Cliches and Stereotypes

[beantas 122]

It''s painfully clear that there are cliches and stereotypes in the minds of gamers and game designers. And I''m going to argue some of them are wrong. 1) "Gameplay makes the game, not graphics." This is true to some extent, but not _entirely_ true. Graphics matter. They can matter like crazy. Graphics are what immerse you. Graphics are what creates the universe in which you play in. People like to feel all wise and critical and like to say "Games should just focus on gameplay!" No they shouldn''t. They should focus on creating a good game. Gameplay is just a part of that. It''s an important part, but not the only part. Graphics _can_ (not always) make up another very big part. 2) "Half-Life was sooo innovative." I thoroughly enjoyed Half-Life. But there wasn''t anything from a design point that was so completely innovative. It had very immersive scripted sequences. Its super-innovative puzzles were: find this small hole in this large level, go pull these switches, break open this grate and crawl through. Many of these puzzles were masked to feel innovative and different. You had to talk to a scientist and get him to let you through a door. Feels different from the usual switch puzzle but it''s still just a switch puzzle where the scientist is masked as a switch. I thought the innovations in Half-Life lie at the very small details and small aspects of level design. The part where you emerge from inside the lab and walk outside to this huge outdoor area. The monster who can''t kill you if you don''t make sound. The game was well-paced, well-polished, and had little innovations here and there. But there wasn''t anything very innovative that it did. It did things that other games already had but just did it well. It had a complete polished package and came at the right time. 3) "All FPS games are the same." Why do people think that just because two games have guns and locked doors, that they are the same? I think many of the people who say this are non-FPS players. They don''t realize the huge differences caused by subtleties behind small design decisions. This is true of any genre I think. Many hardcore FPS players will fail to find the differences between Civ2 and Civ3.

[Impossible 134]

All of those things are so very true. Graphics are important. Imagine Doom III with Doom I graphics, it just wouldn''t be the same game. In my opinion graphics are as important, if not more than storyline (depending on the game.) Half-life wasn''t very innovative (basic kill the monsters gameplay found in Doom) but presentation wise it was awesome. Most people that say all fpses are the same are people that don''t play them, but only watch them. In the past yes, a lot of fpses were very close in both graphical style and gameplay, but nowadays you have a lot of varietion. Tribes 2, NOLF and Jedi Knight all play very differently. There are even sub genres, like tactical fps (Counter-strike) at this point.

Another cliche:

A good game needs a good story. Storyline is not the most important thing in the game, the gameplay is. However, the original "Gameplay makes the game, no graphics" cliche also applies here. Story can still be very important, and a lot of games (Final Fantasy series for example) would not be the same at all without a story, and very different if they had another story. Still, storyline should never be considered more important than gameplay, because in that case you might as well be reading a book or watching a movie. The same goes for graphics or sound, you might as well watch a demo or listen to a cd.

[LoneStranger 136]

It''s true that graphics help make a game better, but without gameplay, all you have is a fancy demo.

£§

[Luctus 584]

Balance!

-Luctus

[irbrian 130]

1) "Gameplay makes the game, not graphics."

I agree that graphics are important. But I will say that Gameplay is a more important consideration. A beautiful looking game with lousy gameplay is a lousy game -- a game with outdated graphics but spectacular gameplay will still make the cut. Of course, as long as you nail one or the other, your game will find its following.

2) "Half-Life was sooo innovative."

I don''t think anyone who knows what they''re talking about has implied that Half-Life was somehow completely original. It isn''t, plain and simple. But as you clearly stated, Half-Life made improvements over previous games. I would venture to say that many of the most significant improvements, while they seem obvious in retrospect, were absolutely unheard of before the game. The bit with the scientists and Barney''s, the immersive scripted sequences, and above all the atmosphere, were actually quite unique, and a refreshing change from the "Get the red key to open the red door, pull the blue level to activate the blue lift" puzzles of the game''s precursors.

3) "All FPS games are the same."

Your points on this issue seem in some ways to contradict your points about Half-Life. Anyway I think most gamers actually agree that not all FPS''s are the same, but every original FPS invariably has its copy-cats and woulda-been-firsts. And in (too) many (sad) cases, professional game designers SET OUT to make a game thats just like game X, but of course they always say "What if we did these parts differently" -- mostly to avoid Intellectual Property conflicts. In most of these cases, the producers generally feel that the game has met its design goals only if their focus groups say "Hey, this is great, its just like game X!"


Brian Lacy
Smoking Monkey Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@smoking-monkey.org

"I create. Therefore I am."

[beantas 122]

quote:

---

Original post by Impossible
A good game needs a good story. Storyline is not the most important thing in the game, the gameplay is. However, the original "Gameplay makes the game, no graphics" cliche also applies here. Story can still be very important, and a lot of games (Final Fantasy series for example) would not be the same at all without a story, and very different if they had another story.

---

I agree, although there are some people who claim they only play games because they enjoy the stories. I''m not sure if they''re lying, deluded, or if they truly believe that.

Another cliche: "Technology is bad for gameplay." People seem to equate technology to just prettier visuals. Or that somehow technology is to blame for bad gameplay.

[beantas 122]

quote:

---

Original post by irbrian
Your points on this issue seem in some ways to contradict your points about Half-Life. Anyway I think most gamers actually agree that not all FPS''s are the same, but every original FPS invariably has its copy-cats and woulda-been-firsts. And in (too) many (sad) cases, professional game designers SET OUT to make a game thats just like game X, but of course they always say "What if we did these parts differently" -- mostly to avoid Intellectual Property conflicts. In most of these cases, the producers generally feel that the game has met its design goals only if their focus groups say "Hey, this is great, its just like game X!"

---

My point was that games are complex things that can change significantly with tiny details. Mortal Kombat was so clearly a Streetfighter clone, SimCity 3000 was a direct sequel to SimCity 2000, and Half-Life was a Quake 2 clone. But yet all those sets of games play differently due to small changes.

I don''t think making a game just like game X is inherently bad. It can be bad and I guess it tends to be bad. But there are so many good games that come from it. Alpha Centauri was Civ with some parts done differently. Half-Life was Quake 2 with some parts done differently. I mean, hell, this is how you create genres, right? You copy a game which has started a new genre.

[scaught 122]

quote:

---

Original post by beantas
1) "Gameplay makes the game, not graphics."
This is true to some extent, but not _entirely_ true. Graphics matter. They can matter like crazy. Graphics are what immerse you. Graphics are what creates the universe in which you play in.

---

I get more involved in a game of Nethack than I do in any Final Fantasy. I get equally immersed in Quake 1 as I do UT2k3. The reason I get immersed at all is the gameplay. That graphics become secondary - as well they should.

When you read a book, is it the the way the words are printed that draw you in?
When you watch a good B&W movie, do you really miss color? Or the fact it''s not 3D?
When you drink a really good cup of coffee, do you care that it wasn''t produced by the most technically advanced means possible?

Enjoying a game because of the graphics is an insult (often times deserving) to the game. (That''s not to say there''s anything wrong with enjoying the graphics of a game for being the graphics of a game. It is, however, different than enjoying the game.)

Unfortunately, my idealism does not mirror reality. People will always think graphics, and stories, and technical accomplishments make a game. "Games" will sell on these three things alone. And so many have sold this way to cause Joe Consumer to think that it''s the way it should be - and you know, for Joe Consumer, maybe it should be that way. But when he starts wondering where the "game" went, I''ll point him to his "interactive media experience" and laugh. And then cry. A lot.

Don''t let the game die. Make games.
-scott

[Neosmyle 144]

It should be pointed out that there is a difference between great graphics, simple graphics and bad graphics. Imagine houses. A nice looking house will have landscaping, a fountain, patio, gate, etc. A simple house will have a nicely mowed lawn, matching paint, well kept, not run down. Note that it is not "bad", it could easily belong to a nice neighborhood. A bad looking house will be run down, unmowed grass, peeling paint, dirty, etc. Now, apply this to graphics and "eye-candy."

Great gameplay and great graphics is great.
Great gameplay and simple graphics is good.
Great gameplay and bad graphics is bad.

Bad gameplay and with any graphics is bad.

I think most of you will agree with me on this.

[Guest Anonymous Poster]

What if not everybody want''s to play "games" anymore? I''d be more than happy with a few more "interactive entertainment" options available to me. As I get older my tolerance for eye hand coordination and monotany seems to be less and less. I still find "games" that are fun...( I''m still hopelessly addicted to multiplayer Halo) but wouldn''t mind a little variety. Something with a compelling story, interesting characters, well done graphics, and a little lite on the "gameplay". I think that there is something between "games" and totaly passive entertainment, like movies, that could be really interesting to a segment of the population. Certainly not for everybody, but you don''t have to make games... or interactive entertainment... for everybody.