You have an interesting idea, and it's possible to achieve, but it would be a rather tricky business. As for why, we should compare the interactive electronic entertainment (game) media format with several other media formats.

Book: The oldest of these formats, books can be written by a team, but generally tend to be written by a single author. Greatly depending on the prolificity of the author, several books could be completed in one year, or it may take ten years per book. With a book you are working only with text, and in one sence, you are uninhibited in what you can do. In the general single-author, fiction book, is there really such a thing as a high budget production? I can't quite fathom such an idea. Anyways, everything begins and ends with the author, there is often only one person working on it, and it is 100% his vision, whatever it is.

Music: Music can be written and performed by as few people as one, and as many as an entire orchestra. Similar to the book format, people can simply say what they feel, put it to music, rhyme it, and as long as it sounds good, generally people will buy it. I'm not trying to put down the industry at all, that's not what I'm about. But it seems to me that a song is a lot simpler to write than a book. A single albumn usually has about 12 songs on it, and depending on the artist(s), sometimes a new albumn is made every year or so. Also, music is performed, unlike the book media format, which is only worked on over a period of time and sold as seperate units. The music format is also distributed in units, but it is a performance, whereas books are not.

Movie: Here we have a large, big money industry with all sorts of necessary tasks to get anything done. You need a director, producers, actors, stunt people, special effects wizards, etc etc, depending on what your production is. It usually takes one or more years to finish a production, and when you are finished, the movie goes through the theatres and then onto tape or dvd where it is sold. Like the music industry, movies are performed and then sold in units, although they are only performed once. Each of the presentations shown in theatres, similar to a musician's concerts, are instead recordings. Also, movies are often accompanied with a huge media blitz. This happens somewhat with music too, with posters of bands and t-shirts, but moreso with many movies; do you ever see Britney Spears action figures? Well I guess you see Barbies, fair enough.

Game: The game industry is probably closest in relation to the movie industry. You've got a team of people, each with different skills, working together to create a product. Like a movie, it often takes multiple years to complete a single project, however when it is done, it is sold strictly in stores and doesn't go through any sort of presentation stage - unless maybe you count shareware demos. The main differences between the game media format and that of the others, as far as I can see it, is the format's youth (it is indeed a younger industry than that of movies, music, or books) and the fact that the game media format is INTERACTIVE. Nothing else really is, it's all one way communication. With games you are interpreting user input and responding to it.

Being a young industry, the game industry won't be taken as seriously in the mainstream as much as movies or music or books until something really incredible comes though, a breakthrough, that can be compared on par with the others. We need our Shakespeare, our the Doors, our Spielberg. Until we get one or more of those, we'll have something fun and entertaining, but not something deep and powerful, which is what I gather you feel it should be.

One problem is that a game is simply that - a game. It's there to entertain you, not to enlighten you. Traditionally games have always been there to pass the time, to settle an argument, to relax. Nobody would think to play a game to discover insights about humanity. One important question: SHOULD a game be inspirational? Really, at that point, does it cease being a game, and become something more like an interactive media presentation? See, while it's a game, you've got to have gameplay, you've got to focus on FUN, not as much on message. A game is meant to be entertainment, and not too much more than that. Books are there to enlighten, music to touch your soul. A movie can be a lot of different things. A game, however...In a game I want something fun. I don't need a life lesson from my Pac Man.

What I think you're thinking of is a role playing game, you probably figure a game that has a message could only be an RPG, since that's the only one that focuses that much on story. However, when you start to put more into it, you may find that what you are making is less of a fun game and more of a somewhat interactive story. I think the thingk to keep our focus one, what should be of PRIME importance to us, is simply this: fun. A message is a fine thing, and I commend you for your idea and I certaintly wish you luck on attaining that. But whatever you do...keep the games fun.

- Hai, watashi no chichi no kuruma ga oishii deshita!
...or, in other words, "Yes, my dad's car was deliscious!"

Edited by - Bucket_Head on August 6, 2000 12:05:46 AM

Bravo Bucket_Headm, long and enlightening post (unlike games ) but I have to ask this question:

When do games stop being fun?

The way I see it, the dry old method of representing RPG''s is slowly going to drive people away from that medium. What we need is something that is a little different to keep us interested. The game industry would become a joke because of it''s failure to meet public demands. What we want is just a little more depth, something that makes the game worth its money.

Sure, we have a nice industry at the moment (for a newbie) but it isn''t plausible to just keep outputting the same old crap that we have seen before. It may not be crap now, but it will be soon. Graphics can''t keep people buying games for ever? IMHO The main reason people buy graphics games is because it is hyped so much that people think that it is what they are really after... WOW! That new Riva TNT 30 ULTRA! It is really going to make my game interesting!

It is just crap! We need something that is new and innovative, otherwise we will have to compete with the movie industry, and nobody can hope to win against those odds. Yay! Special effects are good for protraying your idea, but the games need some DEPTH... Why is it too much to ask for a little more DEPTH in a game. I am not talking about total interaction from VR, but I do expect my game to offer me something back instead of the countless hours that I waste there not thinking about anything important.

It is due to these reasons why I have not been playing Diablo II for over a week now. What is the problem is that although I like it, I only like it for its good looks. I do not actually LOVE the game. I want a game that is like a woman (or a man, depending on your preferences )... I want it to contribute to my existance and at least question why I love it so much... I believe this is possible, at least a questioning game makes you think!

Enough of my $(2*rant/100)


-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

Note to all: If you can't tell, I am very passionate about RPGs

Appologies for any offensiveness

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet

Edited by - dwarfsoft on August 6, 2000 12:39:23 AM

I think there''s a big future in creative graphics and creativness as a whole for game developers. And one should complete avoid any information about marketability of their games Just go for it!

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Just one little thing, I guess culminated from the passion people have displayed here.

It''s just a game.
Whatever it is.
It will be a long time ere any game will be considered "art", very unlike music or books or plays or movies. Some came close, perhaps, Myst or Riven, though I''ve played neither. They did not appeal to me. I play games. Whether Monopoly or Quake, it''s not a mystical experience, it''s simply entertainment.
That may sound heretical after all the discussions I''ve started and contributed to, but I think it''s important. We''re striving for riveting, great entertainment. Not art.

I have to think of the movie "picknick at hanging rock", which for some reason is considered a classic. It''s just a long, slow, empty, void movie, vaguely called horror because it simply refuses to explain, or even HINT at an explanation, what is going on. For games, the general public are our critics. The general public did not buy Looking Glass games, they bought Monopoly and Golf games. Even the massive following of Id software has not made them a huge, multinational company. How many people work there? 50? I know a small metal-processing factory nearby with more workers than that.
I''m not sure what my point is anymore, but, I think it is, don''t look too far for meaning, look for something you enjoy making and people enjoy playing. That''s all you need.

[ Ps: I''m a writer, game designer, and musician, as well as an academic... but yet the idea of an artistic game does not appeal to me. A game with meaning might, but only if it isn''t too heavily loaded. ]

Another example: Alien Vs. Predator. Great atmosphere. It makes it impossible for me to play the game. You can''t see anything, you die every three minutes. It''s truly the alien atmosphere, and makes for a completely useless game. I prefer the endlessly-brown QuakeII by a long margin.



Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

Yeah, games should be only about fun, because they are games after all; that''s logical, not? Well, I think it''s not that simple. You say games are only here to entertain, and it''s the job of music, books and films to "enlighten"; but why is that so? I think all of these media started as nothing else but means for entertainment. I''m sure about movies (someone said in the early days of filmmaking, movies sometimes consisted only of a train who rushed by or something like that; it was animated, and that was enough), and although I don''t know exactly how writing and musicmaking were created, I''m pretty sure there are still a lot of books and songs only for entertainment; but people also saw that they could do more with these media than just entertain, they could move people, they could "get a message across", this sort of things. So what I ask now is, could the same happen to computer games? And BTW, a lot of books, movies and songs with "a meaning" can be quite entertaining too IMHO...

--------------------------

Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind...

Just something to think about

en+ter+tain+ment n. 1. the act or art of entertaining or state of being entertained. 2.an act, production,etc., that entertains; diversion; amusement

en+ter+tain+ing adj. serving to entertain or give pleasure; divertain; amusing. -,en+ter+''tain+ing+ly adv

en+ter+tain vb.l. to provide amusement for (a person or audience). 2. to show hospitality to (guests). 3. (tr.) to hold in the mind: to entertain an idea.

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

So basically you could say that games are entertaining based on the fact that you can "waste time" with them. It doesn''t seem like a clear definition of entertainment if you ask me...

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

Grrr, a post of mine here just got nuked ''cause of the dreaded bluescreen of death. And I forgot what I was saying, something about movies, books, music, food, painting being pretty passive as artforms, and games being not very passive unless they suck, and how it makes a difference, but I was probably just ranting trying to make a point that doesn''t exist

When we manage to make a game that the "art" world considers "art", we might have won, or we might have lost...
I''m not sure yet.


Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.

I think that we (as the crazy whacked out game designers) might have won in that instance. But we could just end up with another "short film" and "short story" type of thing. Shorten the game length, but be more creative with that time. This is an exciting time to be in . This is a good idea, but I can''t put it in the doc. Reason? It alread is

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)