i understand what you were trying to do, but my point is a good game is a good game, no matter what mask it wears. If the designers understand the basic concepts of game design, then the setting is unimportant.

Example: Storytelling, in its many forms, is based upon many rules and conventions (like the visual arts). There are specific and universal characteristics of good storytelling and character development. If you understand these mechanics that go on "behind the scenes" then the settings and specific charaters that make your story unique are incidental.

You use these rules and guides to form your own expression, so the end result is your creation but it is still based on these basic underlying principals.

Same goes for the visual arts, and even game design.

A good game is a good game because its a good game. Not because its in a cool time peroid or because it has "realisitc" characters.

quote: Original post by kryat
If the designers understand the basic concepts of game design, then the setting is unimportant.

I suppose that if you say that enough times, you''ll start to believe it. Well, obviously, you do believe it. Have you given much thought to what you just said, or do you just say things like that out of habit, because they are convenient single sentence statements?

instead of flinging that beautiful hot-air rhetoric of yours around some more, why don´t you explain to us why you think that setting and good gameplay are so important to each other?

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
I suppose that if you say that enough times, you''ll start to believe it. Well, obviously, you do believe it. Have you given much thought to what you just said, or do you just say things like that out of habit, because they are convenient single sentence statements?

Would you explain why he''s wrong? I''m inclined to agree with him to a certain extent.

Obviously, variety is good. We don''t want *every* game to be set in a stock fantasy setting. And besides, as you say, not everyone is interested in elves and goblins anyway, and might be put off an otherwise excellent game by their presence.

But individual prejudices aside, what is actually *wrong* with setting a game in a totally fictional universe? Sure, you don''t have to do as much research on a fictional universe, but is that a problem? Is Worms a horrible game because Team 17 didn''t spend half their development time researching the lifestyle of the garden earthworm? (I''m pretty sure they didn''t, because they made quite a few factual errors in that game. For example, real earthworms can''t operate rocket propelled grenade launchers terribly well ).

What it looks like we are getting down to here, is the old ''Fun'' vs. ''Realism'' argument. And fun beats realism every time.

myself, as an artist, i "let the content challenge the form and the form challenge the content"

originality often come when you can build link towards things which as no link together, the difficult part is to tie them together than you couldn''t see that they don''t fit usually together, this is what we called "believity" (hope its the good word, i''m not english native), originality come for unexpect surprise and it''s the skill of good creator (different from "artist" which only express themselves)

bishop you are "flaming" by the crude writing style you use and the quick reply focus only on bad aspects (even if you don''t want, but really it''s a "flame", that''s why i have use the "" to distinct it from your intention), and you have not really read carefully my post focusing on what didnot fit whith your vision as usual)

well it''s true we lack "creator" and have lazy artist which did not drive for innovation (mojib ribbon,REZ...???), the fact is that something work is tied with the experiance we have with this film, new style come when good artist understand the underligning of experiance of viewer and use it to create new form, it''s the matter of the artist to keep an enjoyment in the experiance of the style to spread this style, he must know the public he aim for and provide them originality by surprise them with their inner experiance, the understanding of the audiance is vital for an artist which want to give it something new, and it''s something which is more difficult than creating new things or having skill in something ready (computer has great skill in a lot of things and still cannot compet with a human which use these skill in an lower technical level)

then to create a new trends it''s "easy", know what the audiance want from the heart (not the superficial form, the underlign of the form, the inner meaning, this is something the audiance may not perceive themselves, then the understanding of these meaning give you full power), use it as a basis and tied it with things you want and want to share, and even something in the opposit of what the public want can be succesful)
matrix did this, metal gear too, and lot of movie and art



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

quote: Original post by bishop_pass

quote: Original post by kryat
If the designers understand the basic concepts of game design, then the setting is unimportant.

I suppose that if you say that enough times, you''ll start to believe it. Well, obviously, you do believe it. Have you given much thought to what you just said, or do you just say things like that out of habit, because they are convenient single sentence statements?

he has provided why he believes that statement to be true, he is not just saying it because its easy to say and be done with..

However you have just said that you don''t agree with it.. you haven''t given any reason why you don''t agree or given any counter arguement. Therefore as I sit here and read the posts I''m going to lean towards the option that has some reasoning behind it..

Other reason I would go with Kryat on this is because I can take his side and connect it will a real game.. A game that everyone knows.. PONG! the graphics don''t mean anything but its clear that its a computerized version of a Tennis game, be it table tennis or anyother version... Now if you take that same game and make the paddles ping pong paddles, or trains, or sheilds, or whatever you like ... they could even be trapped Golbins that if released will take over the other person.. its not going to change the actual game and how fun it is cause really after you get passed the first 5 min the graphics are just eye candy and the game is the same

The way I see it, fantasy and sci-fi games are more popular because they are easier. if you are doing a wild-west themed RPG, you run into several problems, such as, "What kind of common enem,ies can I have?" You aren''t going to step 10 feet and find another outlaw to fight. But in fantasy games you can kill a goblin, and have another one 10 steps away and no one complains because they have no knowledge of goblins. Realism seems to be the iron wall here in my opinion. Some people are afraid of doing realistic games because they have no real knowledge of it yet want to create a game. So they go off and be lazy using fantasy because the rules of a fantasy world changes in everyone''s mind. But if you produce a wild west game and a professor comes up and plays your game, he will be able to complain that there isn''t a bandit every 10 steps, and that the widl west wasn''t just shooting stuff, there was more to it. As you can see, many choose fantasy because there are no limitations, whereas in realistic settings, you must keep it accurate. The one flawe here is that the realistic games are fun to play. For example, I will take into account Age of Empires 2. It is realistic, yet allows lots of creative freedom. It is the balance of realism and fun, the two tyhings most game developers aim for. I see it as laziness on the developer''s part and not enough motivation to hit the books for a few months to make a cool game.

Scott Simontis
e-mail:ageofscott@comcast.net
AIM:ssimontis

Why should I explain something so damn simple and obvious? If one can''t see the significance in setting and variety in settings, then I can only conclude that explaining it to those who can''t see the significance (or claim they can''t) would be a fruitless endeavor.

Do all of you only watch fantasy movies? Do all of you only read fantasy books? If so, then the current crop of games are just for you, and you''re what one would qualify as a certain type. The rest of the world''d population probably will take a pass on the offerings of the game industry because of that.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
Why should I explain something so damn simple and obvious? If one can''t see the significance in setting and variety in settings, then I can only conclude that explaining it to those who can''t see the significance (or claim they can''t) would be a fruitless endeavor.

Well that''s just pure genius. Way to present an argument. Begging the question for beginners.

I''m sure you''ve heard it said that there are only 14 or so stories in the world, that just keep being retold in different settings. This is something that most literary experts seem to agree on. The implication of this is that the specifics of setting and character are unimportant to the telling of a story. So if that applies to fiction, why does it not apply to games?

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
Why should I explain something so damn simple and obvious?

Because obviously is isn''t.. or yo''d have alot more people on your side of this discussion, secondly your the one that started the discussion so shouldn''t you have a reason for posting it..

Seems to me like you posted it just so you could have people explain there idea''s and then just tell them they are stupid for not seeing it your way and that they are wrong.

I would love to hear about what you''d like to see in a game, a setting that you''d like to see, a game style, a few key points and then we can see if anyone else sounds interested in it.