In a new series of interviews (kicking off right now) we speak to some of the industry's most creative thinkers about what it takes to make great games in the modern era. First up is Martin Hollis, CEO of Zoonami, who talks about auteur theory, realism and his time working at Rare.

You're well known for having worked on both GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. What was it like working at Rare?

Martin Hollis: My time at Rare taught me many things. I am fond of saying that I learnt far more at Rare than I learned at University. My Computer Science course was actually amazingly great. But when it comes to games there is nothing like vocational experience.

Considering the high level only, I believe in organic design, in non-paper driven design, in iterative design, in instinctive design. I believe in team involvement in design, in shared vision rather than solitary vision, and in every person having game design expertise. Rare allowed, encouraged and shared my instincts, and helped me to develop them.

You were both the Director and Producer on GoldenEye and Perfect Dark. What did these roles entail?

Hollis: As producer I was responsible for producing the game, for actually making it happen, for ensuring it gets started and gets finished. I proposed the project to management, selected, grew and managed the team. I was responsible for schedule. I was responsible for ensuring the project meshed with the third party IP, and that the project was commercial.

The pros and cons that leap to mind: you are there start to finish so you have enormous involvement. It is a 24-hour-a-day job, you manage people, you manage management, you are the buffer for conflict, you get the blame or credit when milestones are missed or met and when the project is cancelled or completed. If you give up? That costs you.

As director I was responsible for the creative vision, and for managing the creation of the game to ensure it fit the vision. Also for managing the development of the vision so that it fits the game. I am not fond of the 'V' word but really this is my best description of the role of director. I understand that director is not an industry standard job title in games in the west, but I am comfortable ignoring convention.

I find the director/producer distinction useful because I think it's important to separate creative thinking and leadership from commercial thinking and leadership. If I am director/producer on a project I will strive to do both jobs, but not in the same minute. Obviously there are additional benefits and disadvantages to combining the roles... your thinking can be distorted by the other role, it is a 48-hour-a-day job, you can instinctively trade off commercial and creative factors to improve the end result much more rapidly than you could if the producer and director were separate people.

In the past you've stated that 'one person can't design an original game, it just isn't humanly possible'. Could you expand on this?

Hollis: Auteur theory is the theory that one individual is chiefly responsible for the nature of a film, much as an author is for a book. Truffaut coined the term. I have some sympathy with auteur theory, but overall I do not believe it. My pragmatic view, based on the observation and study of many films is that sometimes the director's style or personality is invisible in a piece of work, sometimes it is balanced with the work, and sometimes it overwhelms. For example, consider David Lynch and his films Dune, Wild at Heart and Eraserhead respectively. In the most successful works there is actually a harmony of personalities, and this may even be invisible. Consider the creative enterprise involved in a symphony orchestra, in a film production, in a stage production, and in a game production. All these creative industries involve teams of people working together to create a work. Of course the conductor/director/producer/designer has more influence than any other individual, but the group has greater influence than the leader, and the symphony is bigger than all of them.

This is what I meant by 'one person can't design an original game'. Each leader influences and is influenced by the group, and the most successful games are the result of a pleasing harmony of personalities. When it is possible to do the labour of the majority, then auteur theory works, but generally it is false.

After leaving Rare you worked for Nintendo and helped with the design of GameCube. Could you go into detail about how this came about and what you worked on?

Hollis: Yes. I should cover a little history. Over a year into Perfect Dark my relationship with Rare was troubled. Each of us was asking for more than the other could give. This situation ended with my departure, and with very deep regret I was unable to see Perfect Dark to completion. Despite these difficulties Chris Stamper then recommended me to Nintendo.

The result was that I took up employment as a consultant at Nintendo of America (NOA) in Redmond, Washington State. My responsibilities were chiefly to advise on the development of GameCube at Nintendo Technology Development Inc. (NTD). This little known group was newly created to architect and direct the development of GameCube hardware and associated software. My role was to bring the point of view of a game developer to the table, and to ensure the hardware was game developer friendly. The experience was fascinating, as I have always loved hardware and enjoyed having a full and deep understanding of what is going on under the hood. The chance to influence and to learn more about hardware design was very exciting. I learned an enormous amount from Howard Cheng in that era, especially on the subject of high level architecture and console design strategy.

You've also stated that 'realism isn't relevant to good gameplay' yet increasingly (many) modern games seem to be striving for ever more realism. What are your views on this?

Hollis: Firstly I believe realism has many parts. I was talking about realism in general, including functional realism or how things behave, and you may be asking about visual realism.

Unthinkingly striving for visual realism is dangerous. If all games were visually realistic in the way that nearly all films are visually realistic then the space of games would be impoverished. There are more universes out there than the universe we can see. Why constrain an art form to one universe? Why legislate against Dali and Hopper? Because the public does not have an appetite for it? Because Wal-Mart does not have an imagination? These are worthless answers. The industry must lead the market. Without games that are alarmingly different the space of possibilities will become diminished until stagnation smothers the industry.

Regarding realism and gameplay, it is obvious to every experienced game maker that you can make a better game if you can alter the game universe. The best approach is to mould the universe and the gameplay repeatedly so that they suit. If all you can think of is reality then you are imprisoned and your hands are tied. How can you mould anything then? All you can make is a photocopy of something that already exists.

At Zoonami you have an 'incubator system' for game creation. Could
you please go into detail about this philosophy and how you feel it aids great game design.

Hollis: The incubator metaphor is a reference to nurturing plants. Original ideas need to be nurtured and developed carefully otherwise they will all die. Original ideas are particularly vulnerable because they are new, and therefore they need an environment which does not exist and which has to be created around them. Zoonami's way of researching and developing novel ideas is intended to sustain and develop ideas and the environment they need to function. Actually there is an antagonistic connection between incubation and game design. If you want the best possible game design quickly you should copy the design of an existing great game. This is the path of minimum originality.

The goal of the incubator system is radically different. Its purpose is to create original ideas, concepts, prototypes and games. Given enough time you can iterate onwards and perhaps create a great game design around an original idea, but this is going to take time, specifically much more time than creating something derivative.

Since establishing Zoonami seven years ago you've only released one game - Zendoku. If you don't mind us asking, how do you finance the company when so many others struggle to keep afloat?

Hollis: Overall our work is financed by deals with platform holders, third-party publishers, and in some cases by myself personally. For example Funkydilla.

I should say that three additional games we created for PSP have recently been released on PS3 download. These are the three Go!Puzzle games, and we made these for Sony for PSP in 2005. In 2006/2007 Sony had Cohort port them to PS3. So, in total we have seen released four original IP games, featuring new characters and gameplay.

What are you currently working on at Zoonami? You've mentioned that
downloadable games is a direction you may be heading...

Hollis: I will reveal as much as I can. We are happily dedicated to Wii, which is a very exciting console indeed, and are working on multiple projects. Incidentally I believe Wii will capture first place in this generation of the console race within a year, by all important measures. I also believe that Wii will change the world.

Downloadable games have changed the business landscape of the game industry for the better. The idea that a new console game has to cost upwards of $30 or pounds has been funnelling the industry for too long. As I touched on above we have created three games now available for download. Downloadable games are likely to play a very large part in our future.

Do you think that all the game genres have been discovered and now
game design is about honing and varying what we've already got?

Hollis: This is an interesting question. To be honest I have stopped thinking about game genres much because I feel it is unhelpful. Given the number of shockingly original games which I have seen over the last three years I can safely say that the idea of the game genre is in flux. Not that this flux is obvious if you were limited to looking at games at retail. Most of the really surprising games are free to download, or are paid downloads.