia headhunter. Fewer design positions are meted out to people from outside the industry, but there are lots of potential employers who go ga-ga for a legitimately published or produced writer.

Which of your creations would you most want to have dinner with?

Baa-bette the Sheep from Freddy Pharkas. Lamb chops ... mmmm!

Do you think that the meaning of the words parody and satire are lost on today's gameplayers?

For the most part, no. I suspect you're referring to the guy on the adventure games newsgroup who assumed that the description I'd written of the game Boom! in the Bargain Bin in Space Quest 4 was actually a straightforward "review" reflecting what I'd thought of Brian Moriarty's game Loom. Well, that was just plain silly, and this person simply does not understand the meaning of parody, but he is the exception. I loved Loom and I was parodying, more than anything else, the weird marketing of the thing, which cried, "It has no parser! It has no word menus! There are no sentences to construct! There are no dialogue trees!" I mean, it was a clever campaign that drew attention to the unique musical interface, but it was also bizarre in that it consisted of all negatives ... all these things the game didn't have. So I made fun of that, in what I thought was a good-natured way, especially given that we took pains to parody ourselves in a much more biting fashion.

Anyway, this guy probably reads "Spy vs. Spy" and thinks that the editors of Mad are telling us what they really think of professional undercover agents. But people like this are in the minority; most gamers have very good senses of humor. You have to have a sense of humor to play computer games, because so much of the experience is screwing up and trying again.

You have said on the newsgroups that "if integrity in gaming matters, then Blackstone [Chronicles] is a must have." Can you elaborate on this?

Blackstone Chronicles is a game that really emphasizes the values that helped build the genre in the first place. Yeah, the graphics are very high-quality and the voicework is superb, but it's strong on plot and characterization. It doesn't pander to the action game market with arcade sequences. The puzzles are solidly integrated into the story. Hints to the puzzle solutions are all there, but they're subtle; you have to examine the locations critically, to think about what you've seen and heard. If you pay attention to your surroundings, and you pay attention to what the characters say, then the solutions are all right there ... the way it used to work in the Infocom days, where thought and exploration and observation of cause and effect were what led to success. And like a good book, it takes its time revealing itself. It unfolds slowly and steadily.

These are matters of integrity to me. Anyone can scatter a few machine parts or keys around, as in Tomb Raider, and then claim they've created a synthesis of action and adventure. That's ridiculous. The adventure element in Tomb Raider and similar games is an insult to gamers' intelligence, devoid of any cleverness or style. It takes integrity to spend the time and money and invest the thought in creating a classic piece of adventure gaming, especially with the knowledge that this kind of craftsmanship is far less commercial than most of the glitzy crap on the shelves.

If you were to do a sequel to Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, would you consider using Pamela Anderson Lee as one of the characters?

Certainly, if I had a puzzle where I needed a flotation device.

Why are adventure games more popular in Europe than in North America?

This just demonstrates the cyclical nature of the games industry. Six years ago, you couldn't sell an adventure game in Europe.

You seem to like to "mix it up" with the newsgroup posters. Is this your way of keeping in touch with the consumers, or are you just a naturally gregarious person?

More of the latter, I think. The newsgroups are interesting, but they're not representative of the market as a whole. Just look at how many people on the newgroup despise Myst. That's the hardcore gamers speaking, it's not the voice of the majority.

For me, the newsgroup takes the place of CompuServe's Gamers Forum, where I used to be a SysOp. Once AOL bought CompuServe, I had to leave; I didn't want to watch the Gestapo take over.

What do you see in the future for Josh Mandel and for the adventure game industry?

Reply hazy. Try again later.

Feel free to visit Josh's personal web page.