reality check
by Shayne Guiliano · in General Discussion · 03/13/2002 (1:51 pm) · 50 replies
Please, I understand that this is a sensitive topic so please read the entire thread, and associated thread, and try to understand my point before getting heated about it. It's long, so be prepared. I could very well not mention any of this and no one will be hurt but I feel like this community has real potential for growth and impacting the video game industry. I have studied other industries that I believe can help us put a gauge on how this community will and should develop.
I do not believe that video games have been defined as an artform...yet. I think that GG could have a big hand in the development of video games as an artform. But the first thing that needs to be realized is that we will not make games that will in any way resemble the new releases like Halo. Halo was worked on for five years with an unlimited amount of cash to work with. I have met a few of the developers that worked on it and I can assure that not only were they highly talented and professional, but they were also very, very passionate about it too. They worked 80 hour weeks without blinking and they did this for several years. No one does that to just get a paycheck. They could probably earn double working half the hours making business software. But instead they worked 80 hour weeks for several years knowing that there was a very very small chance that their game would be enjoyed by gamers. Very few games well-funded games ever make it into the homes of gamers, this is a fact. Now what does this mean for us?
We can't compete with the big boys on their playing field. You can get frustrated by this statement and rave back at me about how ignorant I am and about how creative we all are and how we are all going to change the world with our ideas and you might even be right, but I still think it's a rational statement. However, accepting that fact forces us to find an alternative way to compete. I think the alternative could be the EBP (Episodic Business Plan) which I wrote about in this string http://www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=forums&page=result.thread&qt=3984
Disregard my sequel argument, Jeff cleared that up for me, but I think the EBP is important because it helps us to focus on things that will help us create our own playing field that I don't think the big publishers could compete with because they have set standards in graphics and "bigness" that they have to continue meeting while disregarding artistic elements.
Once we have accepting that sobering fact, we need to figure out how we can use creativity and innovation to develop an "Indie" style that we can wear proudly, not unlike the "Indie" movie makers. Elements that I often find lacking artistic sophistication in well-funded games are things like pace (they typically maintain the same pace throughout the game rather than the pace being dynamic ) perspective and framing, color composition and color theming, emotional attachment and reward(an artistic reward would be feeling happy, sad or laughing rather than finding a health meter), true character development (other than just getting more agility points. Kojima does do a great job with this in Metal Gear and Miyamoto has always done a great job with this, especially in Zelda). These are examples of artistic elements that I believe would give us a distinct position in the industry. These are not the kinds of things you see in many games, but all the games that have them are considered great. I would attribute the greatness of games like Zelda, Metal Gear, GTA3 to the fact that they have some of these elements in them. I know of no game that has them all. Though it would not be that difficult to make the artistic side the focus of a game because these elements are entirely independent of the technology. Their power these elements can have over the psyche is only limited by our minds.
I'm going to stop now, though I could write a book about it all, until I get some response. I consider myself a martyr here in that I know this isn't stuff that you all want to hear but I feel like the community could really benefit from realizing that we don't even have to try to make games that resemble anything that has ever been made. That is why our freedom is powerful. We don't have to justify an artistic risk to an investor, we can think out of the box and let our minds roam free.
Viva La Revolution
I do not believe that video games have been defined as an artform...yet. I think that GG could have a big hand in the development of video games as an artform. But the first thing that needs to be realized is that we will not make games that will in any way resemble the new releases like Halo. Halo was worked on for five years with an unlimited amount of cash to work with. I have met a few of the developers that worked on it and I can assure that not only were they highly talented and professional, but they were also very, very passionate about it too. They worked 80 hour weeks without blinking and they did this for several years. No one does that to just get a paycheck. They could probably earn double working half the hours making business software. But instead they worked 80 hour weeks for several years knowing that there was a very very small chance that their game would be enjoyed by gamers. Very few games well-funded games ever make it into the homes of gamers, this is a fact. Now what does this mean for us?
We can't compete with the big boys on their playing field. You can get frustrated by this statement and rave back at me about how ignorant I am and about how creative we all are and how we are all going to change the world with our ideas and you might even be right, but I still think it's a rational statement. However, accepting that fact forces us to find an alternative way to compete. I think the alternative could be the EBP (Episodic Business Plan) which I wrote about in this string http://www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=forums&page=result.thread&qt=3984
Disregard my sequel argument, Jeff cleared that up for me, but I think the EBP is important because it helps us to focus on things that will help us create our own playing field that I don't think the big publishers could compete with because they have set standards in graphics and "bigness" that they have to continue meeting while disregarding artistic elements.
Once we have accepting that sobering fact, we need to figure out how we can use creativity and innovation to develop an "Indie" style that we can wear proudly, not unlike the "Indie" movie makers. Elements that I often find lacking artistic sophistication in well-funded games are things like pace (they typically maintain the same pace throughout the game rather than the pace being dynamic ) perspective and framing, color composition and color theming, emotional attachment and reward(an artistic reward would be feeling happy, sad or laughing rather than finding a health meter), true character development (other than just getting more agility points. Kojima does do a great job with this in Metal Gear and Miyamoto has always done a great job with this, especially in Zelda). These are examples of artistic elements that I believe would give us a distinct position in the industry. These are not the kinds of things you see in many games, but all the games that have them are considered great. I would attribute the greatness of games like Zelda, Metal Gear, GTA3 to the fact that they have some of these elements in them. I know of no game that has them all. Though it would not be that difficult to make the artistic side the focus of a game because these elements are entirely independent of the technology. Their power these elements can have over the psyche is only limited by our minds.
I'm going to stop now, though I could write a book about it all, until I get some response. I consider myself a martyr here in that I know this isn't stuff that you all want to hear but I feel like the community could really benefit from realizing that we don't even have to try to make games that resemble anything that has ever been made. That is why our freedom is powerful. We don't have to justify an artistic risk to an investor, we can think out of the box and let our minds roam free.
Viva La Revolution
#2
03/14/2002 (6:27 am)
I think most people realize you can't churn out a "HALO" type game in a few months by yourself (I'd hope so anyway). A lot of games that come from using the Torque engine will be the just-for-the-hell-of-it type. Maybe a Torque version of Karateka:) I'm sure there will also be some really impressive games too. The engine seems to have a lot of potential. I know for me, and probably plenty of others, I'm not about to quite my day job..yet. At least for $100 you're not out much if your dreams of becoming a pimped out mac daddy of the gaming world go down the toilet. 
#4
Some of the security applications I made are called R.A.T "Remote Administration Tools" which gives the client the ability to control their pc or whomever has the server loaded, with the unlimited ability given to the client accessing a certain port # such as 1245 etc.. some of my other applications are AV anti-virus software or some IP spoofing software. Any one can do anything as long as they are dedicated and have a love for what they are doing.
sorry for any grammar miss-spellings / typos.
also my age is 15.
03/14/2002 (12:49 pm)
I believe any one can compete with the "big boys" or what ever it is you call them. They are just a group of men working on something to earn cash yet listen to this when writing software is it something you enjoy heck I wouldnt go work for taco-bell to earn a higher pay check for something I dont enjoy doing. People make games as a hobby or even for a professional field yet it is something they enjoy and understand fully. I may not understand fully what people do and do not get but I understand about how I feel about games. I have written security applications in delphi 5 since I was 10 year's old and have been doing that for the past 5 year's not selling my products which I am currently thinking about it, but I enjoy working with that and I have recently been making computer games for the past 2 years. I have single handedly made 2 games and atleast 20 security applications single handedly no help from and resource and all self taught. Not to brag but I just wanted to say that people who enjoy their work dont need to go work for such a big paying work place, as long as it lets them get by and lets them enjoy their work it is fine by me for all standards.Some of the security applications I made are called R.A.T "Remote Administration Tools" which gives the client the ability to control their pc or whomever has the server loaded, with the unlimited ability given to the client accessing a certain port # such as 1245 etc.. some of my other applications are AV anti-virus software or some IP spoofing software. Any one can do anything as long as they are dedicated and have a love for what they are doing.
sorry for any grammar miss-spellings / typos.
also my age is 15.
#5
No indie developer will ever be able to do that. Period. What we do need to do, is find a way to create a creative/interesting/exciting/dynamic game that doesnt require massive resources. For example, a successful indie game would be one with very entertaining gameplay/central idea, something akin to counterstrike. All the necessary art for CS is a few weapons models, a few character models, and some maps. (Even that small amount of art would take a while to produce). However, the longevity and popularity of the game comes from its extremely entertaining gameplay, NOT from the epic storyline and huge worlds.
At least, that's my take on it. I agree with everything said in the first post as well, about the emotional aspect, etc.
In closing, the greatness of indie games must come not from the quantity, but from the quality of the idea.
03/14/2002 (1:12 pm)
Sorry david, that is just wrong. I dont mean to be brutally mean about it, but it's the truth. Play Halo. Then sit back, and try to write a list of every piece of art in the game. It will probably take you over 12 hours if you write the entire time. Seriously, the amount of resources that went into that game, and other high quality titles like it, are unimaginable. It took four years for a reason.No indie developer will ever be able to do that. Period. What we do need to do, is find a way to create a creative/interesting/exciting/dynamic game that doesnt require massive resources. For example, a successful indie game would be one with very entertaining gameplay/central idea, something akin to counterstrike. All the necessary art for CS is a few weapons models, a few character models, and some maps. (Even that small amount of art would take a while to produce). However, the longevity and popularity of the game comes from its extremely entertaining gameplay, NOT from the epic storyline and huge worlds.
At least, that's my take on it. I agree with everything said in the first post as well, about the emotional aspect, etc.
In closing, the greatness of indie games must come not from the quantity, but from the quality of the idea.
#6
The indie community has the freedom to make whatever they want, but they usually do not have sufficient funding to do it with the best resources in the shortest amount of time. With passion and commitment, you stand a good chance of seeing your vision through. Money is not the motivating factor.
The members of my company have that passion and commitment. We knew we didn't want to go to a publisher to get funding because our vision would get distorted by their latest market research, which is usually flawed. We would end up creating a game but it wouldn't be ours. So, we formed a company that would fund our game development, using our talents to create alternate revenue streams. The trade-off is that it will take longer to make, but it will be ours and it will be art.
Revolution is a good way to look at it. The system is broken and the gamer suffers for it. I'm not saying there aren't good games out there, as Shayne points out. But, for the amount of money and work that goes into game development each year, there should be a heck of a lot more. To raise game development to an art form, you must think outside of the box. This includes what it takes to make a game, how it is distributed, and who contributes to the game design. Garage Games is helping on so many fronts, but it is up to us, the developers, to take it the rest of the way.
In case you are wondering, my company's name is BraveTree Productions. Any guesses as to how we came up with that name ? :-)
03/14/2002 (1:29 pm)
You get right to the heart of it, Shayne. The mission statement for my company is: "Dedicated to raising the profession of game development to an art form." This is the one of the main reasons why my partners and I started our company. We all worked at Dynamix and learned how difficult it is to make a game with this vision in today's corporate world. The people making the decisions about what games are made are looking at the potential marketing value of the intellectual property and cross-overs with other products. It's not about art, it's about money and recognition. As in the film industry, it is near impossible to get funding for a game that is based on color theory, dynamic pacing, and character development. Instead, they want to hear how you can make something really cool that will sell well. It's all about profit margins. When Jeff ran the company, it was different. Now that Vivendi runs the show, Dynamix is gone (but not forgotten).The indie community has the freedom to make whatever they want, but they usually do not have sufficient funding to do it with the best resources in the shortest amount of time. With passion and commitment, you stand a good chance of seeing your vision through. Money is not the motivating factor.
The members of my company have that passion and commitment. We knew we didn't want to go to a publisher to get funding because our vision would get distorted by their latest market research, which is usually flawed. We would end up creating a game but it wouldn't be ours. So, we formed a company that would fund our game development, using our talents to create alternate revenue streams. The trade-off is that it will take longer to make, but it will be ours and it will be art.
Revolution is a good way to look at it. The system is broken and the gamer suffers for it. I'm not saying there aren't good games out there, as Shayne points out. But, for the amount of money and work that goes into game development each year, there should be a heck of a lot more. To raise game development to an art form, you must think outside of the box. This includes what it takes to make a game, how it is distributed, and who contributes to the game design. Garage Games is helping on so many fronts, but it is up to us, the developers, to take it the rest of the way.
In case you are wondering, my company's name is BraveTree Productions. Any guesses as to how we came up with that name ? :-)
#7
Take Quake, add vehicles... and make crummy maps.
That game is nothing we should even speak about when referring to game design. I sincerely hope that we can produce something considerably better than that joke of a game.
03/14/2002 (1:52 pm)
uh, if there's one game we can easily reproduce it's Halo.Take Quake, add vehicles... and make crummy maps.
That game is nothing we should even speak about when referring to game design. I sincerely hope that we can produce something considerably better than that joke of a game.
#8
03/14/2002 (3:04 pm)
Brilliant physics model, though it's a pity about the actual game.
#9
On the topic of Halo I'm doubly biased. Two close friends of mine, who are friends of other members of our team, invested large amounts of time and energy into that project which to date I haven't played. I have seen the physics at work and I've heard the adorational ranting and raving over the AI - which regardless of any quick and easy dismissal are things which will change the nature of these aspects of gaming.
Is it such a bad idea to think about what might be very cool and also make money? I'm a big fan of wildly subjective experiments in game making, I hope to get color theory into my project, etc. But, me and the other guys (as well as their wives I suspect) who are leaving their day jobs to see if we can't do this thing, are hoping there's something more in it than our art.
03/14/2002 (3:36 pm)
Any genre game can be reduced to the simplified bits of its sum total, and subsequently dismissed. This is an immensely fun and utterly unproductive enterprise. It takes a good deal more effort to parse out the worthwhile bits and see how this can inform you.On the topic of Halo I'm doubly biased. Two close friends of mine, who are friends of other members of our team, invested large amounts of time and energy into that project which to date I haven't played. I have seen the physics at work and I've heard the adorational ranting and raving over the AI - which regardless of any quick and easy dismissal are things which will change the nature of these aspects of gaming.
Is it such a bad idea to think about what might be very cool and also make money? I'm a big fan of wildly subjective experiments in game making, I hope to get color theory into my project, etc. But, me and the other guys (as well as their wives I suspect) who are leaving their day jobs to see if we can't do this thing, are hoping there's something more in it than our art.
#10
Games have not yet evolved to the point where a language of expression is well defined. It took several years for films to develop a language and set of 'rules'.
There are some of out here that take the issues you have raised very seriously. Unfortunately, games with a high level of artistic sophistication are not proven sellers, therefore it is hard to get funding to do these types of games.
Our company has an awareness of the issues, and we are doing what we can to change this.
We feel there is a need to define a set of organized principles upon which we can build a language of game design.
A good article about this can be found here:
www.gamasutra.com/features/19990716/design_tools_01.htm
A really good book about basic design principles can be purchased here:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0240804678/qid=1016151275/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/1...
and let's hope that this discussion will continue and help us to bring about an evolution in the way games are conceived and constructed.
03/14/2002 (4:12 pm)
Well said Shayne,Games have not yet evolved to the point where a language of expression is well defined. It took several years for films to develop a language and set of 'rules'.
There are some of out here that take the issues you have raised very seriously. Unfortunately, games with a high level of artistic sophistication are not proven sellers, therefore it is hard to get funding to do these types of games.
Our company has an awareness of the issues, and we are doing what we can to change this.
We feel there is a need to define a set of organized principles upon which we can build a language of game design.
A good article about this can be found here:
www.gamasutra.com/features/19990716/design_tools_01.htm
A really good book about basic design principles can be purchased here:
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0240804678/qid=1016151275/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/1...
and let's hope that this discussion will continue and help us to bring about an evolution in the way games are conceived and constructed.
#11
The many responses to my article were mostly defensive in nature, i.e. we can't innovate, it's too hard or too risky. Since that time, however, I have noticed a substantial pick up in the discussions about creativity, game development/design as an artform, etc.
Keep up the great work. You people can say it way better than I can.
Jeff Tunnell GG
03/14/2002 (5:06 pm)
Keep this up. Great words Shayne. This is the point I was trying to make (probably in a much less elegant way) in my column on innovation, or the lack thereof, in most of the games publicly displayed in the GG project profiles area. Again, to beat my dead horse yet another time, indies not only can innovate, they must innovate in order to survive.The many responses to my article were mostly defensive in nature, i.e. we can't innovate, it's too hard or too risky. Since that time, however, I have noticed a substantial pick up in the discussions about creativity, game development/design as an artform, etc.
Keep up the great work. You people can say it way better than I can.
Jeff Tunnell GG
#12
But what do I know, I'm only 17..
03/14/2002 (6:25 pm)
How do you think the "big boys" became "big boys"? It doesnt matter how big your company is. It doesnt matter what crazy color scheme you use. What it all comes down to is this: In order for your game to be successful, it has to be FUN TO PLAY. Think of Snood. It is probably one of the ugliest games I have ever seen :P. But despite this, Snood is (at least where I live) extremely popular. Why? ITS FUN. Tribes didnt exactly follow a strict color scheme. The look isnt all that flashy.. but people love it because its fun. If a game is fun, people will play it and want more of it from you/ your company. You will become successful. Soon you will become one of the funded "big boys" that we are all supposed to be afraid of. But what do I know, I'm only 17..
#13
You mention games that are fun, but not pretty. By art, I'm not implying pretty. By definition, art is a high quality conception or execution. I'm saying that a well constructed game, using the right combination of elements, will be fun for the user and invoke that emotional response. You must know your audience well enough to determine what the right balance is, and that's the trick.
03/14/2002 (7:48 pm)
The goal of art, at least from my perspective, is to invoke an emotional response in the observer. For games, we want the player to have fun. Fun can be defined in many ways, but at its core, it's a desired emotional response. People can become addicted to the kind of fun that games provide. The elements we've discussed (color theory, connection to the character, etc.) factor into how fun a game is, whether you realize it or not.You mention games that are fun, but not pretty. By art, I'm not implying pretty. By definition, art is a high quality conception or execution. I'm saying that a well constructed game, using the right combination of elements, will be fun for the user and invoke that emotional response. You must know your audience well enough to determine what the right balance is, and that's the trick.
#14
Getting a game to be 'fun' can be done by banging on it until it is fun. This is how most of the Big Boys do it now.
OR, you can study composition and colory theory and understand how so basic human perceptual standards can be manipulated to acheive a desired response.
You can craft the experience a little better than just throwing some stuff together and seeing what happens.
Why is this important? If you can do this, you can get in the ballpark of 'fun' quicker and cheaper than the Big Boys, thus making development more focused and more effective.
Don't discount the abilities of the artists and designers who are making the games you presently play and think that they are ignorant of these issues.
Most of the time you are not even aware that your perception is being manipulated. Any film that you see has been designed to have you focus on a particular thing at a particular time in the interest of communicating what the director envisioned was important for you to understand.
Games are starting to use some of these techniques to control the gameplay experience (in a positive way)
As stated above, the grammar of visual design as it realtes to games is still in is formative stages. Some terminology from film and architechture is being used to help the constrcutors of games to understand the intent and direction of the game, and it's assets.
In short, it does matter what color scheme you use. Understanding the nuances of how to control percpetion can make a huge difference in quality.
I should point out here that understanding how this stuff works does not necessarily mean a game will look good (or be pretty), but there area great number of things that can be done to help move a game along simply by understanding the concept of contrast and depth perception.
The goal is to create a compelling experience for the end user. The better your understanding of what compels people, the better you will be able to craft the experience. The better the experience, the better the sales.
Also, don't confuse 'art' with art for art's sake. The awareness of percpetual issues and the understanding of these issue to help us craft enjoyable experiences isn't an indulgence, it is fiscally the only way that we are going to be able to produce the titles we want to produce. Focused development is cheaper. As a by product, the game will look great, and it will have a great deal of artistic sophistication.
In short, you can make stuff that looks great, is well respected for artistic integrity, do it cheaper than everyone else, and it will probably sell better because, all other things being equal, a better looking game provides a more compelling and immersive experience, and will result in more sales.
I am going to cut this short, or I will end up writing a book of my own.
Joe
03/14/2002 (9:45 pm)
One can envoke an emotional response inthe viewer best by understanding how certain aspects of visual design and sound create basic responses. The better the understanding, the quicker you will be able to get to the target.Getting a game to be 'fun' can be done by banging on it until it is fun. This is how most of the Big Boys do it now.
OR, you can study composition and colory theory and understand how so basic human perceptual standards can be manipulated to acheive a desired response.
You can craft the experience a little better than just throwing some stuff together and seeing what happens.
Why is this important? If you can do this, you can get in the ballpark of 'fun' quicker and cheaper than the Big Boys, thus making development more focused and more effective.
Don't discount the abilities of the artists and designers who are making the games you presently play and think that they are ignorant of these issues.
Most of the time you are not even aware that your perception is being manipulated. Any film that you see has been designed to have you focus on a particular thing at a particular time in the interest of communicating what the director envisioned was important for you to understand.
Games are starting to use some of these techniques to control the gameplay experience (in a positive way)
As stated above, the grammar of visual design as it realtes to games is still in is formative stages. Some terminology from film and architechture is being used to help the constrcutors of games to understand the intent and direction of the game, and it's assets.
In short, it does matter what color scheme you use. Understanding the nuances of how to control percpetion can make a huge difference in quality.
I should point out here that understanding how this stuff works does not necessarily mean a game will look good (or be pretty), but there area great number of things that can be done to help move a game along simply by understanding the concept of contrast and depth perception.
The goal is to create a compelling experience for the end user. The better your understanding of what compels people, the better you will be able to craft the experience. The better the experience, the better the sales.
Also, don't confuse 'art' with art for art's sake. The awareness of percpetual issues and the understanding of these issue to help us craft enjoyable experiences isn't an indulgence, it is fiscally the only way that we are going to be able to produce the titles we want to produce. Focused development is cheaper. As a by product, the game will look great, and it will have a great deal of artistic sophistication.
In short, you can make stuff that looks great, is well respected for artistic integrity, do it cheaper than everyone else, and it will probably sell better because, all other things being equal, a better looking game provides a more compelling and immersive experience, and will result in more sales.
I am going to cut this short, or I will end up writing a book of my own.
Joe
#15
I also know that there are people who have deadlines...and yes they do what they do for love, otherwise they'd quit. but they're life leaves room for little else..They sleep in thier cubicles..take cat naps and continue coding. I can understand staying up for twenty four hour streches doing something you love..and I think there are those here who have it in them to spend thier weekends in front of lines of code rather than go outside..that's okay, because that's thier love.
I've spent a 30 hour stretch in front of my computer modeling...not the same as looking at code...but you know milkshape starts to loose it's fun after you've jacked up that vertice for the fivehundredth time due to lack of sleep.
Damn..none of that made sence...oh well...LEt's just agree to dissagree, and I'll be on my way :)
later
03/15/2002 (12:23 am)
I appreciate what you said and it does ring true. I still dissagree with you, and I feel it's necessary to aim for high standards...Yeah I know that programmers for the corporates don't just work forty hours a week...yes I know that alot of them have pride in what they do.I also know that there are people who have deadlines...and yes they do what they do for love, otherwise they'd quit. but they're life leaves room for little else..They sleep in thier cubicles..take cat naps and continue coding. I can understand staying up for twenty four hour streches doing something you love..and I think there are those here who have it in them to spend thier weekends in front of lines of code rather than go outside..that's okay, because that's thier love.
I've spent a 30 hour stretch in front of my computer modeling...not the same as looking at code...but you know milkshape starts to loose it's fun after you've jacked up that vertice for the fivehundredth time due to lack of sleep.
Damn..none of that made sence...oh well...LEt's just agree to dissagree, and I'll be on my way :)
later
#16
03/15/2002 (7:12 am)
Joe posted a couple of links above, but does anyone else have resources they can provide that would be useful?
#17
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195019199/qid=1016205892/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/1...
And here is another article form Gamasutra:
www.gamasutra.com/features/20020313/kreimeier_01.htm
Joe
03/15/2002 (7:19 am)
A Pattern Language is another very good book. www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195019199/qid=1016205892/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/1...
And here is another article form Gamasutra:
www.gamasutra.com/features/20020313/kreimeier_01.htm
Joe
#18
But even past that: you can take a game that's already fun to play and notch it up. I loved Snood, wasted a lot of hours on it, but am still put off by the clumsy design. It's hard to tell two of the Snood types apart, because they don't differ enough in color & shape. A tad more design sense would have helped the game be better & appeal to more people.
And awareness of these issues can also notch up your players' emotional reactions. Why is Myst the best-selling computer game of all time? I mean, the puzzles were too easy, the technology was out of date before it even shipped (a Hypercard stack with tiny Director animations & postage-stamp Quicktime movies!). But Channelwood ranks right up there for me as one of the creepiest gaming experiences I've ever had. Why? Wouldn't you like to be able to achieve those effects by design?
Somebody up there claimed that Tribes "didn't follow a strict color scheme." But actually it did. Take a good look at the architectures for the different world types. What distinguishes Blood Eagle (lush) architecture from Starwolf architecture? What would the buildings from one world look like if they were placed in the terrain from another world? Why did the designers make the architectural design choices they did?
A pattern language is a wonderful book. Thanks, Joe, for the pointer to the article on game design patterns.
The Doug Church article on Gamasutra was interesting, though I think he's only got half a thought there and not yet a completed thought. For example, he danced around "consistency" often as a virtue of Mario, but didn't identify it as a tool. I think it's a tool. It would be interesting to completely analyze an adventure game & extract a near-complete tools list. Then do the same for a game in another genre (first-person shooter or something). See where the two intersect and from that try to construct a formal language for tools.
03/15/2002 (10:25 am)
Joseph, I'm not certain what you're disagreeing with. Joe wants the same "high standards" you do. He's just pointing out that there are shorter paths to reaching high standards than trial and error. If you approach the design process armed with an understanding of human perception, you'll be able to better distinguish between good choices and bad choices as you design. You won't need to rely on a long expensive cycle of implementation & testing to figure out what works and what doesn't. Why figure out for yourself the hard way that you can't rely solely on red/green color distinctions to signal important information? You could have known that before you did the first user interaction design. (To choose an easy example!)But even past that: you can take a game that's already fun to play and notch it up. I loved Snood, wasted a lot of hours on it, but am still put off by the clumsy design. It's hard to tell two of the Snood types apart, because they don't differ enough in color & shape. A tad more design sense would have helped the game be better & appeal to more people.
And awareness of these issues can also notch up your players' emotional reactions. Why is Myst the best-selling computer game of all time? I mean, the puzzles were too easy, the technology was out of date before it even shipped (a Hypercard stack with tiny Director animations & postage-stamp Quicktime movies!). But Channelwood ranks right up there for me as one of the creepiest gaming experiences I've ever had. Why? Wouldn't you like to be able to achieve those effects by design?
Somebody up there claimed that Tribes "didn't follow a strict color scheme." But actually it did. Take a good look at the architectures for the different world types. What distinguishes Blood Eagle (lush) architecture from Starwolf architecture? What would the buildings from one world look like if they were placed in the terrain from another world? Why did the designers make the architectural design choices they did?
A pattern language is a wonderful book. Thanks, Joe, for the pointer to the article on game design patterns.
The Doug Church article on Gamasutra was interesting, though I think he's only got half a thought there and not yet a completed thought. For example, he danced around "consistency" often as a virtue of Mario, but didn't identify it as a tool. I think it's a tool. It would be interesting to completely analyze an adventure game & extract a near-complete tools list. Then do the same for a game in another genre (first-person shooter or something). See where the two intersect and from that try to construct a formal language for tools.
#19
(Note: Not a personal attack in any way)
Halo was a GOOD, ENJOYABLE game, and literally 100,000 of thousands of people agree with me about that. It was almost undeniably better than any other normal FPS game, if you compare them objectively (and wihthout factoring the dates of release).
Let's take this arguement apart piece by piece:
"uh, if there's one game we can easily reproduce it's Halo."
Wrong. The man hours required to create Halo are more than any indie team will ever have for the foreseeable future.
"Take Quake, add vehicles... and make crummy maps."
Agreed, SOME maps are SLIGHTLY repetitive. However, on a whole, the map design (as well as the multiplayer maps) are extremely well designed. There is a story. Quake had no story. The sound is superb. Quake's sound was terrible. The attention to detail in halo is amazing (bodies correctly laying on rocks after explosions, the physics, the graphics, the save system, etc). The AI is astoudning. It is almost reason enough to love the game without anything else in it. Everything about the game is of the highest quality ever seen.
"That game is nothing we should even speak about when referring to game design."
Halo == Game. Games == Are Designed. Not only is it a game, it is an extremely well-liked, well-recieved game. Perhaps there is SOMETHING there, some shred of goodness, that people can appreciate in it? lol... :)
"I sincerely hope that we can produce something considerably better than that joke of a game."
We CAN produce something better. But that is no reason to bash it. There is much that we can learn from halo, and a great deal of things that were done right in that game. Halo is a different type of game than those might succeed at Garage Games(it succeeds because of the quality and quantity of the art and the excellent execution of the design, not the because of originality), but that doesnt mean we cannot take something positive from it, as there is CLEARLY a considerable amount done right within that game.
03/15/2002 (12:26 pm)
Matt Webster:(Note: Not a personal attack in any way)
Halo was a GOOD, ENJOYABLE game, and literally 100,000 of thousands of people agree with me about that. It was almost undeniably better than any other normal FPS game, if you compare them objectively (and wihthout factoring the dates of release).
Let's take this arguement apart piece by piece:
"uh, if there's one game we can easily reproduce it's Halo."
Wrong. The man hours required to create Halo are more than any indie team will ever have for the foreseeable future.
"Take Quake, add vehicles... and make crummy maps."
Agreed, SOME maps are SLIGHTLY repetitive. However, on a whole, the map design (as well as the multiplayer maps) are extremely well designed. There is a story. Quake had no story. The sound is superb. Quake's sound was terrible. The attention to detail in halo is amazing (bodies correctly laying on rocks after explosions, the physics, the graphics, the save system, etc). The AI is astoudning. It is almost reason enough to love the game without anything else in it. Everything about the game is of the highest quality ever seen.
"That game is nothing we should even speak about when referring to game design."
Halo == Game. Games == Are Designed. Not only is it a game, it is an extremely well-liked, well-recieved game. Perhaps there is SOMETHING there, some shred of goodness, that people can appreciate in it? lol... :)
"I sincerely hope that we can produce something considerably better than that joke of a game."
We CAN produce something better. But that is no reason to bash it. There is much that we can learn from halo, and a great deal of things that were done right in that game. Halo is a different type of game than those might succeed at Garage Games(it succeeds because of the quality and quantity of the art and the excellent execution of the design, not the because of originality), but that doesnt mean we cannot take something positive from it, as there is CLEARLY a considerable amount done right within that game.
#20
Guns, weak story, lotsa monsters, low framerate, minority of levels don't suck, vehicles.
There we go.
Now what exactly made it so great? I still laugh when I see a game site give it over 80%. It's like Serious Sam... I thought we evolved (as game developers) past this once the Quake 2 came out?
With an engine given to us, and some skilled workers we can easily surpass Halo. Why? Because Halo is not something to set as a standard. It was Quake with Vehicles. A nice break from using your brain, but nothing new at all.
Did you work for Bungie or something? Cause you seem to feel the need to defend this game against critics.
I didn't like it, and I don't see any "notable" reason to like it. I despised Shenmue (for Sega Dreamcast, most expensive to make game ever) but I saw the reason it was rated so high. Masterpiece of artwork with music and graphical detail. Halo is just another Duke Nukem is just another Serious Sam is just another Quake.
Or am I just missing something? What made it so good, and what exactly did it have that an independantly developed game wouldn't be able to do?
03/15/2002 (1:30 pm)
What is Halo?Guns, weak story, lotsa monsters, low framerate, minority of levels don't suck, vehicles.
There we go.
Now what exactly made it so great? I still laugh when I see a game site give it over 80%. It's like Serious Sam... I thought we evolved (as game developers) past this once the Quake 2 came out?
With an engine given to us, and some skilled workers we can easily surpass Halo. Why? Because Halo is not something to set as a standard. It was Quake with Vehicles. A nice break from using your brain, but nothing new at all.
Did you work for Bungie or something? Cause you seem to feel the need to defend this game against critics.
I didn't like it, and I don't see any "notable" reason to like it. I despised Shenmue (for Sega Dreamcast, most expensive to make game ever) but I saw the reason it was rated so high. Masterpiece of artwork with music and graphical detail. Halo is just another Duke Nukem is just another Serious Sam is just another Quake.
Or am I just missing something? What made it so good, and what exactly did it have that an independantly developed game wouldn't be able to do?
Torque Owner SR
If you can't play by their rules, make new ones!
Scott