Hello, I''m new to these forums. This is my introductory post, obviously. First a little on myself, then the interesting stuff. I''m just some kid as of right now, still in high school etc. but very interested in game development. I''m currently working on a very large one-man(or fox in my case) project using Game Maker, which is probably the best single program I''ve ever found for the purpose of making 2d games(even the classics, ZZT and Megazeux, and I''ve been around the communities for those for the longest time but I never participated.) I''ve been doing everything myself - sprites, sounds(well, not all of them - I don''t have any guns,) music, programming etc... So here''s my little piece, comment as you please(within what the forum allows of course.) The media often headlines violent games. This got me thinking as to why so many games involve attacking and fighting, and why console RPGs reduce the game aspect to a fighting module linked to a somewhat interactive story("Save the world for us!" "No." "Please reconsider!") I decided that what it comes down to is that games are about doing things and causing effects, and there are only a few actions that a player can take if they''re limited to a human-like avatar: Actions of neutral behavior like solving Myst-type puzzles, or getting information from the "local townsperson," actions of creation, and actions of destruction. Much of the fun in games comes from being able to do things you don''t normally do. People don''t normally go around blowing things up. And it''s easy to create gameplay that allows you to blow things up, easier than pretty much anything else. So, that''s why you end up with a lot of games where you blow things up. Not necessarily bad, I guess, but something to think about. Making the world furry one post at a time

Hey, welcome to Game Design!

quote:
I decided that what it comes down to is that games are about doing things and causing effects...

Funny enough, I was just making this argument with a friend, that games are most effective when they react to the player''s input. Explosions and killing are, you''re right, some of the most dramatic forms of the world reacting to you; but I don''t think they''re the only way. They''re just the ways we''re most used to, so far.

There''s also something to be said about being bad and getting out agression harmlessly. This is probably an age and gender thing wrt who''s buying and playing the games. If games have a wider audience, you''ll probably see as many diverse games as we see movie genres.

There''s another problem, btw. Its very hard to create subtle, nuianced forms of interaction on the computer, even if there was an audience for it. You could have a game where your goal is so sow dissension and civil war in a land by telling lies, double-crossing people, and setting people up. But ultimately, just like with combat, you have to reduce all of that to some form of numerical system (like cRPGs do with hit points, attack damage, etc.) That''s really the tough part!

(Oh, and good luck with the game!)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Odd... I recently was thinking along the same lines.


I would tend to agree that games perform the best when the player can affect the game world. I think that was the driving force behind games like SimCity, which don''t have a "winning" or "ending" point per se.

I think that players affecting worlds is also the essence of any RPG, most RTS games, and on some level, virtually all FPS games.



Unfortunately, like you said RTF, it is easiest -- both in terms of technology and in terms of profoundly appealing to the player''s desire to leave their mark -- to make a game with lots of violence and destruction. Add to this the "buzz" and stress outlet that violence and destruction offer to the player, and you''ve got an appealing game pattern.

I think that that pattern has permeated the game market as a whole, and as a result it is difficult to interest players with a more constructive approach. No genre appeals to everyone, but constructive type games appeal to less people than violent games do. I don''t consider myself to be a violent person, but I can play games like GTA2 (which involves lots of killing and blowing up of things) for hours on end.


Interesting things to ponder.

quote:Original post by Tergiver
How about an MMORPG where there is no combat, and no killing, where the object is simply to work together with others and create things?

sounds like my kindergarten class... of course, i was the kid sitting in the corner eating paste and scheming about how to knock over the lincoln-logs-castle without getting a time-out...