Mainstream, niche, and controversy [WARNING: opinions contained
by Paul Rogers · in General Discussion · 05/26/2002 (5:54 pm) · 10 replies
[begin rant]
Half Life is an excellent example of game design execution. Yet its X-Files Jr. story is cliched (they paid someone to write it!?) and the fruity, inconsistant color scheme disturbs me.
[end rant]
Hopefully I've managed to upset the forum-flamers and so enrage them that the actual point of this post will only be read by those who may appreciate it.
The Sims is a mainstream game, its clever and sells quite well for a number of reasons. Although Sims has some controversial elements, such as nudity (if partially censored), homosexuality, sexual overtones, and mods featuring content far beyond the box's rating (violent, sexual and otherwise). Will I ever purchase the game? No. Is it because of one of these elements? Perhaps.
We are consumers, we make decisions, and even with a game that is perfectly marketed, executed, and distributed many potential consumers may shrug and walk away. It doesn't take much, a screen shot, a warning label, a report on CNN, a shotgun blast transforming a flashing stripper into simulated bloody chunks, consumers can be easily put off. For every controversy there is a potential niche, and given the fact that the gaming market is dominated by teenage males, it may be a profitable niche. Maybe this is why gaming is not considered mainstream, not for grandpa, not for the women, not for the folks.
Electronic Games are fun, a great way to get a tan, a complete waste of time, provocative, boring, exciting, simple, complex, a corruptor of the young, a benefit to childrens hand-eye coordination, an educational device, a tool, and a weapon. If only there were more completely different ones.
No more RPG's please, no more shooters, take away the adventures, the cinematics, the scripting, the simulators, third person cameras, the virtual board games (*cough* strategy, real time or turn based *cough*), and think about creating something fun from a new perspective (that is mental perspective). Who knows, maybe it'll sell.
Half Life is an excellent example of game design execution. Yet its X-Files Jr. story is cliched (they paid someone to write it!?) and the fruity, inconsistant color scheme disturbs me.
[end rant]
Hopefully I've managed to upset the forum-flamers and so enrage them that the actual point of this post will only be read by those who may appreciate it.
The Sims is a mainstream game, its clever and sells quite well for a number of reasons. Although Sims has some controversial elements, such as nudity (if partially censored), homosexuality, sexual overtones, and mods featuring content far beyond the box's rating (violent, sexual and otherwise). Will I ever purchase the game? No. Is it because of one of these elements? Perhaps.
We are consumers, we make decisions, and even with a game that is perfectly marketed, executed, and distributed many potential consumers may shrug and walk away. It doesn't take much, a screen shot, a warning label, a report on CNN, a shotgun blast transforming a flashing stripper into simulated bloody chunks, consumers can be easily put off. For every controversy there is a potential niche, and given the fact that the gaming market is dominated by teenage males, it may be a profitable niche. Maybe this is why gaming is not considered mainstream, not for grandpa, not for the women, not for the folks.
Electronic Games are fun, a great way to get a tan, a complete waste of time, provocative, boring, exciting, simple, complex, a corruptor of the young, a benefit to childrens hand-eye coordination, an educational device, a tool, and a weapon. If only there were more completely different ones.
No more RPG's please, no more shooters, take away the adventures, the cinematics, the scripting, the simulators, third person cameras, the virtual board games (*cough* strategy, real time or turn based *cough*), and think about creating something fun from a new perspective (that is mental perspective). Who knows, maybe it'll sell.
#2
True innovation pushes the market, challenges everyone. Duke Nukem 3D did this some time ago, and with lesser technology it changed shooters forever. Quake was a great technical feat though one could argue that all it has done would have been done by someone eventually. Networked, 3D, fast paced, first person shooter games were inevitable.
I don't know about you but the number of games I've played until the end in recent years is well under ten. So many of them feel the same, RPG's are all stat intense and shooters are still bragging about offering feature X, Y, Z. Only now, in 2002, can I look down and see my feet in a first person game, and only when watching Doom3 or using a special command in Tribes 2 (though it doesn't look very graceful when whole legs are swallowed by an incline). Localized damage is also invisible when looking at one's body, the feature is generally only tracked for the head and wounds rarely seriously effect gameplay (in shooters). RTS games were fun when they were new, but after you've seen one tank heirarchy, used a few gadgets, and gathered piles of element X, you'll realize its a stale market. For games about war and battle there are no politics or intrigue, not even basic formations and the 'AI' requires gobs of micro management. Then there are space sims...
05/26/2002 (9:27 pm)
Casual consumers will buy anything on the shelf with a brand or recognized name. Just because things sell doesn't mean there is little or no room for improvement. And no one blames the big companies for turning out the same franchises, themes, and slightly improved implimentations of the various genres. But as independent developers we have no excuse, and the same is true for mod authors. Counter Strike may be a commercial success but its hardly any more innovative (in its time) than Rainbow Six. If anything CS is actually a rehash of R6 multiplayer and its only truly shining achivement is execution. Now there are hundreds of CS clone mods, do any of them stand a serious chance of standing out in the now saturated SWAT-sim market?True innovation pushes the market, challenges everyone. Duke Nukem 3D did this some time ago, and with lesser technology it changed shooters forever. Quake was a great technical feat though one could argue that all it has done would have been done by someone eventually. Networked, 3D, fast paced, first person shooter games were inevitable.
I don't know about you but the number of games I've played until the end in recent years is well under ten. So many of them feel the same, RPG's are all stat intense and shooters are still bragging about offering feature X, Y, Z. Only now, in 2002, can I look down and see my feet in a first person game, and only when watching Doom3 or using a special command in Tribes 2 (though it doesn't look very graceful when whole legs are swallowed by an incline). Localized damage is also invisible when looking at one's body, the feature is generally only tracked for the head and wounds rarely seriously effect gameplay (in shooters). RTS games were fun when they were new, but after you've seen one tank heirarchy, used a few gadgets, and gathered piles of element X, you'll realize its a stale market. For games about war and battle there are no politics or intrigue, not even basic formations and the 'AI' requires gobs of micro management. Then there are space sims...
#3
Nobody is innovative and nobody is original, we just have the illusion that they are. You can take anything and disect it down its family tree, tracing it to its roots. I doubt that anyone who makes a game we label as original or innovative had the "This is going to be soooo innovative" idea in their head. We've gone everywhere and back, and all we have left is to reinvent the wheel, over and over and over.
Does not being "original" or "innovative" make a game any less fun? No. Gameplay determines fun, not innovation. No matter how "different" or "original" your game is, if the fun or replay value isn't there, who cares?
I bet you any one of the creators of any of the songs, movies, games, etc. that we've labeled "original" and "ground breaking" can tell you where they got the idea or influence from. It's all a matter of taking a bit of this, a pinch of that, and putting it all together with your own special touch.
Let's take two games and disect them...I'll start with a few new and old favorites:
Morrowind: Broken down...create a character, run around fighting monsters and completing missions to build and further the character. The gameplay...I can spend hours and hours dungeon crawling, stealing gold, fighting baddies, and completing missions for my guildmaster without flinching. This is a VERY fun and VERY addicting game. Is it very innovative? As a casual RPG fan, I can't say, cause I hadn't played the previous Elder Scrolls games, nor have I played D&D.
Half-Life: Broken down...run around following the story, killing aliens along the way. The gameplay...best FPS ever. Great story, mind blowing AI, and good graphics at the time. It did what other FPS's haven't done: give you more to do than run, gun, find the exit. It put a killer story behind it to round out the fun...replay value? Definitely. If there's ever a lull in the gaming industry with a lack of games to play, I'd definitely play it again.
Innovative? Original? You be the judge...but who really is original anymore? Not many people, especially in the entertainment industry as a whole. If you really want to be picky and cynical, you could say that we've been playing the same game, reading the same book, and watching the same movie ever since they began. If you have better things to do with your time, you'd realize that the games you've been playing are fun and addicting, the books you've been reading were well written, the movie you just saw was very entertaining.
05/26/2002 (10:48 pm)
God, how many more threads are we going to see about innovation and originality, etc.? Seriously, there's at least one new one every day...it's almost funny, the number of posts about originality we get every day...does anyone see the hipocracy? Anyhow...Nobody is innovative and nobody is original, we just have the illusion that they are. You can take anything and disect it down its family tree, tracing it to its roots. I doubt that anyone who makes a game we label as original or innovative had the "This is going to be soooo innovative" idea in their head. We've gone everywhere and back, and all we have left is to reinvent the wheel, over and over and over.
Does not being "original" or "innovative" make a game any less fun? No. Gameplay determines fun, not innovation. No matter how "different" or "original" your game is, if the fun or replay value isn't there, who cares?
I bet you any one of the creators of any of the songs, movies, games, etc. that we've labeled "original" and "ground breaking" can tell you where they got the idea or influence from. It's all a matter of taking a bit of this, a pinch of that, and putting it all together with your own special touch.
Let's take two games and disect them...I'll start with a few new and old favorites:
Morrowind: Broken down...create a character, run around fighting monsters and completing missions to build and further the character. The gameplay...I can spend hours and hours dungeon crawling, stealing gold, fighting baddies, and completing missions for my guildmaster without flinching. This is a VERY fun and VERY addicting game. Is it very innovative? As a casual RPG fan, I can't say, cause I hadn't played the previous Elder Scrolls games, nor have I played D&D.
Half-Life: Broken down...run around following the story, killing aliens along the way. The gameplay...best FPS ever. Great story, mind blowing AI, and good graphics at the time. It did what other FPS's haven't done: give you more to do than run, gun, find the exit. It put a killer story behind it to round out the fun...replay value? Definitely. If there's ever a lull in the gaming industry with a lack of games to play, I'd definitely play it again.
Innovative? Original? You be the judge...but who really is original anymore? Not many people, especially in the entertainment industry as a whole. If you really want to be picky and cynical, you could say that we've been playing the same game, reading the same book, and watching the same movie ever since they began. If you have better things to do with your time, you'd realize that the games you've been playing are fun and addicting, the books you've been reading were well written, the movie you just saw was very entertaining.
#4
If all the people who spend so much time complaing about lack of originality in games (and I do agree that there isn't much new under the sun) trying to create and develop games we'd probably have more original games!
05/27/2002 (4:54 am)
You know something. If all the people who spend so much time complaing about lack of originality in games (and I do agree that there isn't much new under the sun) trying to create and develop games we'd probably have more original games!
#5
SO Paul please tell us Why we care?
05/27/2002 (6:05 am)
Sounds like Paul is a bad gamer. I have found that when a person is really bad at a game they tend to blame the game for this reason or that reason. Hey he wanted flamers! Roger seems like he has tried all the games ever made and still dislikes them, hmmmmmm maybe video games just aren't your cup o' tea. I have played games since my before my PC jr. and yes each time a game came up with a new innovation I thought it was great, cause it was. I find most ppl expect real life in a video game and well that just isn't the purpose it is entertainment. Games are a WHOLE lot of work, Paul have you MADE a game? are you MAKING a game? Why should I even care about your opinon. Um Duke Nukem 3d changed shooters forever I don't know about that in my mind the FPS epic goes Wolfenstien-Doom-Quake-Unreal-Quake3-Tribes. . . .now those games changed the way we played, aside from having co-operative missions on n64 Duke Nukem always seemed like a Doom rip off to me.By the way what are you talking about the Quote:"Tribes 2 (though it doesn't look very graceful when whole legs are swallowed by an incline)"My guess is that Tribes 2 is another game you played 5 min got Mid Aired 20 times and gave up on, eh?
SO Paul please tell us Why we care?
#6
05/27/2002 (6:31 am)
There are a finite number of ideas, it all depends on the style you bring to them. Die hard as opposed to Under Siege or some other similar rubbish....
#7
Quality is an important part of a game success right? as success you must understand Im not talking about sold games Im simply saying the game turned out to be great fun for someone, thats what I call success.
So what is Quality? Quality: " Fullfill the expectations of the user of some product or service"
Let me remark that "what he/she expects" what can someone expect from a game he/she has never played?
answer: NO ONE knows!
You see quality is subjective, you have listened just about everywhere "quality is important, we offer quality products, our quality is extremely high" that is SALES TALK! quality is unmeasurable (at production time and with no prior products) and at the end, you are never sure quality what exactly was "expected"
Example: 2 people get a pie in the restaurant (is a good pie since it has good execution), one has never eat a pie /or is in a diet, the other comes from a full week pie eating contest.
User 1. Thinks the pie is delicious,
user 2. Think is garbage and empties the contents of his stomach at the table.
*What was the quality of the pie?
If your answer is> "???wtf?" you are RIGHT! you dont know! all you can do is to make sure your pie is good (with good execution) if someone likes it or not, somehow is not your problem, since you cant do nothing to make a people love something, is all about their psyche and basically you cant do much about that. (except to expend millions in an ad campaign designed for psychogical experts to devote masses to it, but thats outside the scope of this post)
ORIGINALITY or even INNOVATION
Are just like quality, what some one may believe is Innovative will be seem like a copy by someone else (and sometimes it will be) it depends on how well informed they are in the medium.
However let me stablish something here:
Innovation: is to add or create something new or relatively new, changing partially or completely an already made object/method or theory.
Originality: Is to create something ENTIRELY new, never seen before, thats why Is called ORIGINALITY because is the ORIGIN of something new!
As it is, its practically impossible to create something ORIGINAL in game making today, not only we are atachhed to a medium that is limited technologically in its common interfaces (monitor, keyboard,joystick mouse) but thats also limited as an artform as well, they are only a certain kind of games (or generes) that will be accepted by the common public without falling into the "bizarre" or plain out "boring" or "unplayable" and they all have been explored throughly by game developers for several years. (FPS, RTS, combat, strategy, RPG, puzzle, adventure, simulation, maze, racing, arcade, petting (tamagotchis) and even fishing and Dancing!)
Im not saying is completely impossible but is extremely difficult to come up with something new, even by attaching it to a genere.
However INNOVATION adding something relatively new to existing generes and gaming theories is not impossible specially thanks to technology ground breaking everyday, games that are done today were unthinkable to do a few years ago (I remember a friend of mine calling me crazy because I got interested in real time rendering when I was in school) exploring mixing, going out the tried and true formulas thats what innovation maybe all about. INNOVATION in our medium and as independent developers is important. ORIGINALITY is much, much more dificult to achieve.
Then we get into the same trouble, what is new? what has NEVER been done before? how does a tree sound when it crashes on the head of a small squirrell and no one hears/seens it? I have no idea.
Example:
Lets suppose we have user a and user b. User A is a recent PC gamer, user B has been playing throughly for 20 years. And you show them your game about a clown popping balloons(im trying to be simplistic here) in 3d stereo sound, multiplayer, etc.. (is a cool game to be honest)
User a. thinks is the coolest game ever, he thinks is pretty original since he has never played a clown or popped balloons in a game, etc.
User b. Thinks the game is crap(for some reason) and starts quoting you should be sued by puzzle bobble and pong and capcom and his grandma, and specially J.k. Harbuckler (some guy he claims made a pretty similar game back in the days of the C64.)
*What was the level of originality of your game?
*What what the level of innovation of your game?
May the torque be with you
p.s.
the SIMS is not an original game, but a mix of several sims like sim city and sim tower, taking control of individuals instead of companies or city services. Im not saying there was not a degree of difficulty and innovation in it but its not Original.
Extra ps. Where can I get those Sims mods you mentioned?
=)) !
05/27/2002 (9:34 am)
[sigh] Ok, this is the last time I say this, so please READQuality is an important part of a game success right? as success you must understand Im not talking about sold games Im simply saying the game turned out to be great fun for someone, thats what I call success.
So what is Quality? Quality: " Fullfill the expectations of the user of some product or service"
Let me remark that "what he/she expects" what can someone expect from a game he/she has never played?
answer: NO ONE knows!
You see quality is subjective, you have listened just about everywhere "quality is important, we offer quality products, our quality is extremely high" that is SALES TALK! quality is unmeasurable (at production time and with no prior products) and at the end, you are never sure quality what exactly was "expected"
Example: 2 people get a pie in the restaurant (is a good pie since it has good execution), one has never eat a pie /or is in a diet, the other comes from a full week pie eating contest.
User 1. Thinks the pie is delicious,
user 2. Think is garbage and empties the contents of his stomach at the table.
*What was the quality of the pie?
If your answer is> "???wtf?" you are RIGHT! you dont know! all you can do is to make sure your pie is good (with good execution) if someone likes it or not, somehow is not your problem, since you cant do nothing to make a people love something, is all about their psyche and basically you cant do much about that. (except to expend millions in an ad campaign designed for psychogical experts to devote masses to it, but thats outside the scope of this post)
ORIGINALITY or even INNOVATION
Are just like quality, what some one may believe is Innovative will be seem like a copy by someone else (and sometimes it will be) it depends on how well informed they are in the medium.
However let me stablish something here:
Innovation: is to add or create something new or relatively new, changing partially or completely an already made object/method or theory.
Originality: Is to create something ENTIRELY new, never seen before, thats why Is called ORIGINALITY because is the ORIGIN of something new!
As it is, its practically impossible to create something ORIGINAL in game making today, not only we are atachhed to a medium that is limited technologically in its common interfaces (monitor, keyboard,joystick mouse) but thats also limited as an artform as well, they are only a certain kind of games (or generes) that will be accepted by the common public without falling into the "bizarre" or plain out "boring" or "unplayable" and they all have been explored throughly by game developers for several years. (FPS, RTS, combat, strategy, RPG, puzzle, adventure, simulation, maze, racing, arcade, petting (tamagotchis) and even fishing and Dancing!)
Im not saying is completely impossible but is extremely difficult to come up with something new, even by attaching it to a genere.
However INNOVATION adding something relatively new to existing generes and gaming theories is not impossible specially thanks to technology ground breaking everyday, games that are done today were unthinkable to do a few years ago (I remember a friend of mine calling me crazy because I got interested in real time rendering when I was in school) exploring mixing, going out the tried and true formulas thats what innovation maybe all about. INNOVATION in our medium and as independent developers is important. ORIGINALITY is much, much more dificult to achieve.
Then we get into the same trouble, what is new? what has NEVER been done before? how does a tree sound when it crashes on the head of a small squirrell and no one hears/seens it? I have no idea.
Example:
Lets suppose we have user a and user b. User A is a recent PC gamer, user B has been playing throughly for 20 years. And you show them your game about a clown popping balloons(im trying to be simplistic here) in 3d stereo sound, multiplayer, etc.. (is a cool game to be honest)
User a. thinks is the coolest game ever, he thinks is pretty original since he has never played a clown or popped balloons in a game, etc.
User b. Thinks the game is crap(for some reason) and starts quoting you should be sued by puzzle bobble and pong and capcom and his grandma, and specially J.k. Harbuckler (some guy he claims made a pretty similar game back in the days of the C64.)
*What was the level of originality of your game?
*What what the level of innovation of your game?
May the torque be with you
p.s.
the SIMS is not an original game, but a mix of several sims like sim city and sim tower, taking control of individuals instead of companies or city services. Im not saying there was not a degree of difficulty and innovation in it but its not Original.
Extra ps. Where can I get those Sims mods you mentioned?
=)) !
#8
creativity doesn't have to mean all-new ideas, but at the very least a well laid-out plan.
but without execution there is nothing.
creativity however is an ongoing process. creativity can even apply to the code level, with coders who think of easier, optimized ways of doing stuff.
you can make creative shooters, or whole new gametypes. but if you're not trying out titles like The Sims because you think they have questionable morals, then maybe we should start you off with some therapy :P
05/29/2002 (1:00 pm)
ok, so like there's creativity, and then there's execution. both are as important.creativity doesn't have to mean all-new ideas, but at the very least a well laid-out plan.
but without execution there is nothing.
creativity however is an ongoing process. creativity can even apply to the code level, with coders who think of easier, optimized ways of doing stuff.
you can make creative shooters, or whole new gametypes. but if you're not trying out titles like The Sims because you think they have questionable morals, then maybe we should start you off with some therapy :P
#9
NIMRODclaims to be the "very first computer game".
SpaceWar by Steve Russell is generally recogonized at the first "video game" since NIMROD did not have a display.
while most people that were not born when Pong was released think IT was the first video game. Kids . . .
Anyway, for those of you not old enough to have actually played or remember the Magavox Odyssey the very first Consumer video game console that pre-dates the Atari-2600( I had the Odyssey 2 ) which was release after the 2600 and about the same time as the Intellivision.
Here are some good links so that you won't keep thinking that your awesome l33t game / gameplay concept is the least bit original, innovative or provocative!
Home Console Systems
Arcade Games
[ sarcasm ]
So after you have searched everyone one of these games, then tell me about how original you game is or is going to be! :) [/sarcasm ]
BTW: both these links are GREAT resources for ideas, as most of these games will never be seen again :(
05/29/2002 (1:21 pm)
every game points back to one of these gamesNIMRODclaims to be the "very first computer game".
SpaceWar by Steve Russell is generally recogonized at the first "video game" since NIMROD did not have a display.
while most people that were not born when Pong was released think IT was the first video game. Kids . . .
Anyway, for those of you not old enough to have actually played or remember the Magavox Odyssey the very first Consumer video game console that pre-dates the Atari-2600( I had the Odyssey 2 ) which was release after the 2600 and about the same time as the Intellivision.
Here are some good links so that you won't keep thinking that your awesome l33t game / gameplay concept is the least bit original, innovative or provocative!
Home Console Systems
Arcade Games
[ sarcasm ]
So after you have searched everyone one of these games, then tell me about how original you game is or is going to be! :) [/sarcasm ]
BTW: both these links are GREAT resources for ideas, as most of these games will never be seen again :(
#10
So what if all games are either shooters, puzzle games, racing games, adventure games, etc?
Complaining about that is like saying too many movies are comedies, dramas, action or musicals.
There's plenty of room within each of those genres to create vastly different experiences that
appeal to different audiences. I'm not saying the game industry is anywhere near perfect.
There are, for example, way too many team-based realistic first person shooters riding the
CounterStrike wave (though for the record I've been playing a lot of SOF2 Multiplayer and loving
it, so its not all bad...and I didn't even like CounterStrike)...but clamoring for each game to be a
whole new genre of its own is asking for too much..and its not really what people want. The vast
majority of people don't want things that are TOO creative. They like a new twist on something
familiar. This is as true in games as in music or movies or books...
05/29/2002 (2:49 pm)
I think the whole originality in games argument is overstated. If you look at virtually any form of entertainment: books, movies, songs; there's a very limited number of genres but a wide variety of different styles and executions. Why should games be any different?So what if all games are either shooters, puzzle games, racing games, adventure games, etc?
Complaining about that is like saying too many movies are comedies, dramas, action or musicals.
There's plenty of room within each of those genres to create vastly different experiences that
appeal to different audiences. I'm not saying the game industry is anywhere near perfect.
There are, for example, way too many team-based realistic first person shooters riding the
CounterStrike wave (though for the record I've been playing a lot of SOF2 Multiplayer and loving
it, so its not all bad...and I didn't even like CounterStrike)...but clamoring for each game to be a
whole new genre of its own is asking for too much..and its not really what people want. The vast
majority of people don't want things that are TOO creative. They like a new twist on something
familiar. This is as true in games as in music or movies or books...
Torque Owner Jason H.