Game developers will continue to design and produce Games that will sell, I don't think this really has anything to do with what they personally enjoy although im sure 99% of them are into the things you suggest, they produce Games to make money.

I think you missed my point somewhat about the cowboy game. It was to show using an example you gave that Mundane in real life = Mundane Game no matter how artistically correct it is.

It's difficult to tell whether your arguing for realism from an artistic point of view or from a game play perspective.

Like I said above though there are many games that do base themselves on real life, most flight simulators are artistically and physically as close to the real thing as they can make them. Grand Prix and racing simulators are the same, there are also a number of war strategy games that are based on real life stats, and even now some FPS games are trying to be historically correct in terms of weapons, uniforms etc see Call of Duty. Lastly there are sports games like PGA Tour golf that try to be as realistic as possible.

From a gameplay point of view even outlandish games like the soon to be release Doom 3, Half Life 2 have realsitic influence that need a lot of research into them because most games nowadays try to employ a realistic physics engine.

Maybe the question you should ask yourself is why you are so against elfs and aliens in games?

Malal





[edited by - Malal on November 20, 2003 5:56:32 AM]

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
I mentioned this before. Elves are part of the problem. Goblins, robots and spaceships contribute as well.

Elves aren''t the problem. Neither are Goblins, Robots or Spaceships. They are merely symptoms of a completely different set of issues.

To some extent, it probably is laziness. I''m sure most of you have heard of the author Iain (M) Banks - he writes both fiction and science fiction books. I''ve heard that he prefers writing science fiction because ''he doesn''t have to do any research''.

Developers probably feel the same way to some degree, but with the additional problem of having more serious time and money constraints. Given that games are prone to slippage already, even without the additional overhead of the sort of detailed research you''ve spoken about in the past, how would you expect a publisher to react if he came for his two month progress check and you told him "We haven''t started coding or even writing the design document, but the whole team can now ride bareback while firing a six shooter, as well as play authentic western style poker even after downing 36 pints of moonshine with sippin'' whiskey chasers!"

Most publishers probably wouldn''t be too impressed, and would most likely can your project on the spot. Any developer who wants to succeed in getting his project off the ground is going to need to keep research down to a practical minimum, or else be prepared to do it in his own time before the project even begins.
Even indie developers aren''t immune to this - while they may not have the problem of investors breathing down their necks, they are most likely producing the game in their spare time while holding down another job, which leaves relatively little additional time for detailed research.

quote: I argued that when one draws a goblin or a robot, there work does not have a metric for it to be compared against to the same tune that more conventional subject matter does.

Does that prevent it from being art? No. You seem to be focusing a little too heavily on the technical aspects of art. If art was just about capturing reality as realistically as possible, they''d be no point in drawing at all - you might as well just take a photograph.

quote:
There''s a lot of people out there in the World who aren''t particularly fascinated by elves and goblins or other such creatures. But game developers sure are. And as long as that remains the case, so will the audience be limited to such. But, alas, how many game developers are qualified to pursue different subject matter? Granted, there have been numerous historical games, but they mostly seem to be tactical simulations, where the focus of research was essentially weapons - altogether not quite as impressive when one looks at it.

I won''t argue that goblins and elves are getting pretty tired these days. They''ve certainly advanced beyond the realm of being mere clichés. But hey, building a completely original world could take as long as researching a historical one, and for reasons already stated, time is something most game developers have enough of at the moment.

That''s enough excuses. A good question to ask of everyone here might be "Assuming time and money for research were not issues, what setting would you use for your ideal game?"

If everyone responds with a setting which involves elves, goblins, aliens and robots, then I suppose we fail your test too.

When I was commenting I only used Cowboy''s to keep in tune with that you where saying.. you mentioned cowboys so it would only seem logical that although I know you mean anything but Robots and Golin, I would stick with cowboys.

I think you hit it right no the head that the reason the game developers don''t/can''t make a game based on something other then fantasy is that they are not obessed with it.. but I''m also sure like alot of people have already said is that if a game was made that was based more on reality and not on fantasy in someway (far fetched stories included) it wouldn''t have a huge audience.

You said that with all the fantasy (I''m just using the word fantasy to cover robots and golbins and etc.) game out there they are only getting one small group of game players, which is quite true but I would argue that out of all the game playing groups it would be the largest. if you where to make a Roaring 20''s game only people that are interested in the 20''s would be interested in playing where as we can tell that from the sales of movies like Matrix and LOTR that fantasy is quite popular..

You state that you beleive it takes more skill or talent to make something based on real items.. at first I agreed but now I''m not entirely for that.. When you are making up something that isn''t based on fact you have to come up with all the details so that it becomes somewhat beleivable.. where as painting something real might be harder then making something up, making a game based on fact gives you rules to follow and therefore as long as you follow the rules you don''t need to make up much..

quote: Original post by Sandman
That''s enough excuses. A good question to ask of everyone here might be "Assuming time and money for research were not issues, what setting would you use for your ideal game?"

If everyone responds with a setting which involves elves, goblins, aliens and robots, then I suppose we fail your test too.

Quite and interesting statement, and when I read that question I got to thinking about Ultima Online and Zelda, my two favorite games, then I realized that they both are in the golbin/elf section.. so I started to think of a game that I might want to make that didn''t include that type of thing. The closest I can come to is to say that I would really like to make a game like Civilizations..

quote: Original post by Sandman
That''s enough excuses. A good question to ask of everyone here might be "Assuming time and money for research were not issues, what setting would you use for your ideal game?"

If everyone responds with a setting which involves elves, goblins, aliens and robots, then I suppose we fail your test too.

I want to work on something based around the 20''s in New England, as well as possibly Antarctica and England though I''m concentrating my limited time on trying to index some good general resources of the time period concerning the US at present. I''m thinking something Lovecraftian though I''m not sure I''d ultimately limit myself entirely in that respect (not that his creations are in any way limiting, really). The last thing I want is another D&D clone, so I''m really just looking at it as a historian more so than a developer at this point.

I think I'll take my own stab at this....

quote: Original post by bishop_pass When one draws a picture of a goblin, the finer nuances of facial proportions are lost, even facial expression, tone, etc. In other words, the artist can get it wrong, and the viewer doesn't know the artist got it wrong, because what the Hell is a goblin supposed to look like anyway?

Of course the artist can make the goblin look like however he/she wants and argue that they intended it that way. Isn't that the point? However, that's entirely independent of whether or not it's a decent rendition of a goblin.

Can the artist draw the same goblin consistantly through a range of poses? Can the artist give the goblin a range of expression beyond, "Argh, I'm a big ol' evil goblin!"? Does the goblin at least have believable anatomy? Is there good use of light, color, and texture?

It still takes a decent artist to make a decent goblin.

Consider a landscape painter who specializes in fantasy landscapes. They're not painting anything which actually exists, so how can the viewer tell if the artist got anything wrong? The answer seems simple enough, to me. A good landscape is a good landscape, simple as that. There are still qualities that well-done, fantasy-based images need to possess, like any other work.

quote: Draw a portrait of a cowboy instead, Suddenly you're challenged. You need to get the clothing right, the facial proportions right, the actions right, the finer nuances of his trade right, everything. All of a sudden, you need to be a good artist, a knowledgable artist, a well researched artist, an artist who watches the finer nuances and subtleties of life, a better artist.

Which is ignoring the fact that many good, knowledgable, well researched artists rarely touched upon the human figure during their carreers. It's also ignoring the fact that any fantasy artist (or concept artist) who thinks they can get away with leaving humans out their work isn't likely to get very far. What good is having goblins if you don't have people to run around slaying them? Heck, even if you replace humans with dwarves, elves, or fairies, such things require just as much knowledge of human anatomy to be done well.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is still too much reliance on "stock fantasy" settings, rather than trying to pioneer new types of worlds. So yes, elves are part of the problem, but not for the reasons you've listed. However, such games are out there, even if they tend to be wrongfully lumped into the same bin.

quote: Original post by kryat
I think the majority of the problem that bishop perceives is an inexperienced artists' misguided attempt to cater to the current trends of game design, rather than becoming the best artist he/she can be and allow himself/herself to become a visual and creative tool.

Nothing wrong with drawing elves or robots or aliens, so long as they are drawn well, and by someone with a firm grasp of the basics of anatomy, perspective, color theory and so on. If not, then it just looks like crap, but that just means the artist has no talent, not that the stuff they choose to try to recreate sucks.

I think you’ll find that most professional concept designers can draw anything, but even they still have a soft spot for something they really enjoy drawing.

You are very wise, indeed.

--Romey

[edited by - Romey on November 20, 2003 1:04:29 PM]

Well, bishop, you seem to have earned yourself quite a reputation as a rabble-rouser around here.

From a commercial standpoint, every gae has to have a target audience, and the biggest target audience gets the most games, which usually serves to attract other people to gaming who are interested in that particular style. It''s a vicious cycle, and it''s fueled by capitalism.

As such, it''s up to independent game developers to push the envelope and come up with new and exciting types of games. You are one such person, bishop, though you seem to be growing impatient with the loneliness of original genius. ; )

I''m afraid I don''t fully understand your distaste for styles and content that can''t be measured against some tangible "real". For my part, I enjoy unrealistic content and ideas in my games, and the only time I cringe at an "unrealistic" component is when it offends my sense of logic, and that''s usually more tied up with story than with the structure of the gameworld.

I''ll refrain from echoing the critiques of your artistic example, but I''ll contribute that it''s nive to be able to tell what''s evil just by looking at it. Sure, it isn''t real, but if I want to hang out with ambiguously motivated, superficially indistinguishable creatures, I''ll just go to college. Which I do.

I like the original Tolkien stories that spawned all the damnable elves, and I like Star Wars, Alien, Aliens and even Star Trek, in some forms. At the end of the day, I''m the target audience of many modern high-budget games.

I also like firearms, and I cringe whenever a game or movie misportrays them. Most of the time I shout something like "What? Where can I get a 13-shot .50 AE Desert Eagle?" and my friends and family say, "Shut up, you''re ruining the movie. Nobody cares." That seems to be pretty much the response you''ve gotten here, bishop. Sorry, buddy.

Westerns? I got two words for you.

Riiiisiiing ZAAAAAA--AAA--AANNN The Samurai GuunnMaaan!

Ok. it was more than two words.

Dude. I think that would be awesome if there was a "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" game, where you ride around as a mysterious bounty hunter with a supernatural lightning fast draw. If you''d read the Gunslinger novels by Stephen King, and watched some of those old western epics, I''d say there''s some good material that you could use to base a game around.

If you went fps, then your weapon array could be:
Pistol (obviously way more powerful with a fast firing mode)
Two Pistols- available as an upgrade
Long Barreled Pistol for extra range
Rifle-longest range
Double Barreled Shotgun (classic)
Possible six barreled shotgun- saw that in a movie once.
The Gatling Gun-crank action
Stick o'' Dynamite
Bowie Knife/Tomahawk

It might make a good mod.

After I seen Record of Lodoss war, I know that elves aren''t problem, dead elves are problem.

Heroes have strong personalities, much like persons on Usenet.
When you are using anime you are using that expersion to make this fact visible.

I think that my two games strategy and rpg could be better with a manga like expression, Certainly rpg could be much better if I''d design it with that in mind.

Look at Chrono trigger. You could tell difference between main hero and princess right away, even on SNES.

It might be more about artist''s laziness than about genre. I talked with artist that refuzed to draw skeleton model and he evaded talking about balance of drawed thing. I also seen "movie" with ships that was horribly done. Too simple and too much spaced together. They explained this by words "nobody knows how space ships would look like so we could omited details". I do know, but it would take few years to kick something about it to theirs heads so I left it be.

Sometimes it takes just 5 minutes to code a little detail that is very important, but some programmers, and I talk about artists too, give up before trying.

quote: Original post by Romey

quote: Original post by kryat
I think the majority of the problem that bishop perceives is an inexperienced artists'' misguided attempt to cater to the current trends of game design, rather than becoming the best artist he/she can be and allow himself/herself to become a visual and creative tool.

Nothing wrong with drawing elves or robots or aliens, so long as they are drawn well, and by someone with a firm grasp of the basics of anatomy, perspective, color theory and so on. If not, then it just looks like crap, but that just means the artist has no talent, not that the stuff they choose to try to recreate sucks.

I think you’ll find that most professional concept designers can draw anything, but even they still have a soft spot for something they really enjoy drawing.

You are very wise, indeed.

Really? Artistic portrayals were used an an analogy in my presentation. While offering your own take on art, I don''t think you, or the individual you claim is wise really addressed what I was analogizing to.