Original post by Way Walker Russian Roulette, Chicken, various drinking games, or taking me seriously when I say "Go play in the street".
Or, if you want something a little more complex, extreme-sports and bull fighting come to mind. Also, the rodeo does get out of hand from time to time, and NASCAR, for all its protections, can still put drivers in serious condition after an accident.
Those games you mentioned take place in the realm of "the real". The static, dynamic, and world objects are all real. There are laws that are impossible to break.
You have heard stories about the artificial realm. Nothing in this realm can kill or injure you. It is the brain that kills itself. You are talking about something you believe is the same, but is actually very different.
More like doing hard drugs, then. That's what I thought of when Way wrote that.
It only takes one mistake to wake up dead the next morning.
One person spoke about humans and creativity. He is right. It is just not possible to close your eyes and think of something completely exotic, even when you are 'high'.
I also disagree with the original post - I think games are roughly just as innovative as they have always been. I also disagree with the implied statement that being innovative is a goal in and of itself. If you think of yourself as an artist, then the process is largely about yourself and the product. If you think of yourself as a game designer, then the process should be about the player - about them having fun, not you.
Quote:
Original post by Humble Hobo WHY are the companies not seeing what we want, and selling it to us at a hefty price?
I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I think that there are lots of cases of innovative games selling well. I'm thinking of Simcity ,Warcraft 1 (I know this wasn't the first RTS), The Sims, Katmari Damacy (sic)
Original post by Karadok Now i disagree with your disagree. No place on earth is so controllt by the big companys and media like the USA. I was in the USA. The most people know absolut nothing and they want nothing until a TV spot or the yello press tells them what they want and what they need. Nice place to send hollyday - terrible place to live. I have good friends in the USA but on the other side i never saw more brainwashed media zombies like there.
Please, don't be so naive as to generalize the entire US (300+ million people?) based on your short, likely very narrow and sheltered visit here. Get over yourself. Simply because you lack the *opportunity* to lead a consumption-oriented lifestyle don't pretend you're above it.
Original post by Ryan_001 There are many new and unique game ideas floating around, more-so now then in the 'old-school' days. Not only are there many more genre's available now, and there are many more titles being created for these genre's
nope, nada, wrong, incorrect.
For those of you who are too young to have remembered the late 1960's - early 1970's...
Oh, god... please share your aged, wise wisdom, oh MSW. We are but all young and stupid and are utterly uneducated in the ancient ways of your "pinballs" and other mechanical contraptions. Jesus christ...
Quote:
The REAL flood of creativity happend shortly after Pong hit the arcades...
Imagine that... a new medium is created and popularized and there's a flood of creativity... no sh*t, Sherlock, it's easy to be creative when electronic ping-pong is the only freak'n reference point. It was a race to actually implement ideas that were essentially obvious at that point.
Quote:
Yeah you shoot stuff in Centipede, Asteroids, Defender, Robotron, Battlezone, Tempest, and Space Invaders...but there was so much innovation in those games alone that thier creative differences dwarf the destinctions between every modern FPS combined
What are you smoking? (And would you please pass it to me right away!) I don't quite follow how Centipede, Asteroids, and Robotron are examples of stunning creativity, while Spore, Rez and Guitar Hero are bland, trite rehashes? I guess you would consider film pretty much dead since about 1925, and music peaking sometime a few hundered years ago? How about literature? Do we need to revisit the oral traditions of the Greeks to find the last remnants of "creativity" (by your definition) in storytelling?
Quote:
and that is just shooter games...never mind games like Break Out, Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, Qix, Dig Dug, and Joust...yeah there were some crappy clones back then too...but each week brought a nearly completely new and different video gameing experience when visiting the arcades back then...you cant say the same for today.
You're just looking in the wrong places, apparently. Breakout/Arkanoid? That's single-player Pong. Again, I'll reiterate, when only a dozen video games *exist*, every new game is "new and different" as long as it's not a direct clone.
One person spoke about humans and creativity. He is right. It is just not possible to close your eyes and think of something completely exotic, even when you are 'high'.
If you had to think of something completely exotic every time you came up with a new idea... well, we wouldn't have much to play. The last game ever made "may" have been Tetris.
Quote:
The REAL flood of creativity happend shortly after Pong hit the arcades...Yeah you shoot stuff in Centipede, Asteroids, Defender, Robotron, Battlezone, Tempest, and Space Invaders...but there was so much innovation in those games alone that thier creative differences dwarf the destinctions between every modern FPS combined
Yep. In Centipede you shoot bullets at oncoming enemies who move from the top of the screen. Space Invaders is completely different, because it's slower and doesn't have as many things in the way. Tempest is really innovative because it took that gameplay and mapped it to a circle. INNOVATION!
In Asteroids you fly around a single screen and shoot things. Robotron is completely different because you can shoot in any direction. INNOVATION!
In Battlezone you drive a tank and shoot at other tanks. Nobody else would have ever come up with a concept so novel and brilliant. Except the designers of Combat, but they don't count. INNOVATION!
The sarcasm is coming out strong, and with good reason: your rose colored glasses are fogging up the beautiful greenery that you are looking at. These games ARE good, but to put "the pussy on a pedestal" as the case may be, you are missing the fact that these games built on each other as well, just as games do now.
As some of the other posters stated, creativity is derivative; people don't create totally new things, they just add onto a base of knowledge and reference points other people can understand. Otherwise you're looked at as crazy.
Taking this to the perspective of the gaming industry, when you have few, relatively isolated creators, with little history, creating new ideas is a necessity; everyone else is doing it, taking reference from culture, pop culture, music, etc. Just look at games like Dance Dance Revolution, and how American Idol has sucked the brains from years of Americans. . . games do not exist in a vacuum.
There is a line between following the norms of an industry/society, and just being boring and uncreative. Someone earlier said something along the lines of 'if you're so creative, suggest ideas rather than insulting everyone'
So here goes. . .
Let's take a basic genre, like a shooter. It could be any shooter, from a crappy or unknown title, to something like Quake or Doom. Take the basic mechanics--run around, shoot everything (or certain targets), find some item to allow progress, or simply make it to the end of the level.
From here we start changing things, take ofr example, that the game is played on a single, humongous level--to the size of a planet or even solar system (shooting enemies on spaceships, while you plan the devastation of the next planet in the system :)).
Ok, now we change another element. . . rather than being a SHOOTER, you are instead the gun.
Yes, YOU are the gun.
You could be some sort of alien orthopaedic attachment, or perhaps just a hunk of metal, given narrative. You could make the game dramatic or comedic at this point.
So let's say you're a living, floating gun, given life by (insert some compelling storyline here), and out to kill (all, some, just one person?) who put you (or someone you know. . . or maybe there is no story) in this situation.
So now we can change the gameplay. One button gameplay, with directions. Shoot and move. Simplicity with form.
A lot of shooting and little thought.
I personally love those types of games (though I also like puzzles and RPGs.)
The point is this: you can vary a theme, or tear one apart to get something new. . . you just shouldn't be so revolutionary no one likes it (or will think you're crazy :)).
Unless you're a genius. Then do whatever you want.
You have just been PUNK'D!No. . . just your comments. They were totally, fully, and completely demolished. Nothing to do with MTV...
The point is this: you can vary a theme, or tear one apart to get something new. . . you just shouldn't be so revolutionary no one likes it (or will think you're crazy :)).
I have a friend who is like that. He constantly claims that games "as an art" should always be something completely revolutionary. Unfortunately, he has yet to pitch me a design that sounds even remotely fun to play, or even intriguing as an interactive art.
And then there's this other guy... he goes by the name of Chris Crawford. I think he falls into the crazy category, though. [lol]
The point is this: you can vary a theme, or tear one apart to get something new. . . you just shouldn't be so revolutionary no one likes it (or will think you're crazy :)).
I have a friend who is like that. He constantly claims that games "as an art" should always be something completely revolutionary. Unfortunately, he has yet to pitch me a design that sounds even remotely fun to play, or even intriguing as an interactive art.
I think part of the problem is that many aspiring game-design "artists" are not sufficiently grounded in the histories of other art forms, and thus don't realize that art is not revolutionary but evolutionary; generally, successful artistic revolutions only occur as a result of an artform being supplanted by another, thus having to change quickly or die. (Example: the boom in abstract painting following the birth of photography.)
Look at music... the history of music is a story of countless borrowings and improvements over time, not earth-shattering new ideas. Beethoven, for example, made such notable innovations that he is often credited as the father of the (musical) Romantic Era; but even he was building upon the work of those who went before, and his music would not have been possible without them. Thus in 600 years we go from Josquin des Pres to Queen.
Heck, look at theater, which is still remarkably similar to the theater that Aristotle wrote about 2 1/2 milennia ago.
(I've also noticed that a lot of aspiring revolutionaries in all artistic fields have a fairly poor grasp of the fundamentals of their art; whereas successful innovators almost invariably have a supreme mastery of said fundamentals. Good craftsmanship always trumps innovation, though the best craftsmen often are often innovators.)
Quote:
And then there's this other guy... he goes by the name of Chris Crawford. I think he falls into the crazy category, though. [lol]
Well, there's crazy, and then there's Chris Crawford crazy... Curmudgeonly loons are the worst sort of crazy.
