Interviews// Charles Cecil Speaks

SPOnG: It's been said by a few people that there are 17 episodes in this series of Doctor Who, and four of them are interactive. Do you have an idea of where these interactive episodes fit with the rest of the series, or do they stand separately?

Charles Cecil: A bit of both. We've been given access to the scripts. We've been given access to every aspect. So, we knew right from the start what they were doing in the telly series, and there are elements to weave, certainly. But, you could play the games without having watched the telly series, and you could play the games in any order you want. We sort of wanted them to be reasonably standalone, but very much feel like they were part of those 17 episodes.

Very early on, when we were talking to Piers and Steven, one of the first things that Piers said was that this should feel like 17 episodes, four of which were interactive.

Does that answer your question, or have I sidestepped it like a politician? (Grins)


SPOnG: It feels like the structure of Doctor Who lends itself well to episodic content that stands alongside the TV show. Where American dramas tend to very much be serialised, over-arching stories. Doctor Who episodes usually have beginnings, middles and ends. Has that helped in development?

Charles Cecil: It does to an extent. But the other thing, of course, is that a lot of television... because it's all about conflict, and Sean (Millard, creative director) was saying that it's all about barriers that you put in the way.

A lot of television in your mind will be inner-personal and inter-personal, whereas Doctor Who is generally about external threats. As such, it actually lends itself very well to the video game format, because we're all about threats and then the inter-personal and inner-personal is rewards that the actors give. But primarily the challenge has to be in external threats.

I think that's probably more why Doctor Who works very well as a game. Because the structure in terms of the narrative and the relationship with the audience is very similar between Doctor Who on telly and how it would be in a game.


SPOnG: Talking about the meeting point between games and other mediums - Roger Ebert (the famous North American film critic) has just published a column on why games 'can never be art', arguing (among other points) that because they're objective-based they can't qualify. You've spoken about how everything in a game must support the gameplay, so I wondered if you have any thoughts on Ebert's sentiments?

Charles Cecil: My thoughts are, I think the fact [is that] we're all working in an incredible medium with extraordinary opportunities. I don't care in the least whether people think games are art or not. It's not something that crosses my radar and some people say they are, some people say they aren't, I think we're incredibly lucky to be pioneers in an amazing medium. Whether people consider it to be art or not is not of any great relevance to me.


SPOnG: Well said. Great content's great content, whether people consider it to be 'art' or not.

Charles Cecil: It's irrelevant. We don't need to justify ourselves.


SPOnG: Thanks for your time!