"Historically accurate" isn't the goal here.

And to disagree with you a little further, I do think a great deal of the blame does lie with the designers, not the consumers.

[edited by - bishop_pass on October 4, 2003 12:09:32 AM]

Increased publicity in recent years (some bad, some good), among other things, indicates to me that video games are being less regarded as a medium exclusive to adolescent males, and more as a legitimate entertainment medium on a par with televion, motion picture, and so forth. In light of that perception, it seems to me that designers would be wise to expand the field beyond the current scope of "Pick up BFG20000. Shoot bad guy. Find ammo." or "Find sword. Kill orc. Find bigger sword. Kill bigger orc." and begin to explore realms more appealing to other types of gamers. After all, Hollywood continues to turn out a large variety of motion pictures from sappy tear-jerkers full of sugar, to hard-core action flicks with explosions and swearing. While most are arguably garbage, there is at least variety, and the films are not targeted at a single sector of the demographic.

I have seen an increase in the market for "casual" games, played by regular-Joe type of folks who aren''t into the time investment or "twitch" factor of most games. Dexterity Software is one company that caters to this group.

But there are other groups of potential gamers waiting to be attracted, and failing to be attracted by the current crop. A greater diversity and creativity might be just what is needed to expand the game market to these people. I have an uncle who falls into this somewhat vague category; he plays the occasional game of Age of Empires, but has a rather general disdain for the "boring" games that are being sold for the most part these days. Re-hashes of Tolkeinish goblin bashing are obviously not what he is wanting.

So state of the market isn''t really a valid excuse for continuing to create shoddy rehashes. As I see it, the market clearly has room to grow beyond current limits, if only developers are willing to take the risk of breaking beyond the mold. Yes, market pressures provide incentive to conform to proven templates. Yes, in the big-name world of modern business, the bottom line is the only line. Which is why I see the role of the independent developer as critical to the continued growth of this market, and the expansion of the market into new territory. Where the independents have the courage to venture, the big name followers will follow.

Josh
vertexnormal AT linuxmail DOT org

Check out Golem: Lands of Shadow, an isometrically rendered hack-and-slash inspired equally by Nethack and Diablo.

games by their nature are interactive things, a player is stimulated with responses from a game source and reacts in a manner appropriate to the stimulus. To improve game quality, behavior modification is nessecary. "Training" players to shoot and kill is cliched and they do it without having to think much. Improvments must be made on the designers part to insure that players do not become trained, but are instead forced to think about how to solve a problem instead of kill thing - find next thing to kill - kill bigger thing.If normal means of interaction are not sasitfactory , invent something. to find new forms of interaction increase your own stimuli range.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
Unfortunately, the sad truth of the matter is that most aspiring and employed computer game desgners are inspired by the essence of other computer games, or so it seems. Now, to set the record straight regarding what I''m trying to say, this isn''t just an observation about the industry, but an observation about the community here.

If a group has progressed beyond drawing their inspiration from other computer games, the sad truth of the matter is, then the offending group of inspired designers seemingly are drawing their inspiration from movies, which although not entirely bad, unfortunately perpetuates bad cliches.

Books are a reasonable area to gain inspiration, but one shouldn''t be inspired by just fiction. Non-fiction (especially historical non-fiction of literary quality) is an excellent place to seek inspiration.

However, the best place to seek inspiration is to attempt to live some aspect of what you wish to create within a game. By doing this, you see things which you''d otherwise miss. It''s in the details of experience that you realize where fine nuances can provide foundations for whole avenues of gameplay.

On a closing note, I''d like to say that I''ve witnessed a great deal of flatness in the products and ideas churned out both in the industry and here. This isn''t to say that many of you don''t have fine ideas or aren''t capable of greatness.

If I am in a position in the future to finance and head a project to create a computer game, it will revolve around an institute like paradigm where the participants in the project will be encouraged, (more likely required as part of their work) to read a number of recommended titles pertaining to the subject matter in which the game seeks to exploit, as well as daily physical activities and endeavors and observations related to the subject matter as well. Furthermore, a set of trips would be part of the itinerary; trips which challenge, provoke, inform, and inspire.

[edited by - bishop_pass on October 4, 2003 11:12:44 PM]

A lot of my inspiration comes from playing other games and watching movies. I would presume that a lot of people feel the same way about where their inspiration comes from. I think you have addressed the problem fairly clearly and have even given some solutions. My question is: now what? I''m starting to question what the goal of the game design forum is now. You''ve stated yourself that you would like to hear more original ideas being pursued in this forum. I would too. Lately, I''ve noticed a trend of posts where people complain about originality. There must be something wrong if several members have addressed this issue. Maybe, the goal of this forum should be to cultivate primarily original ideas. Cultivating the same old ideas should be a secondary goal. However, me being pessimistic, I don''t really think me saying this will bring in a wave of new topics that discuss only original ideas partly because it is a difficult thing. No one has a stock full of original ideas. I guess my main point can be summed up is your post probably won''t change anything... and I would assume that you already understood this when you posted this.

quote: Original post by VertexNormal
I think Tolkein has been quite thoroughly beaten to death, and anything that includes orcs, elves and dwarves is going to suffer from comparison to literally thousands of other games out there.

the reason for this is that no game has yet really lived up to it''s inspiration in this case. because tolkein created such a rich and expansive world, many of these games turn out to be, in some way, disappointing. thus, alot of designers are out to perfect this genre, and all of them keep coming up short of other people''s expectations.

You seem to be focusing this conversation almost entirely on world-building, so I''ll keep with that flow.

The problem with making any game is that the setting will be subject to endless analysis and criticism. You have to provide a world that is not only feasible, but inhabitable. There are countless exceptions, but most RPGs, which are the meat of this board''s work, need a good world, usually at least a planet''s worth. That''s a lot of work, my friend.

Tolkien rip-offs are natural, because he already did the work for us. We all know what the nations are, what heroes look like, how wizards talk and dress, and what sort of creatures to avoid. The good guys are good, and the bad guys are bad, and any crossover between the two is worthy of a story element. Weapons are divided into handy classes, and interactions between magic and the world are understood.

Within that paradigm, a broad array of unique battle engines, EXP systems, inventory systems, storylines, character traits, and dynamic elements have been experimented with. Two totally different games can be produced, with inventive ways to fight, heal, make money, make friends, improve yourself and progress in the story line, but if they are both set in Middle-Earth -looking worlds, then people will cry foul and declare that it''s "just another Tolkien/D&D ripoff".

This is a shame. Surely we, if nobody else, can see past the graphics and setting and see the virtues that are unique to video games. Innovative storytelling systems, new ways to get around the world, side-quests and minigames, decent writing and maybe even some passable voice acting can make an apparently old idea fresh and new.

For instance, let''s take a look at the standard "Guy with sword fights evil wizard who killed his teacher" scenario, this time in the form of Mark of Kri. Borrowing from Maori culture, the game has an engaging cast of characters, a delightfully simple yet expansive and aesthetically wonderful combat system, a stealth feature that rivals any of the Metal Gear games for pure fun, a great system for reconaisance involving a spirit totem, a charming storytelling system involving sketches of events, and a stong, silent main character with a pensive, caring side that shows more than once in the game. That''s good stuff. It''s all forests and ruins and smashing people with swords, and at the end there are a bunch of zombies, and it''s all been done before from a purely world-oriented stance. You could call the Inn where everything gets started an analog of that one in the Dragonlance cycle, and the main character, Rau, probably owes some of his personality to Caramon Majere. The sword/bow/spear (taiaha, really, but who can tell just by looking?)/axe weapon selection isn''t new, and any element of the game can be compared to some other game or book, but I''ve never seen anything quite like it, and it''s one of my favorites.

So don''t kill yourself running away from story or world elements that have been used in the past by mainstream media. Go ahead and use the human/elf/dwarf trinity. Don''t let crotchety old misanthropes like bishop_pass discourage you. ;-) You don''t have to be Ray Bradbury to design a world that will please and impress players.

I kind of disagree.

i kind of agree... with everyone

if you are doing a historical game then "hey!, what?!?! wont you read at least... a single history book about the subject?!?!?", to visit the actual place/culture of course would be a LOT better than just getting information whithout leaving home.

But i also agree with that "then i will go kill goblins..." (wich is a sarcastic comment.. i presume) if you are doing a fantastic game... then you wont be able to learn about that by experiences, however, you could insert your experiences in the game, any idea that will work... anything because you are an artist, its up to you what kind of work you want to make (in the case of a team of programmers...ok the group work, they have a leader, but every person working on the project will add at least a bit of their art).
Since making games isnt something easy and fast to do, i think people will do the best they can, if the result isnt good, then they wont fell fine...

I hope i did understand, Bishop talks about to make quality work, to give the users more "classical" culture, like it is reading novels-poetry, history, ancient cultures. Like doing documentaries instead of big good guy who kills all the bad guys and saves the earth or u.s. movie. erm, maybe "documentary" is not the right word, but i mean not just a lot of guns, fights and buildings exploding without any deeper content to the users...
bishop wants us to read more books, to get inspiration before starting our projects, well, if you do not want to read books and traveling for making games, then read books and travel because that is something every person should do, no matter is a game developer or factory worker (im not saying travel to a different place every week... but something every person should do in life is to write a book -autobiography preferably-, to visit another country, and to have a child)

Id say giving classic art to the users, just not routine games (though they give you hand-eye skills, among other skills), to transmit them experiences that enrich their knowledge-wisdom (?).
... i think this one is good: "to enrich their soul not just their bodies (hand-eye-brain mostly)"

Of course, you wont be able to transmit that if you do not have that (whatever "that" is). If you realize you do not have that or do not have enough of that, then you should try to get the best of that, by the best ways you can, so the users get the best possible too.

However, if that is not your style (feeding the souls) -> you prefer trying to make the perfect version of the "cliche" games, then go ahead, as long as you do your best job...
Anyways, whatever side you are, id say... do not choose sides.. take both and do the best game you can, you can take one of the sides as the primary, but do not exclude the other at all costs.
If it is a new Counterstrike, then it will be mostly firing and killing, but what about if you do maps that resembled old cultures (they do, but not quite ''right'' from what ive heard), to give the best of both you can... of course not all games are suited for both of them, at least not equal amounts of them...
Using this case, Half Life can accept both sides, so make it an excellent shooting game, but give the story all the soul-feeding possible...