Behind Rockstar Games - Article in Wired
by Matt W · in General Discussion · 09/08/2002 (2:16 pm) · 40 replies
The Article: "The Bad Boys of Rockstar Games"
Wired, July 2002
I'm sure some of you have seen it, but it was an interesting read. (warning, a bit of vulgar language)
To summarize, Take Two saw how much "great" negative press Grand Theft Auto (the original) got and hoped to turn that into a "bad boy" image. Take Two founder Ryan Brant hired Terry Donovan and Terry's prep school friend Sam Houser to startup Rockstar as a new division.
Both were from music business families, and used this mostly second-hand knowledge to guide their marketing. quote: <"The video game industry is where the music industry was in 1960", said Donovan. Certainly the content is very sophisticated, but there are still relatively naive and unpolished marketing techniques.">
They organized regular loft parties (guests actually had to complete an interview to get in) and even had their own "street" clothing line in the UK. quote: <"By last winter the company was so much a part of youth culture that ecstasty pills were found stamped with its stylized R logo. (The company says it had no knowledge or involvement.)>
What keeps Rockstar ahead of the others? quote: <"Fuck the potions and magic spells" - teenage and twentysomething men want games as hip as their movies and music.>
quote: <"Basically," Donovan explained, "we're really good at two things: finishing games and making noise.">
Not all is well, at least if you're interested in business ethics. quote: <"Take Two has restated its last seven quarters of financial earnings, revealing improper reporting of revenue and expensese, as well as buybacks of its products from distributors. As of mid-May, the firm was reportedly under review by the SEC.">
Still, their stock has risen from $7 to $28 from September 2001 to May 2002. Looks like fraudulent records are only seen as a bad thing if you don't have great sales figures, or a very profitable image.
What else is not doing to well? New franchises. Out of all games planned only one (a fugitive crime "drama") is not a GTA/Smuggler's Run/Max Payne sequel/spin-off. This might work for a year or two... but after that, will people keep buying "Grand Theft Auto 7" or "Smuggler's Run 5: Yes, they need MORE guns!".
Oh, and for the gamer inside of all of us. Grand Theft Auto 4 will be a MMO game. Sounds cool.
To end it, a funny (but representative of the company's hip immaturity) quote from Donovan regarding the slow turn towards "mature" games following the success of Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne.
quote: <"I think the videogame industry was actually crying out for us," he said. "We don't make games about Puff-the-fucking-Magic Dragon">
Heh, I guess he didn't know what that song was about then... did he?
Wired, July 2002
I'm sure some of you have seen it, but it was an interesting read. (warning, a bit of vulgar language)
To summarize, Take Two saw how much "great" negative press Grand Theft Auto (the original) got and hoped to turn that into a "bad boy" image. Take Two founder Ryan Brant hired Terry Donovan and Terry's prep school friend Sam Houser to startup Rockstar as a new division.
Both were from music business families, and used this mostly second-hand knowledge to guide their marketing. quote: <"The video game industry is where the music industry was in 1960", said Donovan. Certainly the content is very sophisticated, but there are still relatively naive and unpolished marketing techniques.">
They organized regular loft parties (guests actually had to complete an interview to get in) and even had their own "street" clothing line in the UK. quote: <"By last winter the company was so much a part of youth culture that ecstasty pills were found stamped with its stylized R logo. (The company says it had no knowledge or involvement.)>
What keeps Rockstar ahead of the others? quote: <"Fuck the potions and magic spells" - teenage and twentysomething men want games as hip as their movies and music.>
quote: <"Basically," Donovan explained, "we're really good at two things: finishing games and making noise.">
Not all is well, at least if you're interested in business ethics. quote: <"Take Two has restated its last seven quarters of financial earnings, revealing improper reporting of revenue and expensese, as well as buybacks of its products from distributors. As of mid-May, the firm was reportedly under review by the SEC.">
Still, their stock has risen from $7 to $28 from September 2001 to May 2002. Looks like fraudulent records are only seen as a bad thing if you don't have great sales figures, or a very profitable image.
What else is not doing to well? New franchises. Out of all games planned only one (a fugitive crime "drama") is not a GTA/Smuggler's Run/Max Payne sequel/spin-off. This might work for a year or two... but after that, will people keep buying "Grand Theft Auto 7" or "Smuggler's Run 5: Yes, they need MORE guns!".
Oh, and for the gamer inside of all of us. Grand Theft Auto 4 will be a MMO game. Sounds cool.
To end it, a funny (but representative of the company's hip immaturity) quote from Donovan regarding the slow turn towards "mature" games following the success of Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne.
quote: <"I think the videogame industry was actually crying out for us," he said. "We don't make games about Puff-the-fucking-Magic Dragon">
Heh, I guess he didn't know what that song was about then... did he?
#22
The fact of removing the subject matter in GTA3 is not possible as that is a much a core element of the game as the mechanics. This is why I labeled it an RPG. I also stated that as long as the subject matter is replaced with equally compelling "safe" material it could/would be just as viable... provided it was not marketed as a clone of GTA3 with "safe" material.
The core concept of GTA3 is smooth and compelling mechanics in the control of the vehicles and feel of different types of vehicles when driven as well as character movement or freedom of movement. Personally, I disliked the targeting system which if I am not mistaken was revamped with GTA:VC, the level of the storyline, and the immersion of the freedom of movement in the game. If you try to "dissect" the game by removing such material, you will destroy the analysis. Today's games are much more complex and are not easily dissected to such base levels anymore, if at all.
Game Design is the WHOLE of content, textures, models, subject matter, levels, and mechanical play. If you are talking about mechanical design that is only a "portion" of the game design, not the entire measure of it.
09/11/2002 (5:36 pm)
What I am saying is that games have moved beyond simple games such as Chess, Checkers, and the other ilk of "games". You can no more dissect a game today into those base elements, UNLESS it is a simple game done in a new medium. (E.g, rehash of Tetris, checkers, etc.)The fact of removing the subject matter in GTA3 is not possible as that is a much a core element of the game as the mechanics. This is why I labeled it an RPG. I also stated that as long as the subject matter is replaced with equally compelling "safe" material it could/would be just as viable... provided it was not marketed as a clone of GTA3 with "safe" material.
The core concept of GTA3 is smooth and compelling mechanics in the control of the vehicles and feel of different types of vehicles when driven as well as character movement or freedom of movement. Personally, I disliked the targeting system which if I am not mistaken was revamped with GTA:VC, the level of the storyline, and the immersion of the freedom of movement in the game. If you try to "dissect" the game by removing such material, you will destroy the analysis. Today's games are much more complex and are not easily dissected to such base levels anymore, if at all.
Game Design is the WHOLE of content, textures, models, subject matter, levels, and mechanical play. If you are talking about mechanical design that is only a "portion" of the game design, not the entire measure of it.
#23
If we can't strip a game down to it's mechanics (which would meen game programming in general is impossable)...study them...revise them...improve them...delete them...add to them...then what potential would we have as game developers? We might as well give up then and just swap the graphics/sounds/music/themes around as I suggested :P
Jeremy -
I had asked if the game would have been fun if the graphics/sounds were changed...essentualy changeing the surface of GTA3 and asking if the game would still be fun...because after all, you have opinions that are basied on more then whats on the surface...yet I'm considered STUPID because of this!?
Or is the surface so important that replaceing it...even just for the sake of argument...just to see what you and others opinions are that makes the game so "great"....but I guess the surface matters more then even you suspected
I don't meen to offend anyone...The "thug-life" theme of GTA3 isn't new...there are hundreds of "drug wars" type games out there on the web...some even in 3D that allow driveing and such...what I'm trying to get you guys to do is to describe how the implamintation / game mechanics of the "thug-life" theme in GTA3 makes the game better then others in the genre...something beyond the technicalities of being in 3D...And what can we as game developers learn from it? How can we greatly improve the gameplay experience if in charge of the next GTA game?
But if we can't strip "the surface" out...replace it with "temporary programmer art" and still have a fun game...then could'nt this raw game mechanics area of the overall design use some improvements?...and couldn't a fun game (fun while useing simple programmer art) be EVEN better, once "the surface" is put back in?
09/11/2002 (7:14 pm)
David - I'm trying to show that game mechanics are very important to gameplay...that they form the majority of what we consider gameplay to be...and if "excellent gameplay" is a attribute we value greatly in game design...then how can we expect a game to have excellent design if we don't work at developing excellent game mechanics?If we can't strip a game down to it's mechanics (which would meen game programming in general is impossable)...study them...revise them...improve them...delete them...add to them...then what potential would we have as game developers? We might as well give up then and just swap the graphics/sounds/music/themes around as I suggested :P
Jeremy -
Quote:
"People like Jeremy". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but "people like me" have valid opinions based on more than what's on the surface. "People like me" use intelligence as well as objectiveness to form opinions, and can manage to ignore what everyone else says and thinks to come up with something that isn't necessarily mainstream, but an opinion that truly belongs to them.
I had asked if the game would have been fun if the graphics/sounds were changed...essentualy changeing the surface of GTA3 and asking if the game would still be fun...because after all, you have opinions that are basied on more then whats on the surface...yet I'm considered STUPID because of this!?
Or is the surface so important that replaceing it...even just for the sake of argument...just to see what you and others opinions are that makes the game so "great"....but I guess the surface matters more then even you suspected
I don't meen to offend anyone...The "thug-life" theme of GTA3 isn't new...there are hundreds of "drug wars" type games out there on the web...some even in 3D that allow driveing and such...what I'm trying to get you guys to do is to describe how the implamintation / game mechanics of the "thug-life" theme in GTA3 makes the game better then others in the genre...something beyond the technicalities of being in 3D...And what can we as game developers learn from it? How can we greatly improve the gameplay experience if in charge of the next GTA game?
But if we can't strip "the surface" out...replace it with "temporary programmer art" and still have a fun game...then could'nt this raw game mechanics area of the overall design use some improvements?...and couldn't a fun game (fun while useing simple programmer art) be EVEN better, once "the surface" is put back in?
#24
Breaking down a game is fine as long as you are looking at the specific area. However, mechanics are no longer the simple and definitive maker of a game, you now need to factor in graphics, models, content, and other factors. All prior posts have stated that the mechanical play of the game is the definitive factor. That is simply not correct. You can have the best mechanically playing game in the world, but if you don not have a story, textures, or models, to support it you are more than likely SoL. (in today's market)
In the example, which this thread is based on, which is GTA3 They have a solid design. Which the sales alone speak of. Well over three million units... How many other games can complete with those numbers... Very few.
Some of those sales are from shock value, but in all honesty, the shock value would have waned at around 350K units. If the game play were not present to reward the players word of mouth would have killed the product.
Judging a game like GTA3 on its mechanics alone is wrong, as that game is much more than the mechanics. Yes, part of it is the "shock" value, but when you get beyond the shock value, it is a well-designed game when you look at all of its components bundled together.
09/11/2002 (8:32 pm)
What I am trying to show is that games have evolved beyond simple mechanics; they are as much a vehicle for storylines and other features as they are for mechanics. Games today are so much more than chess. There is nothing wrong with chess however; games today have so many more variables and possibilities than chess or other "simple" games. How many games today have components of "simple" games to round them out and round out the product. GTA3 does...Breaking down a game is fine as long as you are looking at the specific area. However, mechanics are no longer the simple and definitive maker of a game, you now need to factor in graphics, models, content, and other factors. All prior posts have stated that the mechanical play of the game is the definitive factor. That is simply not correct. You can have the best mechanically playing game in the world, but if you don not have a story, textures, or models, to support it you are more than likely SoL. (in today's market)
In the example, which this thread is based on, which is GTA3 They have a solid design. Which the sales alone speak of. Well over three million units... How many other games can complete with those numbers... Very few.
Some of those sales are from shock value, but in all honesty, the shock value would have waned at around 350K units. If the game play were not present to reward the players word of mouth would have killed the product.
Judging a game like GTA3 on its mechanics alone is wrong, as that game is much more than the mechanics. Yes, part of it is the "shock" value, but when you get beyond the shock value, it is a well-designed game when you look at all of its components bundled together.
#25
This one is answered by one word....
Immersion
The developers have developed a product that allows veteran and new gamers alike to feel the same level of immersion in the game. (NPR (National Public Radio - http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/segment_display.cfm?segID=146385) has an article on this) which may help you understand some of the appeal since you don't have a PS2 and have not played the game).
With limited (by today's PC standards) they have managed to capture a level immersion that is not present in many or any games present today, which is what the hubbub is all about once you move beyond the (shock) value of the game. Immersion is only achieved when game play and storyline merge successful to suspend disbelief of the game world. That is a rare thing.
Some of the level of immersion is based upon the feel each vehicle gives when driven, the freedom of movement, and some of it simply from the volume of MP3 available for the car radio when you are driving to give the impression of real world radio stations. (Which has been expanded in GTA:VC)
>I've only ever played GTA1...and got board of it >quickly...I'll have to admit that GTA3 sounds sorta fun >(but with out a PSX2, whatch'a gonna do? :P ) ... But >the new Vice City...looks...well honestly...it looks >like GTA3 with new graphics and sounds :(
If you have a blockbuster near you to continue this thread, I would seriously urge you to rent a PS2 and GTA3 and play itand see how you feel once you have tested its waters. Or get a hold of the PC version.
09/11/2002 (9:01 pm)
>Implementation / game mechanics of the "thug-life" >theme in GTA3 makes the game better then others in the >genre...something beyond the technicalities of being in >3D...And what can we as game developers learn from itThis one is answered by one word....
Immersion
The developers have developed a product that allows veteran and new gamers alike to feel the same level of immersion in the game. (NPR (National Public Radio - http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/segment_display.cfm?segID=146385) has an article on this) which may help you understand some of the appeal since you don't have a PS2 and have not played the game).
With limited (by today's PC standards) they have managed to capture a level immersion that is not present in many or any games present today, which is what the hubbub is all about once you move beyond the (shock) value of the game. Immersion is only achieved when game play and storyline merge successful to suspend disbelief of the game world. That is a rare thing.
Some of the level of immersion is based upon the feel each vehicle gives when driven, the freedom of movement, and some of it simply from the volume of MP3 available for the car radio when you are driving to give the impression of real world radio stations. (Which has been expanded in GTA:VC)
>I've only ever played GTA1...and got board of it >quickly...I'll have to admit that GTA3 sounds sorta fun >(but with out a PSX2, whatch'a gonna do? :P ) ... But >the new Vice City...looks...well honestly...it looks >like GTA3 with new graphics and sounds :(
If you have a blockbuster near you to continue this thread, I would seriously urge you to rent a PS2 and GTA3 and play itand see how you feel once you have tested its waters. Or get a hold of the PC version.
#26
I didn't mention appeal to the "crime simulation" aspect because GTA3 was a good game without it. However, I will admit that it appealed to every gamer that got it as much as me. Does this make the publishers money hungry pigs because they chose a style that would attract people? Games are supposed to sell huge numbers, and GTA3 did that by selling more numbers than any other game in PS2 history, with sales still continuing. I also wanted to make it clear that the team is not regurgitating GTA3 into our systems with its next installment (Vice City). It is improving on itself. They are a good team if for nothing more than always improving their projects (the good ones...State of Emergency blows balls, and there is no helping that). As long as the idea doesn't tire, I see no reason for them to come up with original material. And my main point (that got skewed into an argument of whether or not GTA3 was a good game) is that many people were comparing Vice City to how I feel about the Austin Powers movies: Same jokes, same exact humor, to the point of exhaustion. But the difference here is that with Vice City, the developers are improving it drastically with better AI, Graphics, game controls, content, character development, plotline, in-game physics, overall concept, and technological technique. Screw what the money people use as their motivation, the people that make the game are making something worthwhile.
09/11/2002 (10:25 pm)
Not every game is going to teach us lessons. Some just combine the skills and advances we've made into a single bundle. In the end, we can ask ourselves questions of design and implementation, but what really matters in the end? Is it fun to play? If you want to ask if a game was revolutionary, ask instead "Did it give the gamer an experience that was never before seen?". GTA3 did that by giving the gamer freedom to do as they wish and still have fun doing it. The game wasn't boring if the gamer didnt take on the missions.I didn't mention appeal to the "crime simulation" aspect because GTA3 was a good game without it. However, I will admit that it appealed to every gamer that got it as much as me. Does this make the publishers money hungry pigs because they chose a style that would attract people? Games are supposed to sell huge numbers, and GTA3 did that by selling more numbers than any other game in PS2 history, with sales still continuing. I also wanted to make it clear that the team is not regurgitating GTA3 into our systems with its next installment (Vice City). It is improving on itself. They are a good team if for nothing more than always improving their projects (the good ones...State of Emergency blows balls, and there is no helping that). As long as the idea doesn't tire, I see no reason for them to come up with original material. And my main point (that got skewed into an argument of whether or not GTA3 was a good game) is that many people were comparing Vice City to how I feel about the Austin Powers movies: Same jokes, same exact humor, to the point of exhaustion. But the difference here is that with Vice City, the developers are improving it drastically with better AI, Graphics, game controls, content, character development, plotline, in-game physics, overall concept, and technological technique. Screw what the money people use as their motivation, the people that make the game are making something worthwhile.
#27
09/12/2002 (11:44 am)
Good point David. Immersion IS of primary importance in a game. Good game design will always use a high level of immersion as its goal, and I feel GTA3 did that, and I feel Vice City will do it even better. 
#29
Immersion is indeed a valueable game design aspect...if a game has this, it will be a success...maybe not in terms of sales...but the ability to connect with the player's imagination (the only way immersion can work) allows the player to "fill-in" the voids that the game overlooks, or is incapable of representing....with immersion "realisiam" is a given...no matter how "realistic" a game may actually be.
No, I have not played GTA3...as the game's "thug-life" theme doesn't appeal to me...that isn't to say that I am opposed to it...but I am indifferent to it...I can see the appeal the theme may have in some people...but I would venomesly argue with these same people if they truly believe the that the game represents a truely realistic portrail of "thug-life" as I live in a inner-city "Hood" in which a 20 month old baby was killed by a stray bullit during a drive-by shooting that took place a year ago at the house next door...GTA3 ain't got nothing on realisam, thank god for that!
09/12/2002 (6:49 pm)
Jeremy, David - Thank you, now we are getting somewhere...I apologise for my earlyer rather argumentive stance...you guys are proveing that you can look benieth the "hook" of the game and find something valueable.Immersion is indeed a valueable game design aspect...if a game has this, it will be a success...maybe not in terms of sales...but the ability to connect with the player's imagination (the only way immersion can work) allows the player to "fill-in" the voids that the game overlooks, or is incapable of representing....with immersion "realisiam" is a given...no matter how "realistic" a game may actually be.
No, I have not played GTA3...as the game's "thug-life" theme doesn't appeal to me...that isn't to say that I am opposed to it...but I am indifferent to it...I can see the appeal the theme may have in some people...but I would venomesly argue with these same people if they truly believe the that the game represents a truely realistic portrail of "thug-life" as I live in a inner-city "Hood" in which a 20 month old baby was killed by a stray bullit during a drive-by shooting that took place a year ago at the house next door...GTA3 ain't got nothing on realisam, thank god for that!
#30
09/13/2002 (9:43 am)
Well, I'm no thug myself. I'm as white as you can get just about. But the game interested me because it WAS a unique experience. I suggest a rental to start. But wait till Vice comes out in October, though you won't appreciate all the changes they made without playing the first one. My apologies for being argumentative too. Kinda easy to get heated when talking about my favorite games, and it was a shock that there was someone who didn't absolutely love GTA3. But..apples and oranges...
#31
Did you just say what I think you just said?
I can see debating this from a design standpoint, but who really cares if someone did or didn't like a game? It's like arguing over if someone likes a specific color or song. To each his own, and I like the game but I'm not a fan of Rockstar at all.
After seeing Terry Donovan about five times in the credits of GTA3 (ranging from Vice President of marketing to "music coordinator") I disliked them more... well, maybe just Terry Donovan. I mean, the programmers are listed once, and this guy gets credited with positions I can't ever remember seeing in any game.
Still, GTA3 is a good game. I don't think it's as good as Terry Donovan thinks it is (or even some of the folks in this thread), but it's worth a purchase.
Although, the ending was horrible. Throughout the game, violence was necessary. At the end, it was just in poor taste.
09/14/2002 (3:01 pm)
"Well, I'm no thug myself. I'm as white as you can get just about"Did you just say what I think you just said?
I can see debating this from a design standpoint, but who really cares if someone did or didn't like a game? It's like arguing over if someone likes a specific color or song. To each his own, and I like the game but I'm not a fan of Rockstar at all.
After seeing Terry Donovan about five times in the credits of GTA3 (ranging from Vice President of marketing to "music coordinator") I disliked them more... well, maybe just Terry Donovan. I mean, the programmers are listed once, and this guy gets credited with positions I can't ever remember seeing in any game.
Still, GTA3 is a good game. I don't think it's as good as Terry Donovan thinks it is (or even some of the folks in this thread), but it's worth a purchase.
Although, the ending was horrible. Throughout the game, violence was necessary. At the end, it was just in poor taste.
#32
09/14/2002 (6:25 pm)
GTA3 seemed like an almost exact clone of a game called Quarantine (which I thoroughly enjoyed) with the exception of being able to mount weapons on your car. Quarantine was a lot of fun and FUNNY too. Aside from the obvious awesome graphics of GTA, the actual gameplay could have been better, or at least unique.
#33
What is an MMO and an IMO? What are the differences? I just dont get it.
09/15/2002 (6:21 pm)
Well, since Im tired as hell and didnt want to take the time to read all the posts, so you may have covered this already but..What is an MMO and an IMO? What are the differences? I just dont get it.
#34
MMORPG - Massively Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game
MMOG - Massively Multi-Player Online Game
There are a few other formats, and I am sure some other people can post some other definitions of the MMO part as well - it never really is very cut and dry. However the point being any online game, which hosts a "lot" of people (typically 1000-10,000).
09/16/2002 (6:16 am)
MMO stands for Massively Multi-Player Online. It is usually used in the following formats,MMORPG - Massively Multi-Player Online Role Playing Game
MMOG - Massively Multi-Player Online Game
There are a few other formats, and I am sure some other people can post some other definitions of the MMO part as well - it never really is very cut and dry. However the point being any online game, which hosts a "lot" of people (typically 1000-10,000).
#36
09/17/2002 (11:07 am)
lol, good work entropy. You are the deadpost revival master! (C:
#38
I'd actually never heard of that game, so I went and checked it out... and, no offense, I don't see how you could say it's almost an exact clone. From what I could figure out about it and from the demo I downloaded, it looks like all you do is drive a cab around, shoot and run people over, which I'm sure were big accomplishments then. True, you can drive a cab around, shoot and run people over in GTA, but I wouldn't even really compare the two. That's one of the reasons I think GTA was so successful... there really isn't a genre like it. The only comparable games to GTA3 are GTA 1 & 2. Sure there are a few clones out now like Mafia, but they don't capture the same nonlinear feelings that GTA has.
And if your not down with the thug lifestyle in GTA, then find a fire truck and put out fires, or be a paramedic or cop, or if you don't want a dangerous lifestyle, wait for Vice City and be a pizza delivery man. There are many different levels of gameplay, and minni-game's of sorts. IMO the game would have been just as much fun without the main missions at all.
Weather you like the game or not, if you have actually played or researched it, I don't see how you can argue that it's not a breakthrough game. It's the closest thing to a realistic working city environment any game has ever come to, and Vice City looks like it's taking that up a notch with interiors, helicopters, real actors for voice overs, tires being shot out, higher res textures, better models yada yada...
Sorry for bringing a dead post back to life but I just had to throw my two cents in on this.
09/19/2002 (11:56 am)
Quote:GTA3 seemed like an almost exact clone of a game called Quarantine
I'd actually never heard of that game, so I went and checked it out... and, no offense, I don't see how you could say it's almost an exact clone. From what I could figure out about it and from the demo I downloaded, it looks like all you do is drive a cab around, shoot and run people over, which I'm sure were big accomplishments then. True, you can drive a cab around, shoot and run people over in GTA, but I wouldn't even really compare the two. That's one of the reasons I think GTA was so successful... there really isn't a genre like it. The only comparable games to GTA3 are GTA 1 & 2. Sure there are a few clones out now like Mafia, but they don't capture the same nonlinear feelings that GTA has.
And if your not down with the thug lifestyle in GTA, then find a fire truck and put out fires, or be a paramedic or cop, or if you don't want a dangerous lifestyle, wait for Vice City and be a pizza delivery man. There are many different levels of gameplay, and minni-game's of sorts. IMO the game would have been just as much fun without the main missions at all.
Weather you like the game or not, if you have actually played or researched it, I don't see how you can argue that it's not a breakthrough game. It's the closest thing to a realistic working city environment any game has ever come to, and Vice City looks like it's taking that up a notch with interiors, helicopters, real actors for voice overs, tires being shot out, higher res textures, better models yada yada...
Sorry for bringing a dead post back to life but I just had to throw my two cents in on this.
#39
It is not hard to define the interaction between dynamics, either. Cars drive with arcade physics. Cars and guns kill pedestrians. Some pedestrians and cars can be given specific mission based AI. The storyline pulls all these interactions together in difficult skill based missions. There are also parrallel storylines going on as well, though there is without doubt a central story.(A very good one at that.)
That's it. Simple game. None of these dynamics are new. What makes GTA3 fun to play is simply the mission design, something that can only be credited to the mission designers. Sniping people on a boat within a limited time is fun. Sniping people on a boat within a limited time so your friend can go place a dynamite stick on it is immersive despite only a superficial difference. Somebody mentioned the word earlier: Presentation.
What makes it immersive is the attention to detail. How different would the game 'feel' without a radio? What if pedestrians always got out of the way when cars chased them. (There's another game that does this, and it was a failure. I forget the name for now.) And sure, to video game developers the graphics were average, but to game players they were amazing. How many sunsets did you watch? I watched a couple. The lighting affects. The difficult night driving. The rain. All beautiful if not technologically superior.
Then there's the hookers and gangs and fish trucks and garbage trucks and betrayals. These are details that we all find in daily life. I bet you know which street in your town you can find hookers at.
Anyways, GTAIII is a great simple game that was well-implemented in an entertaining and challenging manner. I'm not even sure where this post falls since the conversation seemed to vary so much, but that's my opinion.
09/19/2002 (12:52 pm)
I don't understand the confusion over the game design of GTAIII. It is not complex and it can be broken down an analyzed in simple terms. In fact, it simply consisted of four simple parrallel dynamics: driving, shooting, pedestrians and storyline. That's all the game is. What makes the game interesting is how these dynamics play together. It is not hard to define the interaction between dynamics, either. Cars drive with arcade physics. Cars and guns kill pedestrians. Some pedestrians and cars can be given specific mission based AI. The storyline pulls all these interactions together in difficult skill based missions. There are also parrallel storylines going on as well, though there is without doubt a central story.(A very good one at that.)
That's it. Simple game. None of these dynamics are new. What makes GTA3 fun to play is simply the mission design, something that can only be credited to the mission designers. Sniping people on a boat within a limited time is fun. Sniping people on a boat within a limited time so your friend can go place a dynamite stick on it is immersive despite only a superficial difference. Somebody mentioned the word earlier: Presentation.
What makes it immersive is the attention to detail. How different would the game 'feel' without a radio? What if pedestrians always got out of the way when cars chased them. (There's another game that does this, and it was a failure. I forget the name for now.) And sure, to video game developers the graphics were average, but to game players they were amazing. How many sunsets did you watch? I watched a couple. The lighting affects. The difficult night driving. The rain. All beautiful if not technologically superior.
Then there's the hookers and gangs and fish trucks and garbage trucks and betrayals. These are details that we all find in daily life. I bet you know which street in your town you can find hookers at.
Anyways, GTAIII is a great simple game that was well-implemented in an entertaining and challenging manner. I'm not even sure where this post falls since the conversation seemed to vary so much, but that's my opinion.
#40
Games do not have more complex mechanics today. I would argue that there's never been a video game as complex as chess, at least from a strategy perspective, since in the end, it's the complexity of strategy that makes a game complex, not the complexity of features. This is lost on many video game developers today.
Sure, there's several ways to do any mission in GTAIII, but you can still count them on your hands. The different approaches to chess could fill up a large library.
Perhaps we will see complexity of strategy once online games become more prevalent.
09/19/2002 (1:04 pm)
Oh yeah, I remember why I posted that previous post.Games do not have more complex mechanics today. I would argue that there's never been a video game as complex as chess, at least from a strategy perspective, since in the end, it's the complexity of strategy that makes a game complex, not the complexity of features. This is lost on many video game developers today.
Sure, there's several ways to do any mission in GTAIII, but you can still count them on your hands. The different approaches to chess could fill up a large library.
Perhaps we will see complexity of strategy once online games become more prevalent.
MSW
Without game mechanics there is no gameplay ... in fact the mechanics form the foundation for the entire game ... Games like Chess can be reduced to "programmers art" and can STILL prove fun...now THAT is an example of EXCELLENT game design ... Even Tetris can prove fun if presented with ASCII text basied graphics.
I'm trying to show that GTA3 doesn't have the "excellent game design" as mentioned above...but GTA3 does have excellent use of theme and presentation.
And sadly game theme and presentation hold far more value these days with the average gamer (and game developer...even us independants) then the core play mechanics...and this is the one area where we can really make a difference as Indy developers