Game design has stagnated. Ideas are cheap, so why do...
by Mitchell · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 12/23/2006 (11:28 am) · 29 replies
Game design has stagnated. Ideas are cheap, so why do we keep seeing the same games?
Is this question directed at the people on this board or it directed at the actual game industry? I'll try to answer both as best I can hopefully without mentioning pirates as much as possible.
I believe the reason we keep seeing so much of the same types of games (especially licensed Intellectual Property) is due to publisher risk. It's easier to sell an idea to a publisher if you have numbers to back up your proposal if you're trying to secure a deal (typically for advancement).
So it's easy to say "this game is like World of Warcraft and here are the sales numbers to prove that it's a great idea if you're not convinced yet how about we slap the Firefly IP on it and call it a day". Not only are you making it exactly like everything else that's making money but you're releasing it to an awareness group and this gives you numbers you can use to project sales and lower risk. (Speak of the devil http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72263-0.html)
It doesn't really work well if the pitch is "well our idea has never been done before it's an entirely new genre and it implements a new game play feature never seen before and we have no numbers to show this will work it's 50/50" as a publisher you are more interested in numbers than ideas.
Prey for example was sold only on the fact that there was already an awareness of the product, otherwise that game would not have seen the light of day and it's gone onto be pretty successful.
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. If your doing it for fun and to try to breath new life into something stale then as independent developers need to realize that they have the most freedom to explore original ideas since there's no money, schedule, market or even time constraints and that means you can start your fantasy by making your box art first.
Ok I'm sorry but I have to mention pirates, when a truly original game does come out, one that has beaten the odds of publisher attention everyone races for the .torrent files and newsgroups. They enjoy the game thoroughly but don't purchase a copy to support more games like it and then everyone wonders why everything has gotten stale or why there aren't any more good original games anymore. We have to speak in numbers by purchasing those rare gems to show publishers what we want. I could be wrong though.
Is this question directed at the people on this board or it directed at the actual game industry? I'll try to answer both as best I can hopefully without mentioning pirates as much as possible.
I believe the reason we keep seeing so much of the same types of games (especially licensed Intellectual Property) is due to publisher risk. It's easier to sell an idea to a publisher if you have numbers to back up your proposal if you're trying to secure a deal (typically for advancement).
So it's easy to say "this game is like World of Warcraft and here are the sales numbers to prove that it's a great idea if you're not convinced yet how about we slap the Firefly IP on it and call it a day". Not only are you making it exactly like everything else that's making money but you're releasing it to an awareness group and this gives you numbers you can use to project sales and lower risk. (Speak of the devil http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72263-0.html)
It doesn't really work well if the pitch is "well our idea has never been done before it's an entirely new genre and it implements a new game play feature never seen before and we have no numbers to show this will work it's 50/50" as a publisher you are more interested in numbers than ideas.
Prey for example was sold only on the fact that there was already an awareness of the product, otherwise that game would not have seen the light of day and it's gone onto be pretty successful.
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. If your doing it for fun and to try to breath new life into something stale then as independent developers need to realize that they have the most freedom to explore original ideas since there's no money, schedule, market or even time constraints and that means you can start your fantasy by making your box art first.
Ok I'm sorry but I have to mention pirates, when a truly original game does come out, one that has beaten the odds of publisher attention everyone races for the .torrent files and newsgroups. They enjoy the game thoroughly but don't purchase a copy to support more games like it and then everyone wonders why everything has gotten stale or why there aren't any more good original games anymore. We have to speak in numbers by purchasing those rare gems to show publishers what we want. I could be wrong though.
#22
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).
Indeed. Wherefore to fight if it's just a label? It would have been better if they just had explained which properties peculiar RPG Zelda possesses and which ones do not belong to the RPG genre...
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 me, the notion of the soul itself doesn't allow totalization for, in my opinion, soul is sort of immaterial and hard to define.
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.
So, I guess you agree with the herretical statement that the soul is a property of the flesh?
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).
80% of info through vision? Yes, but that's only true it the mathematical terms of informaton. When one listens to a radio play, provided the play is good and played good, he percieves information through hearing but in his mind imagination forms the feel as if he saw it.
Same goes to reading.
Antother problem is that, unlike movies and books, games allow for interaction with the computer. Interactivness is essential and distinctive part of games, so I guess "feeling", as you called the perception of game mechanincs, is very important.
Also there are text adventures, rogue-like and other text-mode games that create a great, utterly tangible atmosphere by means other than graphics and sound.
Thus, I think that the soul can't be nor seen neither heard -- only "felt", which is an indirect result of the player's seeing, hearing and, most inportant, interacting with the game.
No holy wars, just my considerations (thanks, Gareth, for the ending comment idea, very useful after delirium posts like mine ;)
Gareth
But some people may (as I understand it) practically 'see' screenshots in their head before they even start, and they are like, "this is how this game needs to be". Fascinating, really.
Except for the case when those are screenshots of the game thay have just played or looked at... Highly depends on the power of imagination.
I think a game with a good soul, as it were, is combining all of the elements to make a game a great experience.
Pretty much agree, but the problem is that soulless gamers consider soulless games a great experiance...
01/28/2007 (3:19 am)
David Blake: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).
Indeed. Wherefore to fight if it's just a label? It would have been better if they just had explained which properties peculiar RPG Zelda possesses and which ones do not belong to the RPG genre...
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 me, the notion of the soul itself doesn't allow totalization for, in my opinion, soul is sort of immaterial and hard to define.
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.
So, I guess you agree with the herretical statement that the soul is a property of the flesh?
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).
80% of info through vision? Yes, but that's only true it the mathematical terms of informaton. When one listens to a radio play, provided the play is good and played good, he percieves information through hearing but in his mind imagination forms the feel as if he saw it.
Same goes to reading.
Antother problem is that, unlike movies and books, games allow for interaction with the computer. Interactivness is essential and distinctive part of games, so I guess "feeling", as you called the perception of game mechanincs, is very important.
Also there are text adventures, rogue-like and other text-mode games that create a great, utterly tangible atmosphere by means other than graphics and sound.
Thus, I think that the soul can't be nor seen neither heard -- only "felt", which is an indirect result of the player's seeing, hearing and, most inportant, interacting with the game.
No holy wars, just my considerations (thanks, Gareth, for the ending comment idea, very useful after delirium posts like mine ;)
Gareth
But some people may (as I understand it) practically 'see' screenshots in their head before they even start, and they are like, "this is how this game needs to be". Fascinating, really.
Except for the case when those are screenshots of the game thay have just played or looked at... Highly depends on the power of imagination.
I think a game with a good soul, as it were, is combining all of the elements to make a game a great experience.
Pretty much agree, but the problem is that soulless gamers consider soulless games a great experiance...
#23
In simplest terms:
A game idea Invites Questions; a game design Answers Questions.
It all comes down to what the designer is trying to do.
Whether he does it well, or not, is a different question.
For me, there has never been any point in trying to reinvent the wheel....
or even redecorating a wheel with a flashier hubcap, for that matter.
The secret to doing something different is to look for whats not out there that you want to play.
For me, it's always been about wanting to play something that doesn't exist yet.
I wanted to smash buildings like any angry 10 year old; so I came up with RAMPAGE.
My partner wanted to be able to do a "pick and roll," so we came up with ARCH RIVALS.
We wanted to control squads of specialized soldiers, so we came up with GENERAL CHAOS....
More recently, we've found ourselves wanting to play a "non-linear race" a fast-paced multiplayer combat game that combines strategy, luck and skill in such a way as to allow players of widely varying skill sets to compete effectively....
"The result: ARCTIC STUD POKER RUN. Check it out at www.arcticstud.com
More than an intuitive action-packed free-for-all, the multiplayer game is an intensely addictive, mentally stimulating thrill ride filled with strategy, nuance, and depth.
Like it or hate it; its unlike anything you've ever played.
02/12/2007 (5:48 am)
There has never been any shortage of ideas; ideas are the easy part. In simplest terms:
A game idea Invites Questions; a game design Answers Questions.
It all comes down to what the designer is trying to do.
Whether he does it well, or not, is a different question.
For me, there has never been any point in trying to reinvent the wheel....
or even redecorating a wheel with a flashier hubcap, for that matter.
The secret to doing something different is to look for whats not out there that you want to play.
For me, it's always been about wanting to play something that doesn't exist yet.
I wanted to smash buildings like any angry 10 year old; so I came up with RAMPAGE.
My partner wanted to be able to do a "pick and roll," so we came up with ARCH RIVALS.
We wanted to control squads of specialized soldiers, so we came up with GENERAL CHAOS....
More recently, we've found ourselves wanting to play a "non-linear race" a fast-paced multiplayer combat game that combines strategy, luck and skill in such a way as to allow players of widely varying skill sets to compete effectively....
"The result: ARCTIC STUD POKER RUN. Check it out at www.arcticstud.com
More than an intuitive action-packed free-for-all, the multiplayer game is an intensely addictive, mentally stimulating thrill ride filled with strategy, nuance, and depth.
Like it or hate it; its unlike anything you've ever played.
#24
There has never been any shortage of ideas; ideas are the easy part.
It all comes down to what the designer is trying to do.
Do you think it was easier to invent the steam engine than to build one? Radio? Atomic bomb?.. A game?
A game idea Invites Questions; a game design Answers Questions.
I think that both the idea and the design (implementation) answer questions. It's just that the idea answers the most general and fundamental ones.
We wanted to control squads of specialized soldiers, so we came up with GENERAL CHAOS....
Similarly you could have come up with ten or more other games satsfying such a detailed description ;)
The secret to doing something different is to look for whats not out there that you want to play.
...which is called a new game idea!
More recently, we've found ourselves wanting to play a "non-linear race" a fast-paced multiplayer combat game that combines strategy, luck and skill in such a way as to allow players of widely varying skill sets to compete effectively....
Wow... Didn't you realize you wanted that after looking at the game's website/review?
Anyway: all games started from an idea. Every thing artificial started from an idea...
EDIT: Oh, you are the designer of those games... Sorry, and be damned my English...
02/12/2007 (12:45 pm)
Brian Colin:There has never been any shortage of ideas; ideas are the easy part.
It all comes down to what the designer is trying to do.
Do you think it was easier to invent the steam engine than to build one? Radio? Atomic bomb?.. A game?
A game idea Invites Questions; a game design Answers Questions.
I think that both the idea and the design (implementation) answer questions. It's just that the idea answers the most general and fundamental ones.
We wanted to control squads of specialized soldiers, so we came up with GENERAL CHAOS....
Similarly you could have come up with ten or more other games satsfying such a detailed description ;)
The secret to doing something different is to look for whats not out there that you want to play.
...which is called a new game idea!
More recently, we've found ourselves wanting to play a "non-linear race" a fast-paced multiplayer combat game that combines strategy, luck and skill in such a way as to allow players of widely varying skill sets to compete effectively....
Wow... Didn't you realize you wanted that after looking at the game's website/review?
Anyway: all games started from an idea. Every thing artificial started from an idea...
EDIT: Oh, you are the designer of those games... Sorry, and be damned my English...
#26
(Sorry... I guess I should have prefaced my rambling, possibly oversimplified, comments above by saying they were based on 40+ games & 25 years worth of practical game development experience.)
My point was simply that people often make the mistake of thinking that Game Ideas and Game Designs are synonymous, when in fact; nothing could be further from the truth.
Ideas are a dime a dozen; a Design is a blueprint for getting something done.
Ideas ARE cheap, which is EXACTLY why we keep seeing the same games.
Innovative Game Design is neither cheap nor easy; and it never has been.
(...and just because its a lot of Fun, doesn't mean its not extremely difficult.)
02/12/2007 (7:36 pm)
Wow. (Sorry... I guess I should have prefaced my rambling, possibly oversimplified, comments above by saying they were based on 40+ games & 25 years worth of practical game development experience.)
My point was simply that people often make the mistake of thinking that Game Ideas and Game Designs are synonymous, when in fact; nothing could be further from the truth.
Ideas are a dime a dozen; a Design is a blueprint for getting something done.
Ideas ARE cheap, which is EXACTLY why we keep seeing the same games.
Innovative Game Design is neither cheap nor easy; and it never has been.
(...and just because its a lot of Fun, doesn't mean its not extremely difficult.)
#27
It all depends on the playability.
There are FAR too many games out there which have crammed alot of small spects into a simple conceptwith the player in mind, but it has turned out to be an incredible mistake.
Take a look at Goldeneye, that caused a huge stir and is still widly loved by people all over the place. Cause it was very simple in effect. The game creators followed up with several differant shooters which tried to go further than a typical shooter, and hats off to them for trying, but its damn hard to make this work effectivly. As demonstrated by timesplkitters 2, which instead of expanding dramatically, went back to basics: just blasting away at stuff, with variouse objetives and side missions. People loved it.
Bottom line is that its very hard to keep things original and working.
02/21/2007 (7:55 am)
So why do we keep seeing the same games? It all depends on the playability.
There are FAR too many games out there which have crammed alot of small spects into a simple conceptwith the player in mind, but it has turned out to be an incredible mistake.
Take a look at Goldeneye, that caused a huge stir and is still widly loved by people all over the place. Cause it was very simple in effect. The game creators followed up with several differant shooters which tried to go further than a typical shooter, and hats off to them for trying, but its damn hard to make this work effectivly. As demonstrated by timesplkitters 2, which instead of expanding dramatically, went back to basics: just blasting away at stuff, with variouse objetives and side missions. People loved it.
Bottom line is that its very hard to keep things original and working.
#28
Our minds naturally look at things already there and then how to improve them, it is very tough to come up with a game that is truly unique, even the games that get called unique have similarities to games that have already existed.
If you make a game where your running around with weapons in your hands and it's in first person people instantly compare it to every other fps that has existed, make a game where you control a guy who you design and who matures with skills etc, people instantly compare it to every other rpg ever made. It's how our minds work.
I find this thread interesting because I was reading reviews of indie games on game tunnel and at least 9/10 games the first line was "This game is a cross between x/y with a little z". So I started to wonder, what does it take to create a game that doesn't instantly make people compare it to all other games before it.
Even books work that way people just don't think of it in those terms. Take a fantasy book about a character and his adventures in a mythical world, that's been done soo many times but people read it as something new. Crime novels, spec ops books, they've all been done but people keep making some changes and coming out with new ones
I think it just comes down to more of being able to tell a story in a new way with new characters, the idea doesn't have to be truly original but the way it is displayed and interacted with makes all the difference.
I know myself I go and buy new fps all the time. I know they won't be drastically different from all the others I've played but they will have new levels, at least slightly different weapons, and different characters. I enjoy them (usually, there are some crappy ones) each time and then when I get bored I go buy a new one.
I think indie's try almost too hard to come up with a completly original idea sometimes and then it doesn't work out in a fun way at all. If a truly original idea comes to you then great roll with it, but I don't think anything good comes of thinking for years on how to make something completly different because then you force it.
04/03/2007 (12:35 am)
I think a lot of it has to do with how the brain works, if you've played 100 video games and you start trying to think of a new game idea the things that keep popping into your head are those games and how they can be better. Also who hasn't played a game and gone man if they did this or this that would have been much better. Our minds naturally look at things already there and then how to improve them, it is very tough to come up with a game that is truly unique, even the games that get called unique have similarities to games that have already existed.
If you make a game where your running around with weapons in your hands and it's in first person people instantly compare it to every other fps that has existed, make a game where you control a guy who you design and who matures with skills etc, people instantly compare it to every other rpg ever made. It's how our minds work.
I find this thread interesting because I was reading reviews of indie games on game tunnel and at least 9/10 games the first line was "This game is a cross between x/y with a little z". So I started to wonder, what does it take to create a game that doesn't instantly make people compare it to all other games before it.
Even books work that way people just don't think of it in those terms. Take a fantasy book about a character and his adventures in a mythical world, that's been done soo many times but people read it as something new. Crime novels, spec ops books, they've all been done but people keep making some changes and coming out with new ones
I think it just comes down to more of being able to tell a story in a new way with new characters, the idea doesn't have to be truly original but the way it is displayed and interacted with makes all the difference.
I know myself I go and buy new fps all the time. I know they won't be drastically different from all the others I've played but they will have new levels, at least slightly different weapons, and different characters. I enjoy them (usually, there are some crappy ones) each time and then when I get bored I go buy a new one.
I think indie's try almost too hard to come up with a completly original idea sometimes and then it doesn't work out in a fun way at all. If a truly original idea comes to you then great roll with it, but I don't think anything good comes of thinking for years on how to make something completly different because then you force it.
#29
In our case, (Game Refuge) we design games that we want to play; but just don't happen to exist yet. Our focus is making the previously unavailable gameplay experience a reality.
Naturally, if you succeed in making something that hadn't previously existed, it's going to be "original"... but the driving force should always be about the game you wanted to play, and not what people are going to compare it to!
Our most recent game for example, came out of a desire to have a multiplayer FPS Deathmatch that was more about strategy and calculated risk than about hiding and sniping. We added a modified, non-linear, Racing element to add time-related tension without the constraints of a "course", and made winning independent of the finishing order to keep every player part of the action until the very last second.
Yet even though the resulting game (Arctic Stud Poker Run) offers a multitude of gameplay options that were never available or even applicable before, people are going to see what they want to see.
And reviewers are just people. One reviewer will praise you for being original, and another will condemn you for being derivative. Some can't resist can't resist trying to pigeonhole it... i.e., forcing it into their preconceived notions of some existing game they like (or don't like). Still others will never even bother to play the game, writing their reviews based on press releases or snapshots alone... naively thinking that describing the idea is the same as describing the game.
Again, that's why it's important to differentiate between an Idea and a Design, Ideas require no work, so everyone can claim to have great ones... Designs are the result of answering the difficult questions that turn an idea into something real.
(You can always tell if the reviewer understands the game design process; those that do usually write thoughtful, intelligent reviews full of insightful observations. These are always great to read, whether they love your game or hate it.)
But perhaps I digress. So in answer to your question...
"So what does it take to create a game that doesn't instantly make people compare it to all other games before it?"
I wish I knew.
04/03/2007 (11:43 am)
I think you make some great points. It's absurd to be "original" for its own sake.In our case, (Game Refuge) we design games that we want to play; but just don't happen to exist yet. Our focus is making the previously unavailable gameplay experience a reality.
Naturally, if you succeed in making something that hadn't previously existed, it's going to be "original"... but the driving force should always be about the game you wanted to play, and not what people are going to compare it to!
Our most recent game for example, came out of a desire to have a multiplayer FPS Deathmatch that was more about strategy and calculated risk than about hiding and sniping. We added a modified, non-linear, Racing element to add time-related tension without the constraints of a "course", and made winning independent of the finishing order to keep every player part of the action until the very last second.
Yet even though the resulting game (Arctic Stud Poker Run) offers a multitude of gameplay options that were never available or even applicable before, people are going to see what they want to see.
And reviewers are just people. One reviewer will praise you for being original, and another will condemn you for being derivative. Some can't resist can't resist trying to pigeonhole it... i.e., forcing it into their preconceived notions of some existing game they like (or don't like). Still others will never even bother to play the game, writing their reviews based on press releases or snapshots alone... naively thinking that describing the idea is the same as describing the game.
Again, that's why it's important to differentiate between an Idea and a Design, Ideas require no work, so everyone can claim to have great ones... Designs are the result of answering the difficult questions that turn an idea into something real.
(You can always tell if the reviewer understands the game design process; those that do usually write thoughtful, intelligent reviews full of insightful observations. These are always great to read, whether they love your game or hate it.)
But perhaps I digress. So in answer to your question...
"So what does it take to create a game that doesn't instantly make people compare it to all other games before it?"
I wish I knew.
Torque Owner Gareth Hewes
I see what you are saying about the differences in how games can be made...it seems a lot to me that how games are made best depends a lot upon the team making it. I, personally, as a more art than code type person, am not really sure what game style to make until looking at the concept really hits me. But some people may (as I understand it) practically 'see' screenshots in their head before they even start, and they are like, "this is how this game needs to be". Fascinating, really.
And the closing comments are most often because I feel I'm leaving a hanging comment when I don't finish it up somehow. I know that forums aren't like phone calls since they are part of an ongoing conversation, but I feel like I'm hanging up the phone without saying goodbye to press the "submit post" button without finishing up with something. Sometimes they are just inane garbling, or sometimes (like in the case of being up for a long time) justification in case I say something that doesn't make sense, or possibly contradicting myself. I find that when I engage in these deeper conversations, I find myself often accepting the more sensible ideas posed by others, sometimes in the middle of a post.
@David:
Good point, soul does tend to be more elusive than anything else, even in the cases of some really well-made games. Even playing a big-name hit like Gears of War, I didn't feel like I was getting anything deep and interesting, just another "kill everything!" fest.
I think a game with a good soul, as it were, is combining all of the elements to make a game a great experience.