Did you notice there is no more GAME OVER! in games?
You cant loose in a game any more. only get stuck.

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle Overly simplistic thinking about what a game can be is the very reason for the current lack of creativity in game design. That attitude is the reason why there remains very little "new under the sun." Solitare is a good game, but that doesn't mean that all games should be Solitare.

At NO point did I say all games should be Solitare. At NO point did I say all games should be simplistic.

What I ment to point out is despite all the uber complexity and naturalistic sophistication of games like GTA, Half-Life, or even the SIMs; people are still playing overly abstract simplistic games like Solitare.

Despite the realisam inspired sword play in Bushido Blade, people are still playing arcadey fighting games like Tekken. Despite the naturalisam in the Metal of Honor games, people are still playing Serious Sam.

Naturalisam, Realisam, Complexity in design are but spices Designers can use to pepper thier games. They are but flavors in the game industrys cake, only able to come into and out of public favor...they wont and cant replace the tried and true simplistic abstract games and design principals. Those will be with us forever.

And PLEASE, simplicity has NEVER limited game design creativity.

I think part of the allure of Solitaire is the low involvement. Perfect for the casual gamer's lunch break. Yoda Stories is probably one of the best casual games I've ever played, and it was really simplistic. That didn't limit it from being fun though. Much more fun than 688i hunter/killer :D (Although arguably there is little that is natural about commanding a submarine)

Innovation in casual games probably won't benefit much from T1O's "naturalism" theory though. There aren't all that many non-artificial puzzle games around.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Solitare. Tekken. Serious Sam.

I do not know about Serious Sam, but Solitare is free (or cheap if not on the pc), no one pays much for Pacman and Tetris, and Tekken is anything but simple. Tekken makes an attempt at naturalism in the movement of the characters, and their appearance. It still can use more, but it has enough that people will pony up the cash for it. Once a resonably superior product is out in the same genre Tekken fans will fade away.

Also, I only find myself playing Solitare when I am incredibly bored and cannot find anything better to occupy my time. Solitare is on every windows machine, it's ubiquitous freeware. Most who play it are not serious fans.

Quote:

Original post by T1Oracle Quote: Original post by MSW Solitare. Tekken. Serious Sam. I do not know about Serious Sam, but Solitare is free (or cheap if not on the pc), no one pays much for Pacman and Tetris, and Tekken is anything but simple. Tekken makes an attempt at naturalism in the movement of the characters, and their appearance. It still can use more, but it has enough that people will pony up the cash for it. Once a resonably superior product is out in the same genre Tekken fans will fade away. Also, I only find myself playing Solitare when I am incredibly bored and cannot find anything better to occupy my time. Solitare is on every windows machine, it's ubiquitous freeware. Most who play it are not serious fans.

A popular game!=a good game.
Virtua fighter is a lot more realsitic and generally better then tekkan but it is not as popular. Probabbly because its more complex and requires more training to master.
I always use this example, a lot of people listen and enjoy britney spears music, does this make her music good?

You can't really use the popularity of casual games like solitaire, bejeweled, etc. in your argument because they are a whole different type of game. The idea for them is that there is very little commitment (free or inexpensive), you're not expected to put much time into them in one sitting, and the games are pretty much designed for just replay value. People who buy casual games are, generally, not the people who would buy $50 video games. And honestly, solitaire's popularity is based on it being the best game that comes on every windows computer.

In any case, I believe Naturalism, as you define it, can work well in certain games. Things like RPGs can be enhanced by realistic character psychology, for example. However, I do believe that there are many games in which the "arcadish" feel is the way to go. Competitive games, I think, would be hurt by having too much naturalism. I really don't think I could have much fun in a fighting game where I lose power as I take damage. Realism/naturalism adds gameplay elements that can be completely different from the rest of the game, like a racing game where you have to refuel after a certain amount of driving. I'm just not sure this is necissarily good.

Quote:

Original post by Kriuq "arcadish" feel is the way to go. Competitive games, I think, would be hurt by having too much naturalism. I really don't think I could have much fun in a fighting game where I lose power as I take damage.

It could be part of the fighting strategy to actually injure a part of the body to the point where it's performance is diminished. Who says that every kick to the shin slows a fighter down by a certain percent? One of my friends who I have sparred with can take quite a beating to the leg before he'll move any slower (I unfortunately did not have that talent :(... We're still best friends though :) ).

Regardless, naturalism can also be applied in far more ways than damage taken. There are plenty elements of fighting that are not well represented in current games, ie:

focus - that will vary and it does affect performance
exhaustion - acrobatic, fast, or even aggressive moves will wear you out
balance - if you want to sweep someone's legs you usually have to have them stumbling already, futhermore an oppenent knocked off balance will produce less power and have more difficulty blocking, evading, and countering. However, this is exactly why arts such as Aikido teach break falls and rolls. When you lose your balance you can regain it by sacrificing a little bit of ground.

- Also, an injury doesn't mean the match is over, it only means that you must adapt.

While all of the about can be applied badly, that does not mean that they cannot enhance gameplay when applied correctly.

I want a completely-3d game that extensively simulates sword combat ^_^ Hopefully Elveon will adress that. Interesting game btw, check out their trailer - it probably uses your theory to some extent.

The one thing we need to get away from the most is the Ad&D style of combat resolution...

Balance on the other hand might be tricky. Probably more important to fake the effect. Maybe sway the camera when the player is off-balance - am I inviting motion-sickness? Usually I see something similar done in games as an interruption of the attack cycle. For instance, you are attacking, someone smacks you from the side, you make a wide miss or pull back.

[Edited by - lightbringer on June 19, 2006 9:55:39 AM]