quote: Original post by sunandshadow
Well, I like puzzle games, adventure games, RPGs, and some action games - I prefer things like mario and super metroid and golden axe to things like syphon filter or anything where you have to sneak or shoot a lot.

We mesh there.

quote: Here''s a list of my favorite games if it helps: Vagrant Story, FF7, Sanitarium, Obsidian, Lighthouse, Myst/Riven, Jewels of the Oracle, E.V.O The Search for Eden, The Incredible Machine, and Woodruff and the Schnibble (no one''s heard of this game, but it was like the spacequests, a comedy mouse-driven adventure).

We don''t here. I haven''t played any of those games (yes, I''ve never played a Final Fantasy game, and I have no intentions of starting now).

quote: I also like a bunch of sim games like Harvest Moon, the Sims, SimCity, etc. but I think those are safely outside the range of what we''re interested in here.

I agree. I do like sim games, too, though.

quote: I think versimilitude, logical consistency, and ''deepness'' are all essential to a great game design; I''m less certain that we''d agree on what was pretentious, or for that matter what our ''deep'' story should be about. But I also think there''re so many possible story ideas that we could find one that we both liked if we brainstormed about it enough; our tastes seem to be similar enough. At the moment, agreeing on a genre and a few other design details seems a more pressing issue to me.

Verisimilitude (aka "realism") is overrated. Vary the dimensions of things, give me ludicrous abilities (this is where fantasy worlds help). Narrative is important, and unique tales add much to the experience. The tradition of "Save the World" games and movies is tired; gimme something a bit more local. And give me flawed characters - selfish, petty, conflicted, yet somehow rising above themselves to do the right thing when it counts.

quote: I can compromise on this, but if I were going to suggest a game design just on my personal preferences I would want to make a gamepad-driven single player RPG with lots of puzzles and lots of dialogue choices.

Well...

Invariably, dialog (in my experience) gets rather tedious. Since you can''t actually come up with new expressions (you simply select from the ones available), it''s all a matter of grasping what the character wants to hear and saying it. Most systems will let you say pretty much everything until you get the right one, creating attitude/response inconsistencies (I thought she was just mad at me for saying "Show us your... face!", but now she''s offering me the Divine Lamp of Warrior Guidance +6?!) If you have systems in mind that can elevate this beyond drudgery or pandering to designer''s "I''m really a writer" fantasies, then it''s a go.

I prefer gamepads myself, as I never play any frenetic games on my keyboard. Improves its lifespan.

As for puzzles, I like them if they''re smart and make sense - which is at once easier and more difficult than it sounds. Puzzles are really just obstacles or objectives, so any means of achieving them should be equally valid. ie, if I need to get a door, requiring me to battle through the Graveyard of Endless Regurgitation to retrieve some ratty old key should be just as valid as my blowing it off its hinges with my Bazooka of Righteous Purpose +15 or picking the lock. In fact, the latter two should be preferrable. Any puzzles that require tedium or backtracking as opposed to observation and reasoning (or, in a comical setting, extreme lateral thought) are evil.

quote: The game would be graphical with a 3rd-person side-on pov, either 2-d anime-style or 3-d FF-style graphics.

I never preselect presentational style. I believe it should be a function of the game world, objective and desired ambience.

quote: Combat would be using (mainly) non-projectile weapons, and meter-based combat with button combos: ducking, jumping, and that sort of thing.

What''s wrong with projectiles? I mean, close-quarters combat is sometimes necessitated by environment, but if the environment is such that I can take advantage of distance to smite my foe with minimal risk of retaliation, why shouldn''t I?

Heck, why should I fight. If I can set fire to fields, dig holes and cover them up with straw, avoid confrontations altogether... why shouldn''t I? Combat is really just another puzzle - another obstacle placed in the path of my achieving my goal, and consequently all strategies for dealing with it should be equally viable (albeit possessing unique consequences, such as developing a reputation for being a coward if you always run/avoid fighting).

quote: The player would have some sort of equippage/attack style customization system, and an inventory containing items they picked up which could be used later in battles or puzzles.

Yes, so long as it makes sense. The standard RPG inventory (containing two spears larger than the avatar, a bunch of potions - in glass bottles, natch - and so on) is silly. At the very least, give me a backpack or a mule or a Portal Locker of Infinite Storage +50. (This is mostly a presentational concern.)

quote: I would want to use some FMV sequences to portray key points of the story, so there''s your movie-similarity for you.

I prefer scripted sequences using in-game models. They''re flexible, and they don''t break the suspension of disbelief by changing detail levels (since FMVs are usually rendered high quality). FMVs using in-game models, lighting and so on are fine.

quote: Sub games are good, game+ is good, multiple endings are good.

Check.

quote: So, what of that would you want to change or add to get to an acceptable starting design?

In addition to the above, and as you can probably tell from my poking fun at it, RPGs have this tendency to give things the most ridiculous names - not to mention horrendous "Old English" language. I''d much rather prefer a Knight''s Tale-style anachronistic but consistent use of modern language to attempting to graft the unnecessary to create a "mood".

Since this is becoming a bit of a back-and-forth between you and I, I think we should move it to e-mail.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Since this is becoming a bit of a back-and-forth between you and I, I think we should move it to e-mail.

Aye, i cba to read that stuff they posted although i know its just a one to one.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Since this is becoming a bit of a back-and-forth between you and I, I think we should move it to e-mail.

Right, I''ll email you my reply. (After I go eat dinner. Need brain food.)

I know this topic has kind of broken down from what I''ve seen (I''ve only had time to scan it), but I would like to answer the initial question and hopefully let things get back in order.

From my experience, unless they''re completely driven by financial gain, the average indie game designer has an agenda or they want to tell a very personal story. For example, I''m designing an action game right now with a political/social agenda (which I will not divulge here, as bringing politics and religion to forums usually gets me into trouble). The RPG I''m working on is based on my fears, exaggerations of past experiences, and incredible exaggerations of my triumphs.

Now do I expect to get the games out to the shareware market soon? Not at all. By the time I even get half way through DX9 may be stable enough for me to use, and I may even have to learn DX 10,11,12, and if it continues I may have to follow it into the 20''s to complete my game.

So why do I do it alone? Because if I bring in other designers my agenda will be compromised, and I would be very lucky (unlucky? I guess that depends on your perception of me) who shares my life story, along with my fears. I would be lying if I said I didn''t care about making a bit of cash at it, but the average indie gamer goes solo because they try to make games that speak to them personally, and hopefully speak to enough people to allow them to make a living (other than the ones who just make their games as freeware).

So I guess we are primadonnas in a way, but we can afford to be. Game design isn''t our bread and butter. If anything it''s the sherry night cap. Not necessary, but nice to have on hand.

On the other hand, the designers who are in it strictly for profit should first of all reconsider their decision (had to throw that in), and then they need to learn how to cooperate with their colleagues. The big bucks come from eye candy or cashing in on the fad of the day (cell shading, for one. Impressive to the general public at the beginning and then a staple for games with no substance), which means compromising your vision.

Sorry if I got off on some tangents, but hopefully I offered some understanding as to why independant designers usually don''t work well together.

quote: Original post by dwmitch
I know this topic has kind of broken down from what I've seen (I've only had time to scan it), but I would like to answer the initial question and hopefully let things get back in order.

From my experience, unless they're completely driven by financial gain, the average indie game designer has an agenda or they want to tell a very personal story. For example, I'm designing an action game right now with a political/social agenda (which I will not divulge here, as bringing politics and religion to forums usually gets me into trouble). The RPG I'm working on is based on my fears, exaggerations of past experiences, and incredible exaggerations of my triumphs.

Now do I expect to get the games out to the shareware market soon? Not at all. By the time I even get half way through DX9 may be stable enough for me to use, and I may even have to learn DX 10,11,12, and if it continues I may have to follow it into the 20's to complete my game.

So why do I do it alone? Because if I bring in other designers my agenda will be compromised, and I would be very lucky (unlucky? I guess that depends on your perception of me) who shares my life story, along with my fears. I would be lying if I said I didn't care about making a bit of cash at it, but the average indie gamer goes solo because they try to make games that speak to them personally, and hopefully speak to enough people to allow them to make a living (other than the ones who just make their games as freeware).

So I guess we are primadonnas in a way, but we can afford to be. Game design isn't our bread and butter. If anything it's the sherry night cap. Not necessary, but nice to have on hand.

On the other hand, the designers who are in it strictly for profit should first of all reconsider their decision (had to throw that in), and then they need to learn how to cooperate with their colleagues. The big bucks come from eye candy or cashing in on the fad of the day (cell shading, for one. Impressive to the general public at the beginning and then a staple for games with no substance), which means compromising your vision.

Sorry if I got off on some tangents, but hopefully I offered some understanding as to why independant designers usually don't work well together.

Two things hear, first you forgot to mention the designer who designs a game alone becuase he enjoys it, i for one am not making a game for profit nor am i making it becuase i have a story to tell, I'm doing it becuase i can and its my dream.

Some people build company's, some people build grate works of art, some people leave their mark though their kids, when I'm dead i want the my people, gaming community to remember that grate series of RPG computer games which was mostly made and started by that grate designer.

Everyones entitled to that one piece of the world, that mark which never dies.

And second, i can see what you mean by that second part, some games are all eye candy and no game but sell like hell and others are all game but no eye candy which just don't sell.
Way things go i guess.

SD

RPG: I'm going to rewrite this genera even if it kills me.

[edited by - Siolis on March 14, 2004 7:40:01 PM]

I think that most of the designers you see around here have either a very focused, highly developed idea of what they want already, or they have a very vague idea that they think is highly focused developed.

Either way, they are unlikely to share it, and if they do, they may simply post it to gain approval.

The ideas you see which people are most receptive to criticism towards, are ones that are disconnected from the designer themselves.

If you want to criticize an idea that Joe Svenson has for his game Svensonworld, they''re going to come across as defensive about it. If you criticise an idea that Joe has for "a MMORPG," then you''ll probably see them as more cooperative.

Let''s face it, a lot of us have our egos wrapped up in these pet projects of ours. Sometimes so much that nobody else''s is going to fit in.

I find that designers that know how and when to delegate - well, not just designers, but any one who has to lead a team; that they usually output a better product. It''s one thing to have a unified, clear view, and that''s good. But, come on, you''re only one person.

The design of a game is restricted a great deal by how much it''s actually possible to get done in real life. Since design reaches into all areas; content creation, coding, you name it - it''s essential that you not only create a coherent vision, but a malleable plan to execute it. It''s unlikely you''ll find people that will fight with you about your vision. But people will be more likely to disagree about how you plan to do it. And being able to get your vision across will ensure that, no matter how many cooks are making the broth, it''ll still taste like broth in the end.

I''m rambling

quote: Original post by sunandshadow
Yeah I remember one of Wavinator''s previous versions of the making-plot-via-npcs idea. I made some suggestions at that point but we disagreed about what exactly plot was and whether you needed a story generator to superimpose some dramatic structure onto the npcs'' actions (I said yes, he said no).

Hey, I remember that. I still have some of our chat logs from way back. You may be interested to know that, over time, I''ve come to move alot more in your direction than when we first talked.


Just wanted to answer your earlier question in general, though: I think the lone wolf syndrome comes from having no idea how deep a rabbit hole game development is. If I knew two years ago that I''d have to learn 3D modeling, Photoshop, drawing and a hoarde of programming techniques before I could even begin to get started... I don''t know if I''d have made the same decisions.

I''m a mentor for a young programmer who''s eager to start creating these huge games and thinks programming is easy. He defines just about every bug or lack of feature that he wants as programmer or designer laziness. But as he has begun seeing how huge a chore it is to texture and wrestles with even simple bugs in a small program, his ego has begun to sober up.

I notice people make the same mistake about writing a novel, casually tossing off the idea that "anybody can do it." Perhaps this is because we all have ideas and we all may fall into the conceit that all of our ideas are good, and maybe better than the ideas of anyone else.

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

quote: Original post by Wavinator

quote: Original post by sunandshadow
Yeah I remember one of Wavinator''s previous versions of the making-plot-via-npcs idea. I made some suggestions at that point but we disagreed about what exactly plot was and whether you needed a story generator to superimpose some dramatic structure onto the npcs'' actions (I said yes, he said no).

Hey, I remember that. I still have some of our chat logs from way back. You may be interested to know that, over time, I''ve come to move alot more in your direction than when we first talked.

Aha! Victory! j/k So where exactly do you stand on the concept of story generation now, just out of curiosity? And I still have some of those chat logs too, I keep intending one day to stick them in my article on plot structure, the one with the transformational generative grammar and all that.

quote:
Just wanted to answer your earlier question in general, though: I think the lone wolf syndrome comes from having no idea how deep a rabbit hole game development is. If I knew two years ago that I''d have to learn 3D modeling, Photoshop, drawing and a hoarde of programming techniques before I could even begin to get started... I don''t know if I''d have made the same decisions.

I''m a mentor for a young programmer who''s eager to start creating these huge games and thinks programming is easy. He defines just about every bug or lack of feature that he wants as programmer or designer laziness. But as he has begun seeing how huge a chore it is to texture and wrestles with even simple bugs in a small program, his ego has begun to sober up.

I notice people make the same mistake about writing a novel, casually tossing off the idea that "anybody can do it." Perhaps this is because we all have ideas and we all may fall into the conceit that all of our ideas are good, and maybe better than the ideas of anyone else.

Yeah, I think that''s another good reason explaining the situation. I think that among all the replies to this thread we''ve pretty well mapped out game designer psychology - good job all! Hmm, maybe somebody should compile this into a short article on different styles of being a game designer...

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Since this is becoming a bit of a back-and-forth between you and I, I think we should move it to e-mail.

Oh, come on now, one of the few threads that is not filled with the usual questions, flames or lounge idiocy and you want to kill it so soon ?

So what if it has gone off-topic, it''s still enjoyable to read.