• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Landfish

Game Writers RANT! (flamers welcome)

92 posts in this topic

quote:
Original post by Landfish
Games are NOT and interactive medium.

quote:
Yeah, so/ How is that not an art? I think it''s even more art because of interativity.


Games are interactive. Games are art. But still, so what? I can''t see how this matters at all. This just gives people who make shitty games a cheap excuse when they make those games. "Hey, you can''t insult this. It''s my art!"

I agree with you that many games have suboptimal plots and dialogue. Many of the games that this applies to are RPG''s on console systems, meaning most are translated from Japanese. This is something to consider. The dialogue might have been great in Japanese, but things are lost in the translation. Also, there are cultural difference that would make the plots more interesting to one culture over the other.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anon, if you think games are both, then tell me when was the last time you saw, heard, or experienced interactive art?

Back on subject though, I think that all games could really benefit from a good story. Even FPS could benefit from a story, as a cutscene is a good rest for your mouse hand . Seriously, I think that the movies in Thief did a wonderful job in adding atmosphere, and it would just be taking it one step further by putting a good story there. And then another step to putting the story into the gameplay.

Note: I never got very far in Thief, so it very well could have a good story.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, Landfish, this is long but here''s some flamebait you can sink your teeth into:

So what? Writing in games is subpar, true. The writing quality, intellectual content, and storylines all could use some work. But they don''t matter as much as core design, because writing in games is peripheral.

Games are like songs. Songs may have good writing and story, but insofar as they do they''re nothing more than a support for the song. The music and singing is what makes the song, just as it is with design and games. To the degree that your game''s focus is on story and character over actual gameplay, you are not making a game. You are making something else.

As GAME designers, we are NOT making novels! We are NOT making film! We are not making "art!" Honestly, I have freakin'' HAD IT with the inferiority complex that some game designers have when it comes to other media!!!!!!! Just like songs, our work has merit beyond these forms of entertainment, and does not need them as some sort of lynchpin for validity.

Games are about action and activity. The difference between art and games is like the difference between talking and listening. With games, you do, you talk. With art, you receive, you listen. They are different activities that require different skills.

Game are about fun, progress, and winning. This directly limits what is possible in terms of expression. I do things as a player that make for great gameplay but absolutely boring story. The exact reverse is true for stories and films.

Bringing in the kind of dramatic content that you seem to be suggesting would be a very bad idea. As a game, Schiendler''s List or Saving Private Ryan or The Color Purple would be absolutely freakin'' terrible!!!! . Again, this is because there is a vast difference between doing and experiencing.

Please, by all means, endeavor to bring up the quality of writing and content in games, but please don''t forget what you''re making. You''re making a game. This means the focus should be on gameplay.

Now, if you''re making something else, fine, say so. Go join the hypertext fiction crowd, break out the stripped shirt and beret, and be an artiste. But don''t pretend that you''re making games.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah, you''re forgetting something Wavy (can I call you Wavy ). Games have the capacity to tell freat stories, and be very emotionally moving while still being _games_. I thought the single player story in Vampire was a great story, and I think the game is very fun (especially Multiplayer ).

I agree that art and games are two seperate enteties. But they are not complete opposites.

-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by pacman
Anon, if you think games are both, then tell me when was the last time you saw, heard, or experienced interactive art?



From dictionary.com, 3rd listing under Art:
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

I think if a human makes something, and anyone (including the producer) can find aesthetic value, then this definition makes it art. (And there''s a crapload of other definitions of art up there. I think anybody can define art however they want a be somewhat correct.

Besides, just because somebody hasn''t yet created something like "interactive art" doesn''t mean it can''t exist, right?

But my point wasn''t really to say that games are an art form, merely that it doesn''t matter to me if they are, or if they are not.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pac, there was a whole movement in Interactive art a few years back. Not a gallery goer, much?

Wav, You''re not a musician, are you? There''s this old style of music people used to like, called orchestral music? You see, it didn''t used to have lyrics, and there were no top 50 charts.

But this is way off topic. You say the focus is on GAMEPLAY. This is where I disagree. Gameplay is an important part of the experience, but it isn''t the experience itself. It would be just as foolish to say the writing is the experience.

the experience of playing a game is in part everything the game is. Writing, Gameplay, art, music, etc. You can''t subtract quality from any of these things and expect the result to be any good. But this is true of any artistic medium. So games are an artistic medium!

BTW, the beret wearing, stripe-shirted Artistes never produce anything I would call ART. Thet''re not real people, and art can only be made by real people.


It IS important to not lose sight of what you are making. It is a GAME. But you''re a damn fool if you think things stop there.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Landfish

Pos-modernism is a backlash. It''s right about some things, but it tries to be a little too right to compensate for the 50+ years before hand.



Postodernism tries to break the stranglehold of judgement wrt what art is and is not. Once upon a time, the (mostly European) upper crust / intelligencia dictated what was and wasn''t art. Now we''ve had a kind of democratic backlash that puts velvet Elvis paintings right next to the Little Boy Blue.

quote:

By your logic, many of my favorite movies cannot exist. These movies teach me, they are funny, they get me to relax, but they are also serious, scary, and they are ART.



Heh, here''s postmodernism in the way again. Not sure what art is to you, but art moves me and enlightens me on a deep level. Entertainment does not.

When I watch a documentary on the African slave trade, or the annihilation of Jews in Europe, I am not entertained. I am deeply moved, disturbed, and connected to humanity in a way I can''t describe. But when I watch the Matrix or the Terminator, there''s no place for these emotions. In fact, they get in the way.

Perhaps it is different for you.

quote:

Just because something is spiritaully enriching or educational, doesn''t mean you didn''t have fun doing it. Viewing art can be fun. Hearing Art can be fun.



There''s a difference here that needs highlighted: Things can be fun, but this doesn''t automatically make them a game. Sex is fun. Swimming is fun. Driving fast is fun. This doesn''t automatically make these activities a game.


quote:

A game is fun. There''s no more to it than that.


I''m afraid that''s far too simplistic. True, fun is the core, but our debate is more of an issue of how you go about getting to that core.

Art can get you to fun. But the path it takes-- particularly when it comes to meaning, emotion, and authorship of the reciever''s experience-- is in strong conflict with that of a game. The paths may in some places cross and intertwine, but they''re mostly parallel.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn!! I wish I had time to post now, but I guess I''ll have to respond to you all tomorrow. I''m extreamly eager to see what everyone says. I can say that no, I''m not involved in artsy art, it doesn''t intrest me. Orchestral music does though.

Bye Bye.



-------------------------------------------
"What's the story with your face, son?!?"
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by pacman

Woah, you're forgetting something Wavy (can I call you Wavy ). Games have the capacity to tell freat stories, and be very emotionally moving while still being _games_. I thought the single player story in Vampire was a great story, and I think the game is very fun (especially Multiplayer ).

I agree that art and games are two seperate enteties. But they are not complete opposites.




You're right AND I'm being overzealous.

I just get tired of the bashing game designers receive when they focus on gameplay but don't muster up to par with Feodor Doestevsky or Charles Dickens. Tetris is just fine the way it is. So is Half Life. So is System Shock.

What ticks me off is when design takes a back seat to artistic expression. If you want to be an artiste, go make friggin' movies! Go write a novel! Please, oh please oh please, DO NOT drag us down the path that lead to the great FMV plague of the early 90s.


PS: Yeah, sure, you can call me Wavy... it's my old nickname!



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

Edited by - Wavinator on September 6, 2000 6:21:41 PM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Landfish

You say the focus is on GAMEPLAY. This is where I disagree. Gameplay is an important part of the experience, but it isn't the experience itself. It would be just as foolish to say the writing is the experience.



Okay, here's where I'm afraid I'm gonna have to be a damn fool and part company with you.

N O T H I N G is more important than the gameplay. Story, character, dialog, writing, music, plot, graphics... these are all subordinate to gameplay. You have only to fire up MAME and play old arcade hits to see what I'm talking about. Or go play Elite. Or go play Civilization. Or go play Starflight. Or Star Control. Or Empire. Or Escape Velocity. Or M.U.L.E. Or Pirates! Or Doom.

These are examples of games where the gameplay was law, and I believe they hold up even in today's 3D accelerated, voice over-acted, professionally written / directed / produced world.



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

Edited by - Wavinator on September 6, 2000 6:22:12 PM
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread has apparently gone off into the games as art discussion. In an effort to get back on topic, which was the quality of writing in games, I offer some thoughts:

1) Games without writing. Some game (genres) do not have or need writing. Adding a script to Tetris would be wholly irrelevant, IMO. Other puzzle games like 7th Guest, where a series of puzzles are tied together with a story, offer the player 2 experiences (the story and the puzzles) that could be seen as seprate.

2) Linear writing elements. Traditional story writing is insufficient for games. Many of the writing elements (foreshadowing, for example) only apply to games that are linear in nature. In a game that contains an interactive world, whose contents vary depending on the player''s actions, foreshadowing has no place. Likewise, if my strategy troops barely squeak through a scenario, calling it a crushing defeat for my enemy in a prescripted cutscene is rather silly.

3) Writing to convey information. Individual descriptions of people, items, and places can be improved, but will be ignored if they are not integrated into gameplay. In Ice Wind Dale, most (all?) of the magic items had a sotry along with them. A brief history of the item. None of it was relevant or even used in the rest of the game. It was a nice bit hanging on the edges if you went looking for it, but useless given how the rest of the game was laid out. The writing here conveyed no information of rlevance to either the characters I played or the story as a whole.

4) Symbolism, bigger picture relevance. This is closer to the writing as art bit, but let''s say we have chosen to make a game ina genre that lends itself to the possiblity of a strong story, one where we want the player to think and experience rather than point-n-click. I''d like to hear suggestions on how we accomplish this without alienating the player as a participant.

It''s hard to demonstrate a universal truth about human nature if the player doesn''t behave how you expect. And artificially restricting the player''s actions reduces a game to a story (might as well write a book).
''Iago suggests that your wife is cheating on you.''
''I go talk with her.''
''No no. You;re supposed to throttle her.''
''I don''t want to throttle her.''
''Even if I throw in some great lines like put out the light then put out the light?''
''I still don''t want to throttle her.''

You can do a little better with some larger than life symbols (see also the religion threads), but it gets tricky, again because the nature of the game is such that you don''t know how it will end.

Maybe have some hidden numbers in the game characters that will indicate how they are aligned with more abstract symbology to vary their interaction with the player. Thus if the player acts more violently, this violent demeanor is evident to other elements of the game, without changing any of the icons on the screen, but instead changing some dialogue options. Likewise, if a player is passionate about NPC x, then the story molds itself around the passion.

I''m not sure that this would work, since most normal folks have a rather average personality - no one set of traits would tend to stand out very strongly. But if you did want to do it, you need a new kind of AI that manipulates the environment altogether, with some very versatile writers to cover all of the option you make available.

Well, that''s a little more than $0.02
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, flamer welcome? You suck, you suck, you suck, you suck. Anyway, some games have awesome writers. Lets see:

Secret of Mana(I have seen almost no games better on the same level, when the Mana tree told me I was her son I knew the game was awesome)
Commander and Conquer(after the original the writing was sort of the same, but the original had a nice backround story about kidnapping Hitler before WW2)

That being said, if I wanted a story I''d read a book. A short and simple story expanded in the process of the game gradually is much better than reading a 50 page novel in the manual before understand the game.

-----------------------------

A wise man once said "A person with half a clue is more dangerous than a person with or without one."
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, in essence, with what landfish is saying. I''m a programmer - I can''t write (plot) for shit. If I had an unlimited amount of money and time to make a game, I''d hire a team of talented writers and designers to thrash out a brilliant vision for a game, and a huge team of programmers to get the game as close to the writers'' vision as possible. In short, I''d design the engine around the plot.

However, as I don''t have a vast amount of money and time, I''m pretty much forced to design the plot around the engine (and its limitations). The game has to be commercially successful (ie: I have to eat): in order to make it sell in the present market, it must: 1)look nice 2)play well 3)be original 4)have a good plot (in that order). With limited resources, 3) and 4) just go out the window.

http://www.geocities.com/ben32768
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Landfish
But I have a question: Was Schindler''s List a good movie? Was it FUN?



Yes. No. I defy you to find anyone who would want to play the computer game though (and no, you don''t count). Games have to be fun - that doesn''t necessarily mean they can''t be involving and well written.

http://www.geocities.com/ben32768
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people (losers in my opinion) consider the greatest moment in RPG history to be when Aeris died in FFVII. This was not a happy thing to them, yet they loved it. I guess I can kinda see what they''re on about, but FF games suck...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Wavintor :
Games are like songs. Songs may have good writing and story, but insofar as they do they''re nothing more than a support for the song. The music and singing is what makes the song, just as it is with design and games. To the degree that your game''s focus is on story and character over actual gameplay, you are not making a game. You are making something else.



I disagree with you here on two counts.

The lyrics can make a song to some people (like me), and herein lies the problem for making a artistically satisfying game. It''s like the french dude said, some people aren''t going to appreciate it, these people are known as "normal gamers", there are very few gamers out there that will be able to make it a viable product. (no where near enough to support the amount of time and money you might have to put into a game with such ambition as to make people question and think).

A computer game can still be a computer game even if the focus is shifted from entertainment to artistry. Music is still music even if instead of creating a "popular" song you just create nice atmosphere or sound (ie comparing some dodgy band like Backstreet Boys to Vangelis). It''s just that the backstreet boys will suck to those people that like non-atmospheric music (and there are alot of them, that''s why we get more bands like those boy-bands than we get artists like Vangelis etc) and Backstreet Boys will suck to those who like decent older style artistic music.

It''s more a matter of audiences defining what is produced because the industry has become quite expensive and no one wants to take the time out of their life to really devote it to making a artistic computer game - and that''s what it takes to make art. Taking time out of life and really doing something that comes from within, it does not come from looking for a paycheque.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a good and long rant about the subject in the September issue of Game Developer Magazine. The author (whose name I don''t remember) of the article compared music and games in the sense that neither are really story-telling mediums.

Games are interactive and nonlinear, quite the opposite of stories, which are passive and linear. He suggested that we should concentrate on the "game" part of games, and not sacrifice playability for a good story. I agree. It''s great to have a good plot in a game, but story requires linearity. If a game is too linear, the player feels as if he/she was dragged through the game without the ability to influence the outcome.

That doesn''t mean that the story part of games (which need a story) should be neglected and handled by programmer on his free time. I don''t say programmers don''t make good writers, but there should be a dedicated writer or a few, especially in adventure and role playing games.

-Jussi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LF : you don''t need writers for games, as much as you don''t need graphics artists, or musicians, etc ... basically, this is not what makes a game *be* a game.
And this is what I''d like you to think about. What is the definition of game ?
If I take my dictionary (again) I can read : "physical or mental ability purely gratuitous, that has no other purpose, in the mind of the player, than the pleasure it brings.
Then if I look up "art", I find : "set of means, processes, that tend towards a particular end." You could do more vague than that, but it would be harder

OK, then, what you can conclude is that the making of a game can/could be considered an Art in itself. Now the problem is that you are trying to mix this with Art (in the sense, the 9 forms of arts recognised by the Muses). And that''s where I don''t agree.
More often than not, games are not a form of Art, they are not the expression of something an author is trying to express ! They are merely work of commission, done for a buyer, just like Leonardo da Vinci did his Mona Lisa for a command... if the person doing this work happens to be an artist, it''s quite likely that his soul will be put into the making even of a commanded work, but in essence, it won''t be a work of Art as such.
If you do a game to express some personal ideas, to make a statement, to make the players wonder, think, etc, then I say you would be doing Art.
I was gonna say that Art is more often than not the work of one person, but there seem to be nowadays an evolution in this, so maybe games could be a good illustration of this. But anyway, what I am trying to say is, as long as you do games to please someone, you are not making Art, no matter what. That''s why artists don''t get recognised until they are dead, that''s why geniuses are always misunderstood, that''s because those people don''t work FOR someone, but because they have something inside that they want to show to the rest of the world, and they don''t care whether someone is gonna like it or not !

If you want to turn games into a form of Art, then don''t work for anyone else than you. If you chagne your game to please your players, that''s it, it''s not Art anymore. It becomes somthing else. But hey! the argument I am giving you here is exactly the kind of arguments my lecturers gave me when I applied to the Fine Arts, and I happily proved them wrong !
All I am saying is, you have to clearly state the rules, and in essence, if you decide that your way of practicing Art is to give the control of your production to other people, then maybe that''s YOUR Art...

The conclusion is that there is no right or wrong, really. Art is a personal thing by essence, it''s not something that you can jsut look up in the dictionary, and say : "well, you see, THAT is Art".
The whole fuck!ng thing is that you have to think by yourself, you have to create your own little definition, and you have to understand that it''s a damn selfish thing. You have to be selfish to be an artist, even if your Art is about sharing, in the end, it''s all about yourself... just ask yourself, why do you wanna do this ? What does it bring YOU ?

Oh and I''ll stand by Wavinator at the stake ... don''t get all artsy fartsy with games, games are meant to be just that, a recreational activity. You can include "clever" content into games, you can include "artistic" content, but the main principle is to play, to produce endomorphin (I think) if you want to be more specific. That''s what people mean when they say "fun". That''s why you played seek and hide as a child, that''s why my wee sister (5) spend ages playing with dolls, doing dishes, ironing, cleaning, etc... just because it''s somehow ...fun... (and no, I don''t like the word, I think it''s too shallow to jsut say that, but I don''t think there is a point into goind geeper right now).

Nazrix : well, of course it would be great to consider computer games as another intellectual, cultural activity, and just like you say it won''t happen overnight.
but that''s exactly what I meant when I say you have to educate your audience !!!
You don''t do opera if there are no opera fans to listen it ! Don''t give jam to pigs.
And you say your target audience wouldn''t be 12. Well, that''s nice and well, but tell me please, what kind of audience is targeted by Tomb Raider, by Pokemon, by Diablo, by Quakelikes ??? And I am not talking about the age of the persons, I am asking, what level of your personality is attracted by those games ??? Think about it

Anonymous : the definition you give is correct, and sadly it''s probably the one most people accept. It''s actually the one I accepted until I actually went to Fine Arts and realised how shallow that was. Limiting yourself to aesthetics is exactly the kind of thinking that leads you to think that modern art is just "spots of paint on a white canvas". Of course it is, but it''s the point of the damn painting, the artistic content lies in the ideas expressed. It''s all about expressing one''s ideas. The way you do it, the medium/a you use, is something each artist has to decide *on his own*

I think the debate is gone into "is game making an art form" more than "are writers necessary to game making". But I think that''s better, because the problems lie much deeper than we can see, most of the time. And stopping at the litterary qualities of games is, IMHO, too easy. "We need more writers". Well ... yeah... so what ?

youpla :-P

ps: well .. I could be totally wrong of course But I prefer to believe it''s the rest of the world who is wrong...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to agree with Selkrank, and I have a few observations to make:
Landfish, you''re a writer more than a gamer.
You make the FUNDAMENTAL mistake of assuming that the main form of "art" in games is the story. Wrong. Selkrank hit the nail on the head - it''s the gameplay that''s central to a game. The rest is peripheral ( artwork, music, story ).
Tetris is PURE game art. It''s simple as dirt. No story, no real artwork that matters, no real music that matters. 100% gameplay. Nothing highbrow, heck, it''s plain cubist. But it works. People play it. Almost everyone who''s ever owned a computer knows about Tetris.
Minesweeper is art. Once you''ve played a game that simple for hours, you know it''s good. The goodness is its art.

Art is not something catcheable.
Art can be theater, movies, music, dance, photos, paintings, drawings, books. They all have some central features that can make it art. Books have writing style and story ( Ulysses is a good example of where the writing style and not the story made it art ).
Games have interactivity. That is GAMEPLAY people. It reacts to what you do. How it does that, and what it does with it, is central. Okay, there''s some music and some textures and some backgrounds and perhaps a story. Sometimes these could make it art ( Myst ). However, a true GAME has its GAMEPLAY to redeem it. We have plenty of examples of it, but they are all underrated.
*sigh*
Diablo.
What story?
What 3d?
What graphics?
Click ''n Kill.
Nomatter how much we put it down, it''s the GAMEPLAY that made it work. A story as an excuse for the graphics and action. But the action worked. Diablo was a good game. ( A worthless roleplaying experience, but a good game. ).



Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d think that the type of game that you were creating would dictate what direction you''d want it to take, and wether it would be artsy, fun, enthralling, thinking, political, or well written. For example for FPS, that''s First Person Shooter! games you wouldn''t want a huge interwined story with many elements, many key combinations, or complex dialog trees, you just want to blast the enemy into smitherinies. Therefore you wouldn''t want them to overly complex, thinking or artsy, Doom didn''t have any of those things, you just pointed and shot. Like an action movie. Quake 3, or Unreal Tournament anyone?

In Roleplaying games you''d want to make the player feel emotions, play out the character, and envolve themselves in the intricate and complex storyline, much like a good fiction novel. Also you''d want to bring out some thining issues in your game, much like ina book, wether it be about politics, society, technology, etc. Ultimas (to some extent)?

In sports games you''d want to recreate theatmosphere of the game, and the reality of it too, like the crowd, soccer hooligans anyone? , good ball physics, good player models, good animation and good controls. I''d like to see (haven''t seen this yet) a good tough sport game (Rugby, Gridion(weak), Aussie Rules Football(YEAH!)) game that has a detailed hit profile and detailed body / biology reponses. So instead of using those hit profiles in Soldier of Fortune (another weak shooter), which are mearly used for "eyecandy" it would be good if they moved the technology to a sports game such as the above mentioned games. That would make them a lot more realistic and more atmospheric.

In real Time Strategy games the object is to make the player feel important as the commander of an army, it should be very detailed and realistic - to an extent - and allow a wealth of information to the player, to such an extent that IMO Wargames and Real Time Strategy titles should be merged into one genre, but focusing on smaller battles with more orientation towards strategy and tactics. More attention should also be placed on individual units, so much so as there would be no stupid meat grinder rushes like in Total Annihilation, Warcraft, etc, but that it would allow the true commanders to excell in strategy. These games should be also politically motivated, and the best result of this that I have seen is in Shogun: Total War. Although there are other games such as this I haven''t heard of them yet so I have not mentioned them...

Well that''s about it of my RANT, I shoul reiterrate that waht the game is should be defined by what general genre it fits into, therefore a nice deep thought provoking adventure game would be considered art to a degree, a fast fps game should be considered "fun", a sports game (including racing) should be considerred accurate representation of reality, and a Real Time strategy game should be considered to be deep, thoughtful, and require good orginisational skills.

I''ll let every individual decide how they should interpret this for that I cannot control, but just before making a game think about what genre it is and what you want to bring out of the genre, be it horror from an RPG, speed from a racing game, or fantasy from a space shooter.

Dæmin
(Dominik Grabiec)
sdgrab@eisa.net.au
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that the more effort that you put into a post the more likely it will be convieniantly ignored. I wonder why, hmmmm. Bah, who cares.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people are reassured by the sound of their own voice, Paul, and prefer not to hear the voice of dissent in other people.
I think I''ll give up trying to make any point in these forums and just limit myself to moderating and answering questions...


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering emotions:

There have been two games where I remember having "real" feelings about the characters. Usually the feelings come from the gameplay: I feel happy when I succeed, sad when I fail. These games have been different, and they are Final Fantasy 7 and Deus Ex. I don''t know what''s about them. Perhaps I can somehow identify with the main characters or perhaps it''s the plot, I don''t know.

-Jussi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m willing to venture that you feel involved because it''s your action, DIRECTLY, that has caused the next part of the story to be revealed, and you realise that it has turned the way it has because of what you did and how you chose to do it.
The story is tuned to what you expect, and the interactivity makes it believeable that it happened.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by MadKeithV

I''m willing to venture that you feel involved because it''s your action, DIRECTLY, that has caused the next part of the story to be revealed, and you realise that it has turned the way it has because of what you did and how you chose to do it.
The story is tuned to what you expect, and the interactivity makes it believeable that it happened.


Were you replying to my post about emotions?

No, I don''t think "direct" interaction is why I felt involved in the story, because I remember this happening only with these two games.

-Jussi
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites