quote: Original post by liquiddark
Skip to the next 50. Who''s going to write Annie Hall: the game? Or was this Monkey Island? Who''s going to write American History X? Can this material even be done right? An adventure set on the Underground Railroad?

What about #166, Sling Blade? Or Ed Wood - can we write a game about Miyamoto (or, more applicably, Romero) yet?

This is one of the essential problems with games in this respect: the tools don''t work all the time. Character-driven experience doesn''t work, since the other characters have to deal with a dynamic player. We can experiment with story order, but it''s going to cost us in other areas of the design. Visual style is available, but that''s superficial. Nothing''s particularly "new" in terms of plots or even settings. Sound is available, and can be at least a little more introspective than imagery.

Excellent points, ld. And this gets right to the heart of the matter. If the original point of this rant was against the lack of diversity and poor training today''s designers have, you have to ask whether or not these movies are perfect examples of research themselves. Are all games supposed to be Glory, or Gods and Generals (uh-- actually, that is a game, isn''t it...?)

What makes a person qualified to write Slingblade or Annie Hall? Does the analogy even hold up? I have nothing against having a diverse background-- in fact, it''s great to raid for ideas. But isn''t it your artistic sense that qualifies you to do these types of films?

If the original point were correct (which it is not) that game designers were obsessed with robots and elves, and you wanted to make a comparison to movies, you would have to ask yourself where there was comparable overlap. You might ask, for example, why aren''t there any blockbuster movies about the lives of Iranian women? Or why aren''t there dozens of action-adventure movies set in Antartica? The rant regarding game genres makes about as much sense.

Movies rarely owe their success to their research. For example, how many movies featuring internet hackers get the terminology and technology down right? If you get the costumes wrong in your latest Samurai flick, or historical drama, few are going to notice unless to do it very, very wrong. It''ll be the geeks in your audience that care, and even we won''t throw away a perfectly good movie because it botched our field of expertise (Matrix, anyone?)

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by HenryApe
WC was perhaps more influential for the genre because it came before C&C.

Ah but dune2 was out before WC

What is interesting here are not the elves, but the oddity of the thinking of bishop_pass.

Indeed, as it has been told, many games do have settings that have nothing to do with the realms of fantasy and SF. Is the thinking behind those games any different though? The usual thinking is that gameplay is king, and gameplay and setting have little to do with each other - choose some setting that is cool in some way, unique if at all possible, and get to the gameplay as soon as possible - while betraying the very essence of the chosen setting without a blink if gameplay demands it. The very concept of "setting" as something separate is part of the problem.

What bishop_pass demands is not that we choose different settings but that we change the whole starting point of designing a game. The point should not be to simply create a cool/fun game, but one of our choosing - setting, art and gameplay should all be merely instruments in the service of our point. In fact, making games with elves should be alright, should the point behind the game be something else than "creating a cool fun game with elves".

On these boards Dauntless is a good example of this kind of thinking. Chris Crawford's design process for his game Balance of Power is another one (article).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree that this proposition is a practical one. It is definitely worth considering though.

[edited by - Diodor on November 25, 2003 5:05:02 AM]

In fact I doubt the designers of all those games with elves really cared that much about elves. The problem isn''t that they are obsessed with elves, but that they aren''t obsessed with the matter of the game they are creating.

the real problem then is that there is to much game about "fun" and not enough which saying something else? i''m agree, maybe some gamer wouldn''t call those game justl like some people don''t call movie ''things'' which are no an entertainement (don''t ask me why!!), but for the sake of game let''s have more different people, for the sake of fun too

what about a game as a journalist in a small village during the yougoslavia war, only interacting with the habitant socialy without other goal than being there and participate to their dayly life?? i mean something like gorazde

a lot of gamer love game and could shift to a different experiance and a lot of non-gamer could "play" these game because of something else than "entertainement"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps this is a chicken and egg question? Are there so many sci-fi and fantasy based games because it''s what the game designers love, or is it because that is what they think the target audience wants?

Again, I agree here with Bishop in that I feel that designers should design for what inspires them creatively (be it sci-fi or niche), irregardless of whatever marketing forces may otherwise say. In that sense, I do not believe that the game industry has reached the "art" stage of development, and we are still a "entertainment service" industry since I believe that game design is primarily influenced by catering to so-called market-desire rather than artistic vision. But herein lay the problem...if we stick to whatever nebulous idea of market-demand is, then the truly groundbreaking and evolutionary games will not come along.

However this still poses the problem, "what if game designers truly are fascinated by elves/orcs/goblins/giant robots?". In this case, I believe we have a case in which birds of a feather flock together. In other words, so many game designers tend to have the same taste simply because if you are a programmer/designer, the odds are that you grew up reading comics, anime, Tolkein, and watching sci-fi flicks.

There is another possibility (and a hope for a solution). The other possibility is that game designers simply haven''t been exposed to other genres since TV, comics and movies pretty much are inundated with your typical fantasy and sci-fi (tripe). I for one have a great love of history, which is why I always throw in stories about generals, battles, or other military trivia. I''m also fascinated by cultural perspective (perhaps because I''m of mixed race), so I am always interested in reading stories with fully fleshed out customs and civilizations and how they act and behave. Perhaps it also helps that my original college education was a liberal arts oriented background (psychology) even though I''m now going back to school to get a CS degree. I really think it helps alot that my classes weren''t limited to Math, Logic Design, OS design and Programming theory.

As a breath of fresh air, I recommend designers here check out other game design sites that aren''t necessarily focused on computers, and see what other people have come up with for their ideas.

quote: In that respect, my point is that the acceptance of "scientifically created" music like electronica comes in part because the seeds of the future were planted in SF, by authors who dreamed stranger things than any of their peers, and drew from the great font of science instead of twiddling bits on the dwindling possibilities of plot/character/emotion/setting.

Science fiction, and electronic music, clearly got a boost from the development of the computer, but I really think the perspectives and methods that the SF writers apply to computers and science have existed for long in literature.

I think the great science fiction writers were great because they showed that science fiction could be great literature, rather than just technically pedantic plots with bratty characters as galactic leaders and no emotional or philosophical depth.

Yes, William Gibson started a trend in science fiction that would also come to influence other parts of our culture, but that's really no different than how horror culture (literature, movies, shock rock, alarmist reports in the news etc.) has shifted away from monsters towards psychological scares, or maybe how comedy has moved towards edgy humor.

There are trends in all cultural phenomenons and I think its hard to pinpoint any one genre as the most "innovative", though I do imagine that the increased importance of computers and IT in our society may have boosted the public's interest for science fiction.

[edited by - HenryAPe on November 25, 2003 3:41:10 PM]

HenryApe,

My opinion is that you''re underestimating the pervasiveness and influence SF had at certain times in the last century. It''s pretty much back to a "niche" now, but when the bomb was dropped it was everywhere and everything. SF didn''t just bring a lot to the table in terms of a mature form of literature, it helped bring sanity to some of the scariest moments in recent history. It helped to get people looking out beyond the boundaries of their homes and even their planet. It inspired and moulded the American space efforts. It gave form to the fears of the anti-communists. It invented the word robot, and brought it into the everyday language. It helped bring the influence of surrealism into mainstream lit. It presented tangible imagination that almost no other form could match (I exclude only visual art). It brought forward concepts of equality and democracy that no other type of fiction needed to handle.

My perspective is that SF opened the world up, expressing and mirroring the process brought on by ubiquitous media and travel.

ld

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
I believe in stated I my last post that I do indeed believe that such projects, as engineered by individuals such as yourself, would in all likelihood, flop, precisely because individuals such as yourself, most likely more expert at fantasy settings, are simply not qualified to produce quality material depicting another genre. It follows that if your true inspiration and interests lied elsewhere, then you would strive to produce material (and good material) based on those interests.

While your threads tend to be controversial, borderline antagonistic, I never the less enjoy reading them - if nothing other than to inspire some thought outside the box once in a while. This is a problem that not only plagues the game industry but the entertainment industry as a whole. Look at radio for instance. Since the 1980''s Clearstation has dictated what you will listen to and taken the choice of played music out of the DJ''s hands. I won''t go into conspiracy theories here gut I am sure they exist. Movies are particularly incestuous. When someone releases a "boy and man swap bodies" movie, 3 others follow immediately behind. Over the last 20-25 years there has been an obvious trend in "squeezing the sponge dry" vice creating unique, quality entertainment. Sad…

I share your frustration, but tend to point my anger more towards society in general. I think entertainment companies, as a rule, do not venture out of a tried and true formula. If someone in Hollywood produced an epic western that raked in $700 million I guarantee that you would see an increase in other forms of entertainment seeking to capitalize on the interest. Sadly I don''t think that non-mainstream settings would fail because the people producing the content "are simply not qualified to produce quality material depicting another genre", but rather we as I society are not qualified to accept and enjoy it. I still scratch my head about what we value as quality in this country.

It''s puzzling when a movie such as Star Wars, completely refocuses everyone to new ideas and why. I am inclined to shout, "Because George WAS qualified to produce QUALITY material then and because of that material a new fascination was created". Do I give we consumers to much credit here for *appreciating* good material though? I think so - Perhaps it was why George had to create the original movie on his own vice with Hollywood. Lets call an apple an apple though - the acting in Star Wars was mostly poor, the dialog passable, but the special effects were - and still are - state of the art. So is the metric quality or visual stimulation? Gone with the Wind is a simple, elegant movie that even today sparkles as a great movie - timeless. Star Wars today, while nostalgic, is mediocre at best (sorry – just being honest here…).


I tend to think it’s not the industry that needs to mature but society''s appetite - in a big way. However, this argument basically reduces to the chicken and the egg. If we “created” more passion in diverse subject matter would the sheep follow or do the sheep need to create the market for more diverse passions?

Now if you don''t mind I am going to go listen to Brittney Spears, work some calories off on my Bowflex, chat via SMS on my cellphone while driving, get worked up about today''s episode of Judge Judy, and find that pellet dispenser (shameless Dilbert reference..).


#dth-0

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
Yes its possible to get away from some research in doing a fantasy setting, but at the same time if you want you can put a whole lot in. Go watch the Appendices discs on the Lord Of The Rings DVD''s and see how much effort WETA put in to creating believable Uruk - Hai, Goblins & Elves.

I also think its impossible to have an incorrect goblin, or an incorrect cowboy. But it is possible to have an unbelievable one. Its that and not whats possible which make the game fun.

In Dungeon Siege the goblins built little robots and had tanks. Is that an incorrect goblin? No and I found it a nice difference.

Rahven

That''s a good point: just because a thing has never existed before does not meen that it cannot be researched. One of the things I like about good SF (whether in books, movies, or games) is the feeling that there is a whole other world that exists apart from the story. The feeling that there could be a thousand other stories written in the same fictional world. I only really get that feeling when the creator of that world has put in a serious effort to make the world completely self-consistent and believable.
This brings to mind the wide-spread concern over the way that history is taught in schools. (Actually, it probably applies to all subjects, but history is a good example.) It is typically taught in a way that emphasizes rote memorization of the broad strokes, the dates and locations of key events, etc. There is often little or no attempt made to create a true understanding of the period in question and the true reasons for the things that took place then. Anyone who actually does gain such an understanding will not only be able to understand almost any other period of history, but will also have what it takes to create whole new worlds that feel completely believable.
Oddly enough, this takes us back to Bishop''s analogy with the drawing of the goblin. Bishop felt that by drawing only goblins we do not learn the fundamentals of proportion, expression, etc. This is perhaps the case, but many of us, myself included, felt that there must already be such an understanding in order to draw the goblin. I said in an earlier post that I felt that it probably takes a better understanding of the basics to draw a goblin than it would take to draw a real person. With a real person it is possible to simply sketch what you see, without necesarily understanding the fundamentals, but since a goblin is a kind of extrapolation or charicature of a human, the fundamentals are all you''ve got to work with. The same can be said for the process of creating a complete fictional world. If you are researching something that actually exists/existed it''s possible to simply copy and paste the details, without necesarily understanding why things are the way the are. But by first understanding the fundamentals of human society and cultural/technological evolution, you can extrapolate our real history into any possible future or alternate world with complete believability.