ActiveUnique

Members
  • Content count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

867 Good

About ActiveUnique

  • Rank
    Member
  1. how many games have you done?

    Does it count for negative if you talked someone else out of making a game?
  2. OGRE Bicycles

    I walk everywhere. I think I'm under compensating.
  3. OGRE Bicycles

    I think an Ogre would be too heavy.
  4. art is a reflection of the soul
  5. 12 Tricks to Selling Your Ideas, Your Game & Yourself

    My first grade teacher gave me this advice. I think you need it now.   You can do better than this.
  6. Is it just me or are all horror game key hunts?

    just about any old dungeon crawler has keys. Find the blue key. Find the red key. Sometimes you find the red door before you see any blue doors.   This is the bare bones design.   I await a tic-tac-toe game that goes viral and makes money, so I can see how these forums will try and spin it and validate all tic-tac-toe clones success.
  7. Is it just me or are all horror game key hunts?

    I'd consider games where players swap roles as monster and victim as horror. Among those would be sharks vs divers, damned, left4dead 2.   I only really know about the pvp mechanic from constantly browsing videos though. It works pretty well considering you can make a pvp area in just about any MMO, and it'll be swarming with players, pretty much all the time, meaning players want to be the bad guy and they fit in the monster horror clique very easily.   You might be referring to single player. In which case the game becomes story driven and really relies on the developer's creativity. wurd
  8. If enough effort went into accessibility, graphics, interactivity, and the story. Then, there wouldn't be an issue. Would there?     Accessibility. Option "hold button, never mash."   For the story, well. I think a book sold once or twice, that says it all. Books are ideas in words that have been strung together in an attractive way. So if you're not good at writing down ideas, you won't write a good one, you might think you do. But of course I watch extra credits, and you can't make a game based on a book, that's crazy, and a book based on a game would be crazy(?).   Pictures, are the visual version of ideas strung together. Need I say more? Yes. Respect ideas.   Here's the tricky one. Think of interactivity as an extra dimension. Yet even outside of games and reality, we find interactivity. It's our imagination. Novels aren't necessarily good, or share new ideas. They give the reader an idea of their surroundings, and the authors who do this at the right moment enable you to picture yourself there, in that dimension of interactivity. 3d games eliminate the necessity for imagination, but we can still have opportunities when interactivity is presented. 3D objects also add extra opportunities for programming interactivity, meaning you can enter that extra dimension. A 3D movie lowers the interactivity back to 2D, funny enough. A 2D movie is still 2D. If you're reacting to a quicktime event, you aren't even paying attention, because you want to win, so that's like 1D gameplay. The player is going to suffer as their existence is narrowed down to one dimension. Horror games are really enjoying voyeurism to great success thanks. I'm exaggerating a little, maybe.   Of course, you can keep movies incredibly short and skip this entirely. Or put interactive elements on the screen while a movie plays, and reveal many great ideas that appeal to your audience. You're not cutting corners when you eliminate the need to. I think it'll be noticeable.
  9. 12 Tricks to Selling Your Ideas, Your Game & Yourself

    Sell what you believe in. Even you can stop wearing bullet proof vests to work.   My pet poodle is a son of a bitch.
  10. Would it help if I gave an economically sound reason? I think I'll give a marketing reason.   If you sell your game to the wrong audience, you get fewer sales and fewer repeat buyers. The idea of putting a final product on the market and hoping everyone values it for the hard work put in is unrealistic. Only the people who want a product will value it.   Usually customers buy things without knowing anything about it. They don't even know their own preferences. It's impossible to survey people and find out what the majority really want. Etc.   The reasons I give so far in the topic make it obvious that movie-like games need to be properly distributed so that movie lovers purchase them. Through proper consideration of what amount of interactivity enriches the content, and the type of media encompassing the game's lifespan, you can determine if you're playing a game or a movie.   Of course, this also proves ratings are useless. Two thirds of any game's audience will believe it's over-hyped. Here's some more food for thought.   Do you like chunky? http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce
  11. Ok I had to revise this whole post (sorry if that's a problem). It's kind of hard to get to the point.     I don't know why the necessity to single out movie games was confusing. So if this really doesn't clear things up, let me know.   There are actually two major competing reasons. Low interactivity (filler content) Knowledge / accessibility gateways I am focused on #1, movies are low interactivity.   The rules are pretty loose, legally we don't need to satisfy players. Morally, we do.   When it comes to the rule about satisfaction. Remember, respect the player.   Low-interactivity environment. Horseback rides for hours in sparse games is easy to cover in seconds with fast travel. Incredibly long cutscenes are also low-interactivity. Quicktime events are also low interactivity (when it's button mashing, it's a movie).   A counter example to respecting the player is a shmup brawler, to start the game you need to play an 8-hole course of golf under par. The problem is not accessibility difficulty. But they aren't playing what they expected, they might even be bored.       Now based on #2 If you had to get a hole-in-one on the 8th hole, you've gone so far, I think it'd be impossible not to notice. Ridiculous feats are for achievement addicts.       Force players to play a hole of golf for every boss fight. Actually I recommend not doing that, unless the boss fights are trivial . If you want you could check what I said in the history when I was focused on golf. :P
  12.   That's already been labelled context sensitivity. It's actually a positive and someone actually confusing the two is exactly what I'd expect in fat culture.   That was a rhetorical question directed at my categorizing Shenmue QTEs and Spyparty action-tests under the same umbrella; I don't think Thaumaturge was actually comparing the two, except as an example of intentional absurdity to make a good point about trying to discretely categorizing features that exist on a continuous scale.   .... (truncated)     Yeah, I didn't exactly acknowledge his meaning then. But I understood. I'm hoping for some responses to what I wrote. Although I'm no elegant writer.   While I'm still thinking about it. I might as well point out the "fat culture" I mention is a compressed commentary on letting big companies [figuratively] feed the masses out of convenience, in turn profiting from long-term consequences as they thwart themselves and grow in dependency.
  13. quick answer to Thaumaturge: Disclosure isn't as hard you think. I am specifically singling out movie aspects, because it's like mixing oil and water. Then calling it a heat source you can drink, when it does neither thing quite as well. This is actually a pretty advanced subject, so I expect a lot of disagreement. I have a bit of a rant afterwards. But I'm going to need a serious challenge to the validity of any explanations I give. I'll respond to any clear challenges. Concept A: There is a distinguishing quality we can find in games that can't be found in movies. Concept B: All aspects of a game are interchangeable, other than the set of rules defining it. Giant spiders could be content swapped with pink elephants. The music, the textures, even the levels you walk around in, and yes, even the cutscenes. Concept C: Given B. Changing rules changes the game. Two complete rule sets combined in one game still make two games. Concept D: Given C. The actual game can change at any point. Define trivial: little value or importance Concept E: Any rules of a game that are trivial aren't actually part of the game. Concept F: Given E. Rules that don't bar gameplay progress are trivial. Are there any interchangeable explanations for what I've said? If that's all fair and logical. If you want to test it, see if it's testable. I'll suggest a thought experiment. Take a game. Your new 100% game could be about anything. But whatever it is, you would want to describe it as such, even if it's quicktime events. A section of the game where you purchase goods can be a minigame with its own rules, you get a bigger better item if you play it well. You can skip it entirely, meaning this minigame is trivial and doesn't actually change the rules of your game. Now for every estimated 10 minutes of playability add 10 minutes of movie footage. Your game is 50% game, and 50% cutscenes. Now you need to announce 100 hours of gameplay includes 50 hours of cutscenes. Now make a subsection of your game have a completely different mechanic where you jump between platforms. In order to survive you need to do something the game's never asked you to. You must pass this to progress. It's another game stopping you from enjoying the original. So you have 45% of one game, 5% of another, and 50% cutscenes. That 5%, the 45%, and the 50% are all providing different quality, and exist separately. But ultimately the player is forced into the learning curve of yet another game. Most importantly of all. Your customers will recognize your game is 95% cinematic in this scenario. 5% of it has a platform challenge that several players may never actually pass.   In the end, satisfaction matters. Imagine the same scenario, but without announcing the primary mechanic or the amount of cutscene footage. Some developers believe players are looking for "novel experience" novel meaning new, for many players that is not cutscenes and QTEs, they've seen those. They didn't get anything. They even lost time because of this. The game industry is very similar to the food industry. In the USA food is close to 40% corn, the animals are fed corn, and then the animals are consumed at 5x the necessary quantity. 85% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered, 91% of soybeans as well. How much is arsenic? How does tap water differ after consumption compared to filtered water? Have dams affected our food and water supply? These sort of questions are guaranteed to be dodged by any officials even when the answers are blatantly obvious. The schools were corrupted, food pyramid. Sugar for millenials. Fat culture, commercialism. As others have pointed out, the quicktime events are easier. This is our fat culture, commercialism. We need to nip it in the bud before the first really truly physically addictive games are devised. Trend setting companies will end up regulating themselves and relying on more aggressive commercialism to compete. We want to know how much of your game is a movie. We want the truth. I don't care if it's a movie about dolphins. I only care if it's a movie or a game. The dolphins are interchangeable, the amount of game isn't.       That's already been labelled context sensitivity. It's actually a positive and someone actually confusing the two is exactly what I'd expect in fat culture.
  14.   I may have been going overboard from the original topic's QT boss fights.   I am specifically saying interactive movies aren't traditional games, they aren't even playing by the same rules as SORRY (randomization ftw), randomization actually, that could be the missing link.   Servant refers to golf swings as early QTE implementation, ok I haven't thought a lot about it, but there are other examples. On-rail shooters, virtual rollercoasters, and scripted events that last longer than a microsecond. There's a chance to randomize them, but they're baked in like a chef would bake in the 1960s, the way they like it. Goodbye personal diversity :'|   In all these cases you're seeing a very specific type of game.  On the broader spectrum there's QTE's as an alternate game-mechanic, not the entire game, while playing you see a very different game emerge, one that's based on reflex memorization rather than what you should already know. Going back to the QT boss fights, the climax of every story arc is usually a boss fight. It's a pretty important part of the game. Suddenly you have to think differently, play a different game, and accept it to enjoy it?   Look at how the drakengard 3 game plays. Look at the final boss, which works very differently.   You could implement a QTE that gave randomization, but would it feel like it had randomization? Even when it really does that'd defeat the skill and destiny aspects of the ingrained movie driven experience.   Consider this impossible anecdote for what I think would be comparable: Horror is a new trending type of game and Scaryfluff knows how to make a realistic fantasy game. Players ride through the forest on horseback. After about 2 minutes of voyage the horse stops, the camera zooms in on the horse and then there's a snap noise, the camera goes red. Scaryfluff knows loyal customers who dislike horror (and those that love horses) will forgive them later, even if they quit the game forever, right away. For the horror seeking customers, this is a delightful surprise they were tricked, everyone should play it.