I also disagree with Xai''s statements, to a point.

You take it slightly too far, just as Ernest Adams did to make his point. Avoiding cliche''s does not mean avoiding the representation of reality at all. That is what you are suggesting, and that is your fundamental mistake. Putting a tree in your game is not a cliche. Rescuing the princess from the evil wizard is. Now if you were rescuing the tree from the evil princess, that could be interesting .
( "King''s Botanics VII"? )

However, it is true that cliche''s are often used so that the developers can fall back on the knowledge that the audience already has, to avoid having to go through the entire history of the universe in the case of a complex game. Some may argue this is good, because it leaves a lot of time for the designer to concentrate on other aspects beside consistency.
However, I would argue it could also be very bad, if the designer''s view of those often-used ideas isn''t quite the same as the audience''s ideas. I can tell you, I find it really disturbing to see some of the images of Orcs in ADnD products, because I am used to seeing them portrayed the Games Workshop way. It may seem a small thing, but to me, anything called an Orc that doesn''t look like a Warhammer Orc just isn''t quite an Orc to me. Who was first here doesn''t matter, the use of cliches has made it hard for the designer to capture my imagination, because I already have a pattern of expectation for that particular element.

I believe a designer can avoid more hassles than she''s creating by avoiding over-used ideas, and relying on original thought instead.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

I have to pick up on this again:


Item 7: No killing.
There''s a lot of opposition to this idea, and I understand why. Most people here are developing either "realistic" FPSs, or "realistic" CRPGs. This rule seems to be ripping out the heart of these games, you can''t put in violence!

However, think a bit further.
Think Quake, but instead of rocket launchers, remote teleportation devices. When you get hit, you get teleported to the penalty box and the person that hit you gets a frag count.
Where is the difference in gameplay? There is none. However, there is no needless graphic depiction of bodyparts flying around all over the place and blood all over the floors. The graphic depiction of violence is offensive to a great many people. In some countries (Germany) it is illegal to sell a game that graphically depicts the death of human beings. All units in RTSs in Germany are mechanised.
This detracts NOTHING from the gameplay at all. It simply removes an unnecessary offensive element from the game.


Also, I think it''s important to realise that Ernest Adams is a GAME designer. He is not talking about a military simulation, or fantasy world simulation, he''s talking about a game. Along the lines of Pokemon, Tetris, Sokoban, Bubble Bobble. There is conflict in these games, but no blood, senseless graphic violence, death, cutscenes are unimportant, etc.

It is towards developing more original games along these lines that he''s preaching.
Not Quake 245.3 including complete physical simulation of the effects of ballistic bullets on organs and soft tissues with realistic damage.
You must look at it in that light (in my opinion).
If you ARE developing a first-person shooter with realistic elements, consider the Dogma2001 rules not for you. They do not apply, because you are developing more of a simulator than a game. The advancements and innovations in your development lie mostly in the realism of the simulation, not in the mechanics of playing the game.

People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.