 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| Games and the Imagination Part I: The Primacy of the Imagination |
|
 |
stimarco Member since: 4/11/2000 |
|||
 Posted - 6/22/2004 11:47:50 AM |
||||
| An interesting read, although it's hard to criticise at this early stage in the series. It's clearly an introduction to a series and this piece is necessarily somewhat vague and hand-wavy. I agree with the sentiments, but would like to point out that his views on the jargon of game design are not new; Rollings and Morris' seminal book already touches on the semiotics and psychological aspects of game design. Similarly, Chris Crawford also espouses an alternative, less technologically-focused approach to game design. Part of the problem our industry suffers from is its very narrow-minded view of its own importance. Not all computer-based entertainment is strictly a game. Not all games are entertaining. It is as if television defined itself as a medium solely in terms of action movies and game shows, ignoring all its other output, such as news and documentaries. Is "News" a form of entertainment? There is certainly a tendency to package news in an 'entertaining' format -- a demonstration of which can be found by watching FOX and SKY news channels. Computer games are, I believe, merely a subset of the medium of "computers". A flight simulator is not, strictly speaking, a "game" -- Boeing have been building flight simulators for years that were never intended for entertainment use -- yet we don't hesitate to review "Microsoft Flight Simulator" releases in games magazines. Personally, I can get as much "fun value" from writing this post as I do from, say, Chris Sawyer's "Rollercoaster Tycoon" games, yet GameDev.Net's forum software is unlikely to be reviewed in Edge magazine. And computer games must also be seen in the greater context of entertainment as a whole: how is the sense of anticipation we got while waiting for our old C64 games to load from tape or disk any different psychologically from that _identical_ anticipation you get waiting in line to ride a rollercoaster? Table-top games, wargames, RPGs, board games and their like are so closely related to computer-based games that it boggles the mind how we've managed to artificially separate the two, as if there were nothing connecting the two forms of entertainment. Multiplayer arena-based shooting games like Quake III are *identical* at heart to those age-old playground games like "Tag" and "Cowboys and Indians". I contend that, as an industry, we must first tear down any artificial barriers we may have erected between our own industry and the rest of the entertainment field. We have been jailed within our own self-imposed prison, isolated from the wider world of entertainment for far too long. As a one-time professional developer who has been out of the industry for a few years, but is now coming back as an 'indie', I've come to the conclusion that the most important aspect of a game design is the kind of personality traits it targets. For example: 1. "The Puzzle Solver." "Monkey Island" is ultimately a big logic puzzle, so it has much the same 'hook' -- and is targeted at a similar terget audience -- as, say, an Agatha Christie murder-mystery novel or a good crossword. 2. "The Adrenaline Junkie." These people tend to go for emotional 'rides'. They go on rollercoasters; they prefer high-octane action movies (often described by reviewers -- and this is no accident -- as "rollercoaster rides"). They will generally prefer an reaction-based game such as "Quake III Arena" or "Unreal Tournament 2004" over a slower, more measured title like "Civilization". 3. "The Militant". These are the people who watch war movies, war documentaries, play wargames, collect war memorabilia, etc. Unsurprisingly, they prefer strategic games that let them wage wars of their own. 4. "The Engineer" These are people who love construction and engineering. They'll watch Discovery Channel documentaries with titles like "Insane Machines" and "Extreme Tunnels" or "The Seven Wonders of The Industrial World". These people love _making_ things, be it physical or abstract, hardware or software. In case you hadn't guessed, this is the personality type I tend to identify with the most. My most recent time-waster of choice has been Auran Software's "Trainz" series, but I get just as much entertainment from MS Word when writing, or FL Studio and my Roland XP-60 when I'm in a musical mood. (This also illustrates my point about not creating artificial divisions when defining our market. My Roland keyboard is competing directly for my free time with Auran's "Trainz Railroad Simulator 2004". After a long and bloody battle, Auran's software lost and has since been uninstalled.) Another type is one I call "The Controller / Manager" type. ("The Sims", "Populous", anything that lets them give orders and micromanage.) These are the people who could well become politicians, so it might pay to consider the underlying messages we put into these games a bit more attention! However, these are merely convenient traits I use to guide my game designs and it would be a mistake to consider that list complete. Neither is it the sole influence in my designs: I also need to consider my audience's needs and desires from my attempts at entertaining them. One particular desire that is often ignored is that of "stress relief". It's surprising to note that many web-based games fulfill this niche, often without their designers intending it. These games have, I believe, replaced the 1980s fad for executive toys like the infamous "Newton's Cradle". Anyway, I've rambled on too long. I'll stop now. -- Sean Timarco Baggaely |
||||
|
||||
|
JaredCenter Member since: 6/22/2004 From: Canada |
|||
 Posted - 6/22/2004 3:07:04 PM |
||||
| This is one of the best game articles I have read in a long time! I will go as far as saying that it's better than any read from Ernest Adams. Just before the conclusion, Mr. Dare mentions about how prejudice to game fantasies "has its roots in a wider social trend." It makes me laugh because it reminds me of the high times of Star Trek: TNG in the early `90's, when many people tried to bring its fan-base to the lowest common denominator (ex. bunch of nerds, dorks, etc.). Yet those people who bashed trekkies were totally absorbed by the plots and stories in Beverly Hills 90210, a show that's just as much (if not moreso) a fantasy as Star Trek. Of course, it will take some time before prejudices toward game fantasies go away. We just need better games than what's currenly available right now. I look forward to reading Part II. |
||||
|
||||
|
d000hg Member since: 1/21/2002 From: Durham, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 6/23/2004 8:16:02 AM |
||||
| While I found the article an interesting read in the most part, I'm not entirely sure what its purpose is for us at GD.net. To help us understand what to put in games? Check out my blog - my adventure as a professional freelancer working from home I support DevImg.net and BattleBall |
||||
|
||||
|
WiLD2 Member since: 2/29/2004 From: Kelowna, Canada |
|||
 Posted - 6/23/2004 11:42:35 AM |
||||
| The article hit the nail on the head on many points. One of which I can relate to whole-heartedly. How older gamers look at, say, a boss battle and look for a pattern of attack that will bring us out on top. We see it as a system that can be negotiated. Contrary, younger gamers see it as a character driven event and put themselves in the game. The boss exists and is not just a system created by man, meant to be defeated. As a younger gamer, the boss battle leaves more of an impression on him. --- Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard enough to write, it should be hard to understand! |
||||
|
||||
|
RTF Member since: 7/15/2002 From: USA |
|||
 Posted - 6/24/2004 2:02:28 AM |
||||
| I'm pleased to see that this series isn't going to steer around the big questions. Player experience and broad design patterns are really important, and I often feel that these are issues people want to avoid if possible, because they're hard to understand well and hard to reduce to a simple, reasonable, *respectable* result of A>B. I like discussing them myself, even though it means I start to say a lot of things I regret later. It's fun to get caught up in big ideas. |
||||
|
||||
|
ironfroggy Member since: 6/6/2000 From: USA |
|||
|
Posted - 6/25/2004 3:07:58 AM |
||||
| d000hg: You must understand that which you seek to create. By understanding the drives of our audience, and of ourselves, we can better express ourselves through this media we so love. Oh, and, great article. |
||||
|
||||
|
ZedFx Member since: 4/2/2004 From: York, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 6/27/2004 8:59:07 PM |
||||
Im not going to pretend to be an expert on these things, but i agree very much with virtually all you have written. You have a good writing style and it is a well thought out and presented article. 5 Stars ! |
||||
|
||||
|
Goosey Member since: 2/7/2004 From: Canal Fulton, OH, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 7/2/2004 11:30:43 PM |
||||
| Good article, hopefully in future parts the author will make suggestions on how to steer players torward one of the 'playing modes'. Certainly some games will prosper in the 'extroverted, problem solving' mode (for example, I believe Starcraft does well with this), while other (perhaps a singleplayer RPG) are better off trying to cause the 'introverted, imaginative' mode of play. http://www.goosey.org AIM: DarkGoosey ICQ: 14128911 MSN: DarkGoosey@hotmail.com Email: Goosey@gmail.com |
||||
|
||||
| All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
