Game design has stagnated. Ideas are cheap, so why do...

#1 The other issue about not seeing original ideas, on this board in particular, is due to the fact that the developers maybe keeping the game under wraps. I know that if I was working on something truly unique, I wouldn't make a peep about it until a demo was ready. Even then, it may not become public knowledge until a couple of weeks prior to release.

An FPS game is an FPS game and really doesn't need to be protected, a unique game design is a whole different story.

#2 Ideas are cheap, but that has nothing to do with stagnant game design.

Ideas are cheap, but you can turn them into something of value if the idea is a good idea and someone follows it through to its conclusion and actually finishes something.

Stagnant game design is due to the fact that many of the game developers that are actually doing something aren't necessarily using new ideas.

Stagnant game design also isn't completely caused by game developers. Games based on completely new ideas are quite often difficult to pick up and play.

Quote:
The reason we don't see many original ideas coming off of this board is probably as simple as monkey see monkey do, following in the footsteps of the risk-less publishers in the industry which if you're all about the money isn't a bad idea at all.

The reason you don't see many original ideas coming off this board is because most of the ideas you see posted here are coming from inexperienced game designers that have never gotten beyond game design, much less finished a game.

The few game designers that frequent these boards that are skilled and/or experienced are generally already working on a project and not posting their game ideas here.

#3 True.

#4 It's definitely an issue of great concern to me, because the kind of games that I plan to create are utterly unproven. Taking a concept like mine to a publisher, then trying to convince them that my game would be profitable would be... difficult. I think people would find my design quite fascinating, but they'd have trouble deciding what to make of it. It'd either need to get a lot of hype, or have an aggressive marketing campaign behind it, for people to understand what exactly it's about. Which means not only would my project be a risk, it'd be a risk that would consume a lot of resources.

If I didn't believe in the omnipotence of God, I would have given up on this a long time ago.

#5 Hi all!

The Scratchware manifesto is a must-look for all interested in the problem. IMHO. They may be taking things a bit too seriously but anyway...

#6 When I first started playing Morrowind I was like: "What the hell is this?". Then as I progressed it just got better and better. It definitely was a new way to play a turn based game. Most turn based games are pretty linear, but Morrowind showed a new way to do it. My friends son however played for a while and then moved on. Either it was too slow paced for his FPS mentality or he just got bored with it or both. I was suprised by this since he had played games like Black and White and other cerebral games. Maybe the graphics were too crappy. Who knows?

Maybe things are not changing because the next generation of gamers are becoming adrenaline junkies?

#7

Quote:Maybe things are not changing because the next generation of gamers are becoming adrenaline junkies?

And you call it things are not changing?! And can't one have a hell of adrenaline playing XCOM?

Anyway, to me it seems that both gamers and developers are influencing each other and, for the time being, both toward the worse... A kind of positive feedback.

#8

Quote:We have to speak in numbers by purchasing those rare gems to show publishers what we want.

I am right there with you on this. I feel like when I purchase a game it is like a vote, telling the market what I like. Take for example a game like Okami for the PS2. I think it is original, innovative, and an all around good game. I purchase it to help support innovation.

When I think about it, however, it seems there is inherently a problem with this. The problem is that the market probably does not see it as a vote for innovation but a vote for games featuring wolves, cell-shaded graphics, and a paintbrush style play mechanic. So instead of getting more innovative games I end up with a bunch of Okami copycats.

I don't know I could be wrong. I m definitely not going to stop purchasing innovative games by any means. At the same time I can see how a lot of gamers out there are hesitant to drop $50 to $60 on something that is not tried and tested. It just seems like there is no good way to show that original ideas are profitable.

I do think services that help distribute demos to a mass audience can help (assuming you have the resources and the man power to create the demo on your own). Once the title is out there and has a lot of buzz behind it I think it is much easier for a publisher to swallow. I am especially excited about the possibilities of Xbox live and XNA based games.

As far as original ideas on this board, I kind of agree with Jon Jorajuria. I might have a few ideas on some really original games, but I wouldn't want to throw them out there for someone else to rip-off.

#9 What is XCOM?

What I probably did not explain was that Morrowind is a game that is very calming and unless you are trying something really hard at a really low level then there is not much of a adrenaline rush. That is probably why my friends kid does not play it anymore. He is looking for the quick fix. It seems like the more popular (most made) games tend to be FPSs that tend to spike the adrenaline rush. The change I was referring to was the selection of video games. Not the gamers.

#10 X-COM: UFO Defense was the best selling computer game of 1995
More Info
Click Here

referring copycats:

That's the normal way of the Market. If something has good sold companies make variations of it...
If we would buy more innovative titles, the companies would eliminate the products not sold (see Lucasarts and Sierras Point and Click Adventures) and concentrate
more on the demand of the gamers. That's how they do it.
I don't say Okami is a bad game! It's art and presentation are great and its a wonderfull game. But it's nothing new...

When it comes to game designers; they can make variations of existing games, that's what happens all the times; Sequels, Re launches and Variations of the same gameplay, packed in a new graphics engine, shinier and bigger, than ever before.
They can Mix up genres and make "RPG-Racing Games", "MMOG-Jump and Run Games", "FPS Puzzle Games"...
But what about innovation?
The game genres are well defined... can we find a new one or will it just be a variation of an existing one?


referring piracy:

I don't think that this is a real problem.
The Marketing Guys make it look like it is a big one, because they think, if piracy would be impossible
they would sell more. But these numbers of pirated games and loss of profit are abstract.
They do not consider the personalities behind the piracy!
Look at those classical pirates! Do they pirate the game to play it? No I don't think so.
They do it just to tell their friends "Hey N00b look I have Half Life 2 and you not. Me rulez. I was the first, and the official launch is in one week LOL!" - "Man you rule!"
Or just to add another copy to their massive collections of games (that they have never played)?
"Look man I have all RPG's for the PSX and PS2" - "Wow, cool! Did you played them all?"
"Ahh... nope." - "I see."
If piracy would be impossible, neither Roxxor nor Collector would buy them.
Roxxor would not get the money from mommy and Collector would shift to stamps or collect butterflies.

#11 X-COM features great artwork and design, which, coupled with a good gameplay, results in a unique, unforgettable atmosphere of the game. It's a turn-based tactics on squad level, by the way.

As education is what remains after everithing has been forgotten, a game's atmosphere is that which remains after details have escaped your memory. The true spirit (in alchemical sense) of the game, I'd say. A majority of modern games have no spirit.

Quote:The game genres are well defined... can we find a new one or will it just be a variation of an existing one?

I don't agree. There are only 26 letters in English and yet excellent prose appears sometimes. The genres of fiction (books, movies...) are well defined also...

This division into genres... is like to divide the whole infinite universe into eight octants and say: hey! the structure of the universe is very simple — it consists of only eight parts, forgetting that each part is "vast and infinite" and of an infinitely complicated structure.

No doubt, this stagnation and degradation are due to the nature of capitalism with its market economy and due to the so-called popular culture the tastes whereof capitalists have to prefer to those of the minority for their purpose is profit and only profit. The development of computer games does not impose tighter limitations onto the ways of expression than any other art, be it painting or writing.

A lot of pure artisis (I mean various arts here including natural ones (science)) have died in povetry because nobody was interested in their works.

#12 That is a very good perspective, Anton. I also dislike the genre-izing people are so quick to do with today's games. When I talk about games, the only time I reference genre is when I am trying to either be very broad about what a game is about ("I would say Oblivion is one of the best RPGs for any of the current systems") or when I am so disappointed by a game, I don't feel the need to elaborate on its key selling-points ("Yeah, Gears of War is a typical shooter"). I think that a great game design works to embody the idea of what it was to be in the first thought that gave it life. If you are trying to make a realistic game, maybe a first person perspective is good to use. But it isn't good to allow your design to fall into the typical first-person convention rut.

I also agree with the idea of the 'spirit' of the games. When I was first playing DOOM, I was experiencing something I had never conceived of before. But now, that experience seems to be lost amongst the various "KILL EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T YOU!!!" games that we see so much of now. Morrowind and Oblivion are a breath of fresh air to the RPG genre in my opinion, being a pen'n'paper gamer before I got into video games. Though their concepts aren't entirely original, they are presented in a clean, simple manner that allows me to get on with enjoying the game, while still knowing that it is my actions that shape the character that I am becoming.

But before I start going in circles (as I undoubtedly will), I will end here, saying that the key to great game design is to bring an experience that, even if it isn't the first time a person's felt it, feels fresh and lets gamers know that they are still alive, that the mass of soulless games out there haven't turned them into zombie consumers.

#13 Why is it bad to divide games into genres?
Every art form is divided into categories, why should games be diffferent?
It lies in our nature to give "things" names, and even the vast and infinite universe has rules and definitions.

#14 Gareth Hewes: Fully agree.

Kristian Ljubek: "Why is it bad to divide games into genres?"

It's in no way bad. But it IS bad to derive such conclusions therefrom:
"The game genres are well defined... can we find a new one or will it just be a variation of an existing one?"

Kristian Ljubek: "Every art form is divided into categories, why should games be diffferent?"

This is an artificial division and cannot be used when talking of the nature of an art.

Kristian Ljubek: "It lies in our nature to give "things" names, and..."

Yes. And it has proved very useful.

Kristian Ljubek: "...even the vast and infinite universe has rules and definitions."

No! It's we that can create rules and definitions describing the nature (more or less correctly), but the universe itself does not use Newton's and Lomonosov's laws to calcultae its own behaviour.

The point is, if we impose a classification onto something we should remember it's just a classification.

#15 It's in no way bad. But it IS bad to derive such conclusions therefrom:
"The game genres are well defined... can we find a new one or will it just be a variation of an existing one?"

//That was actually a question not a conclusion...

"This is an artificial division and cannot be used when talking of the nature of an art."

//So how do you actually describe the nature of a game?

"No! It's we that can create rules and definitions describing the nature (more or less correctly),
but the universe itself does not use Newton's and Lomonosov's laws to calculate its own behavior."

//Of course the universe does not use this laws to calculate its own behavior!
//I'm talking from the viewpoint of a human (I'm not the Silver Surfer or Galactus ;) ).

#16 Kristian Ljubek: "That was actually a question not a conclusion..."

I thought you implied the conclusion that, as new games were developed, it got more and more difficult to create something different from what had been done before. That is, in 1990s it was easier to create excellent and purely innovative games than now. Did you mean it or not?

Kristian Ljubek: "So how do you actually describe the nature of a game?"

By the game itself. Just like the best specification of an algorithm is the algorithm itself...

For example, the classification of cars by body colour is useless with regard to car design and quality. A black car or white one, the colour tells nothing about the car's being good or not, about its features and design.

Kristian Ljubek: "Of course the universe does not use this laws to calculate its own behavior! I'm talking from the viewpoint of a human (I'm not the Silver Surfer or Galactus ;)"

If you mean that man uses some "laws" and classifications to describe the world, all right, that's correct. But you mustn't fall into the error that these "laws", formulas and classifications really belong to the the objects they describe. No, they don't. They're just models in our minds and exist only within our brain.

All right, the above is sort of philosophic and assumes objectivism and (maybe) even materialism.

In this regard, Einstein's relativity theory is fully idealistic for it's based on abstaract math. Einstein called
dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 +(c(dt))^2
an invariant and built his theory thereon.

#17 No I never ment new games, I'm talking about game-genres.
I must admit when talking about innovation it depends on how it is defined... and maybe my point of view is rude. I think that taking already existing game mechanics and mixing them up is creative, but it doesn't seem innovative to me. When I talk about innovation i mean to create something completely new and not a combination or a variation of something.
Let me explain what I mean:

When you strip a game of all leaving only the game play mechanics in form of a prototype you have the...
let me call it the "flesh" of the game. In this purest form, the game will reveal its origin.

Let's take this example: We have a game that is about resource management.
You have to manage a base, recruit scientists, engineers and soldiers.
Do research, buy equipment, pay bills, get paid for good work and so on.
And then there is a part, where you manage a squad of soldiers in an isometric view area.

Sounds quite familiar.
What we have here is a Simulation and a Strategy game and therefore a combination of two existing genres.

So someone could say, "Hey I know that game, that's X-COM" but another one would say "No man, That's Syndicate". It applies on both games, and both of them are great in their own way. Adding graphics, story, sound and so on, gives these games their "souls" or their "je ne sais quoi"!

But after all, these two games are variations of the same combination.
This was back in the 90s so lets take a look at some new games:

Okami - Action/Adventure
Oblivion - First Person/RPG
ICO - Action/Platformer
Shadow of Colossus - Action/Platformer

etc. (Please do not misunderstand me, all these games are excellent)

And that's what I ment with asking:
"The game genres are well defined... can we find a new one or will it just be a variation of an existing one?"

#18 Personally, I think that one isn't wrong to divide into genres, I am more against the genre defining the game than the game defining the genre. When I think of a game I want to make, I don't think, "I want to make an isometric strategy/simulation," I think, "I want to make the player feel like they are really a general in charge of the army." This may lend itself well to an overhead format, or maybe a different one.

That's the way I feel. The game should be thought out, the story laid down, the concepts made, before you decide how best to execute it. My personal favorite format is first person, simply because you feel more a part of it (for example, games like Warcraft and Starcraft always left me feeling like some deity (sans miraculous powers) than a military leader). But if I decided a game I wanted to make is not well suited for first person, then it should be made how it will come out best as a whole.

I don't even necessarily think that using the current defined genres is a bad thing per se, as nobody has yet perfected ANY genre in my opinion. The MMORPG may leave a bad taste in the mouths of some (myself included), but that isn't because it is a bad concept, it is just a field that happens to be abundant in bad concepts. I believe that you should only make a game that will improve the genre, bring something new, and help people find out why they started playing those types of games in the first place.

The biggest thing in making games is, let yourself be inspired, but not influenced. Don't decide, I want to make a game like Oblivion because I liked Oblivion; in that case, you will likely be setting yourself up for disappointment. Instead, think about what it was that made Oblivion an EXPERIENCE, not just a game.

On that note, I had better get going because I've been up a long time and I am probably making little sense.

#19 Kristian

Well, I see two loosely connected parts in your argumentation.

The first one is where you divide a game into "flesh" and "soul". I can't agree that "flesh" is the game mechanics and "soul" is GFX, sound... — everything created by artists rather than programmers.

I don't know what a game's soul is. Therefore I have to assume that any slightest detail of the game, be it GFX or game mechanics, contributes to this soul (or to the lack thereof — in case of a badly designed game).

Then you say it's not innovative to use mechanics derived from an existing game (games). I would have agreed with that if you hadn't then cited the example wherein you gave a superficial description that is equally applicable to X-COM and Syndicate:

You have to manage a base, recruit scientists, engineers and soldiers. Do research, buy equipment, pay bills, get paid for good work and so on.
And then there is a part, where you manage a squad of soldiers in an isometric view area.

But, hey, that has nothing to do with game mechanics, which is totally different in X-COM and Syndicate. X-COM is turn-based whereas Syndicate is realtime. The games have nothing common as regards gameplay. They are not even of the same genre: tactical turn-based and tactical real-time.

I'd say that it's rather Jagged Alliance and X-COM that have a similar (yet far from being equal) game mechanics. But I still can't say one of them is not innovative.

With a similar success you could have given the following description: a game where you have to kill enemies; and then have said that the majority of computer games are not innovative...

So I'll conclude that genres are in no way correlated with game mechanics.

Do you mean that an innovative game can neither belong to an existing genre nor be a combination thereof? In this case only the first game of each genre can be innovative... But, Dune-II wasn't the first RTS (I remember playing Nether Earth on ZX Spectrum's clone called Pentagon), yet I find it innovative and establishing the tradition of its genre.

I see it this way. When I start a game and, after a certain time of playing, I think to myself: "Yeah, it's just the same as X, only GFX are different" — then it's not innovative, irregardless of which genre it is and what it's game mechanics are. And when I find the gameplay unique and not resembling that of another game I consider this game innovative (though I could have missed the game it's based on).

Hereunder I'd like to give a few examples innovative games:

Puzzle/Logic: Armadillo, Pontifex
Fighting: Ragdoll Masters, 4D Boxing, One Must Fall 2097
Arcade: Zatacka, Rocketz
RTS: Liquid Wars (or is it arcade?), Lords of the Realm
Adventure: Alone in the Dark - I (or is it not an adventure?), Project Journeyman, The Neverhood...
Racing: Ignition
TBS: Steel Pathers, King's Bounty (Heroes of M&M is just a clone)
...

Gareth

Personally, I think that one isn't wrong to divide into genres...

Agree. I just don't think genres can be used to define whether it is innovative ot not. Genres themselves are a good thing. If one likes turn-based strategies, why not? The genre bears superficial yet useful information.

I am more against the genre defining the game than the game defining the genre. When I think of a game I want to make, I don't think, "I want to make an isometric strategy/simulation," I think, "I want to make the player feel like they are really a general in charge of the army."

That's interesting. Though, when thinking of a game I try to imagine how it will look like for the first and only thereafter lay down purposes like that... I am not a game designer though...

To me, the genre undoubtedly should not define the game but... how to say that... it should be defined first nevertheless for it defines not the game but only some high-level properties thereof and, once you begin thinking of a game, it's genre comes by itself (unless you deliberately avoid thinking of things whereupon depends the genre). I mean, God save the designer from sticking to a system traditional for the games of the genre chosen, but the genre itself do not impose serious limitations. (Zed is no way similar to Warcraft...)

...games like Warcraft and Starcraft always left me feeling like some deity (sans miraculous powers) than a military leader).

I don't like either of this games but, as to the top/isometric view, I don't feel neither like a real commander nor like a deity. Playing a good game of such type makes me... abstract from myself and be concentrated on and involved into the external rather than the internal. The so-called atmosphere, the spirit of the game, is responsible for this... immersion of the player into game.

As for FPS, yes, I am pretty sure that therein the immersion should result into the player's feeling like the real personage, abstracting from himself sitting in front of his PC.

The biggest thing in making games is, let yourself be inspired, but not influenced. Don't decide, I want to make a game like Oblivion because I liked Oblivion; in that case, you will likely be setting yourself up for disappointment. Instead, think about what it was that made Oblivion an EXPERIENCE, not just a game.

Hmmmm. I incline to your being correct here, however:

I like X-COM very much and know several fundamental drawbacks of its game mechanics. I have an idea of how to implement some drastic improvement to it keeping the game within the general frame of turn-based tactics and retaining the hot-seat possible (that is, keeping it pure turn-based). I could have said the same about Jagged Alliance but...

Although my idea is just mechanics for a tactical turn-based game on a level similar to that of X-COM, JA, Deadline, Laser Squad and Payback Time, yeah, it was X-COM that inspired it! So, I can't help thinking of it as if I were improving X-COM, not just an abstract TBT. Maybe that's bad (influenced not inspired?)...

Are these phrases in the end of your posts a smart way to humbly emohasize your modesty ;)

But before I start going in circles (as I undoubtedly will), I will end here...

On that note, I had better get going because I've been up a long time and I am probably making little sense.

P.S.: Sorry for my English.

#20 Genres are simply labels to give a common reference point. Unfortunately, these labels get reified and turn into holy war issues (for example, the debate over whether Zelda is a RPG among gamers).

In terms of "flesh" and "soul" of a game, I think creating a totalizing view is extremely limiting and this totalizing process is what leads to the creation of holy war issues.

To use the flesh and soul analogy, the code that you see and read and write, the art that you create over painstaking days and weeks. That is flesh. It is simply an asset or a routine.

The soul is the artistic style, the gameplay mechanics that the code creates. Programmers can create art with a devilishly efficient algorithm just as an artist can create thirty textures that when placed in conjunction make the character pop in a way that the writing and dialogue cannot.

If you have played a bad game, say the Sabrina the Teenage Witch game or Rascal for the Playstation, then you can understand the flesh. It is an action-platformer with a popular franchise (at the time). But underneath there was no soul to the game. There were hints at one. The level design was consistent and pleasant but the gameplay never realized the environments. There was a hint of soul, but it was ultimately a fleshy experience that waned quickly.

Because we are visually-oriented, it is easier to see the soul or to hear the soul than to feel it (which is a gameplay mechanic).

Just my own inane thoughts on that analogy.