A Nobody with a good idea - Why cant we have a crack at game design too?

Started by
119 comments, last by Cpt Mothballs 15 years, 5 months ago
Quote:Original post by Hawkins8
Quote:Original post by QuantifyFun
If you need me to explain why you can't state that silly opinion as if it were a fact, than there are some life lessons you still need to learn and I can't help you.

I'm done with this thread. No flame war intended, just keepin' it real.


The term 'EQ clone' itself is self-explanatory enough to state the truth. Live with that. Continue to live in denial does none helpful to the industry.

I start to know why a giant such as EA has to embrace a 10-year-old UO for its its own survival in the MMORPG game sector. Its executives never think that they lack the genius to...hmm...patching such an old game.


There are only two kinds of games in the world: games I like and games I don't like. Everything else is just someone else's opinion. You're certainly entitled to yours, but stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum is no way to make friends and influence people.

To my eyes, almost every MMORPG seems to be the computer game equivalent of Tolkien fan-fiction crap involving elves, dwarves, trolls and all those other Germanic and Scandinavian mythological clichés (all in a medieval setting). This doesn't appear to have stopped millions of people paying good money to play them, so you won't find me shouting that all those customers are sad, mad and dumb, or that the developers are creatively bankrupt.

As the late SF author Bob Shaw once asserted: All art is about communication. A good writer wants to communicate with as many people as possible. The fact that this tends to mean the writer gets paid steaming great piles of wonga for his work is proof that he's reaching lots and lots of people and therefore achieving his goal. What's the point of writing a message where nobody will read it?

Making money isn't something to be sneered at with snobbish contempt. It's not a perfect system, but financial success is incontrovertible evidence that you're doing something right.

EA may crank out umpteen iterations of sports sims -- American and Association Football haven't changed much in decades, so any simulation is going to struggle to stand out from the crowd -- but these are still perfectly valid, perfectly successful games. Besides, EA also took a gamble on "The Sims" when nobody else would touch it. Can you really blame a company for milking an IP if customers are clearly willing to pay? If you can, you're not living in the real world. Most of us have bills to pay, cars to keep and, often, a family to feed.

Sure, there are lots of sequels out there, but so what? Every single franchise started with its first, risky, release! Nobody had even heard of "Lara Croft" before the very first "Tomb Raider"; certainly no one expected it to take off the way it did.


That said, it's sad that hardly any newbies on these forums ever want to start small. Not every gamble needs to be high-risk and high-return. How much more satisfying it is when you gamble relatively little money and end up creating an entire market.

Sean Timarco Baggaley (Est. 1971.)Warning: May contain bollocks.
Advertisement
The above post deserves a +1.

I'd also like to add on to your last paragraph, stimarco. I think most of us aspiring game designers look at these AAA games and think that we can do better, and some of us are actually taking a first step by, for instance, creating our own design documents. Then there are some of those, like me, who realize that it's not all that easy, and start giving the whole matter a break. You know, accept that it's hard work and not always that easy to pull off - being a designer, I mean.

With that said, almost anyone can create a successful game with (nearly) unlimited resources and millions of dollars at their disposals. Creating a successful game with (very) limited resources and a low budget, to me, is at least equally rewarding and shows that you're really creative. You know, being able to make something fun out of not-so-much.

Four years ago my physicist teacher told me something I'll never forget: A good writer can tell a good story in 20 pages. A great writer can do so in 2 pages.
Quote:Original post by Metallon
Four years ago my physicist teacher told me something I'll never forget: A good writer can tell a good story in 20 pages. A great writer can do so in 2 pages.


Ambrose Bierce called a novel "a short story padded".

In The Five Obstructions Jørgen Leth has to remake his film The Perfect Human under restrictions/obstructions. At one point, the person deciding what these obstructions are comments how Leth seemed to use the obstructions to his advantage. The third obstruction was actually to have no obstructions.

In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, they used coconuts instead of horses due to budget constraints.
Interesting things you got there. I'm definitely going to try and see what I can from The Five Obstructions.

Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that games that are relatively simple to develop, that do not require AAA-title fundings but can still kick major ass are awesome games. Not all games need to have the player control a human character and not all games need a story. I realized this when I started looking at simple arcade games and such. You know, games that are all about playing them hands-on.

I've strayed away from trying to create story-driven games, and gone to focusing almost solely on selling factors that are gameplay related (game mechanics, rules, fun aspects, designing aspects, technical aspects, how feasible developing it would be, etc.). In short: I'm pretending to actually work on a game design for a small company. It actually works - for me, at least. You feel sort of professional and it lets you design with helpful limitations, like, "hm, I don't have access to 10+ experienced programmers or $1,000,000. How do I pull this off successfully with the restrictions I have?" and really, it is so FLOBBERING rewarding when you can solve issues like that.

One of the reasons I'm trying to get into game design.


EDIT: I forgot to mention one thing. You know how I mentioned earlier that almost anyone can, with unlimited resources, create a fantastic game? We had a while ago someone who had written this ghastly extensive game design document of what he considered to be a ground-breaking, revolutionary MMO. Not going to mention names, but suffice to say, that was a case of "I have the PERFECT GAME!! ...but I need a few mills to develop it". And... I wouldn't want to be in that position. May just be me, but if I get a job as a game designer, I want to be creative and be challenged and do a good job. I'm not interested in making AAA-titles, I'm interested in making fun games, period.
A professional designer can strip back the essence of a game to what it must be, whether that's consciously or subconciously, and build from there. For example, an RPG contains many preconceptions or prior experiences involving RPGs just by the word alone.

The job of a designer is to strip back these preconceptions to what an RPG is. I only realised this today - before I had a similar opinion to the OP in the irrationality of employment. If I keep my preconceptions in my subconscious I will undoubtably unknowingly hurt my game design by not making a conscious effort to be conscious of them. On the other hand, if I think of these preconceptions in my mind and strip them down to stereotypes and essential facts - eliminating the chances of negative thin-slicing - I will see a vast improvement in the originality of my designs.

Without pressure to use so many different elements (most of which are not needed), I can focus on making a fun game, and be assured that it will be original without worrying about it. The professional designer includes commonly-used elements only when he is sure it will aid his game design - or at least he should.

Some designers may be sloppy or unimaginative, as you believe, but I think the real reason behind so many cookie-cutter game is that they use the elements they believe will make their design more familiar or popular without looking it the merits and problems of each system.

Write a list of elements needed in an RPG.

Write an original concept for a RPG's battle system.

Explain what an ideal setting for an RPG would be.
Dulce non decorum est.
I'd also like to point out that the job and tasks of the game designer are often vague and/or broad, and that most hobbyists don't need a dedicated game designer to work on their own ideas because their projects aren't large enough to justify one. Also, most supposed designers are just people with some semi-coherent ideas and stuff. For larger projects, actually good, dedicated game designers is a good thing because it's their job to see to it that the game's *design* is good. It's not just about writing a design document.
After reading your posts, I might have to pretend that the market (of MMORPG in specific) is truly healthy. Complaints from all those players lacking a good game to play are not legitimate. If you believe so, I can't help.

The fact to me is, their complaints of lacking games to play besides those lame EQ clones are legitimate, I thus reason that it's due to the lack of genius designers who can fill up the needs of those players who are getting sick of the clone games.

It is similar to years back that I pointed out that forced grouping in EQ clones can't meet with the demands for a large group of players who prefer soloing along with grouping. Then I saw people popped up saying that MMOs should be all for grouping and not soloing. They have to shut their mouths up after WoW came out.

Similarly and from my speculation, there's a similar demand out there, there are hypes and hopes for a good game to play out there. The game designs are lagging behind those demands. There are large amount of players hopping amongst games one after one, or rather waiting between the 'good game designs'.

I believe in such a fact while you deny it. That's our difference. You deny it because you might be part of indies who fail to or rather unwilling to face such a reality, a reality which requires the genius to fill the gap, and you are not one of them. Live with that, hehe...

[Edited by - Hawkins8 on October 20, 2008 10:45:51 PM]
Quote:Original post by Delphinus
Some designers may be sloppy or unimaginative, as you believe, but I think the real reason behind so many cookie-cutter game is that...


Very good insight, sir.

The problem is that, the mediocre designers deny that they are actually making cookie-cutter games.

There are many reasons making lame games, lacking in genius designer is one of them.
Quote:Original post by Hawkins8
Quote:Original post by Delphinus
Some designers may be sloppy or unimaginative, as you believe, but I think the real reason behind so many cookie-cutter game is that...


Very good insight, sir.

The problem is that, the mediocre designers deny that they are actually making cookie-cutter games.

There are many reasons making lame games, lacking in genius designer is one of them.


No, its exactly what stimarco said.

From a business perspective it makes sense to make a un-revolutionary sequel if the production cost is low and some sales are guaranteed. It might suck from a artistic perspective but if you think you can make games with multi-million production budgets and ignore business concerns your either rich or living in fantasy land.
Quote:Original post by Kaze
it makes sense to make a un-revolutionary sequel if the production cost is low and some sales are guaranteed.


Just another denial the cookie-cutter games made that players are getting sick of them. However, it is noted that you start to refrain from the denial of cookie-cutter games are made at all. You change your side's stance on that cookie-cutter games are made, but 'it is necessary' as another denial on that 'players are actually getting sick of them'.

Quote:
if you think you can make games with multi-million production budgets and ignore business concerns your either rich or living in fantasy land.


That's not what I said. You have to impose this upon me for the lack of argument on your side. This is not even the argument. The argument is that,

cookie-cutter games are made in reality, or not. (your previous denial now sounded your retreat)
players are getting sick of such a kind of EQ clones, or not. (you still deny this)
players' desires are not met due to the lack of genius designers, or not. (and this)

You are such a group of pathetic indies(?I start to doubt that you are truly legitimately representing the indies) who can't even live with the reality.

[Edited by - Hawkins8 on October 20, 2008 11:07:19 PM]

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement