I also disagree with Xai''s statements, to a point.

You take it slightly too far, just as Ernest Adams did to make his point. Avoiding cliche''s does not mean avoiding the representation of reality at all. That is what you are suggesting, and that is your fundamental mistake. Putting a tree in your game is not a cliche. Rescuing the princess from the evil wizard is. Now if you were rescuing the tree from the evil princess, that could be interesting .
( "King''s Botanics VII"? )

However, it is true that cliche''s are often used so that the developers can fall back on the knowledge that the audience already has, to avoid having to go through the entire history of the universe in the case of a complex game. Some may argue this is good, because it leaves a lot of time for the designer to concentrate on other aspects beside consistency.
However, I would argue it could also be very bad, if the designer''s view of those often-used ideas isn''t quite the same as the audience''s ideas. I can tell you, I find it really disturbing to see some of the images of Orcs in ADnD products, because I am used to seeing them portrayed the Games Workshop way. It may seem a small thing, but to me, anything called an Orc that doesn''t look like a Warhammer Orc just isn''t quite an Orc to me. Who was first here doesn''t matter, the use of cliches has made it hard for the designer to capture my imagination, because I already have a pattern of expectation for that particular element.

I believe a designer can avoid more hassles than she''s creating by avoiding over-used ideas, and relying on original thought instead.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

I don''t think the aim of the rules is to create "truly original" games, which might have the problems Xai described.

But the idea might be to apply those rules to projects (such as some sort of beat ''em up) and create a new spin on the genre. You can''t tell me that wouldn''t be a welcome turn of events.

And Xai, I don''t really agree with your suggestion that cliched characters can be excused because it saves you having to explain things in the game. If your RPG introduced some new race of beastie, like nothing seen before, then allowed to player to learn about said character in a fun and challenging way - that''d be a great thing right? More detail in the game, and more depth to the gameplay.

You''d be giving players more choices - e.g. do they a) spend more time learning about this creature or b) hack it''s head off... without too much blood of course, that''d break rule 7.

>Fundamentally artists cannot work outside of cliches and moral
>judgement and sterotypes ... because these are the things that
>human beings share, and therefore use to communicate.
This is where games have a great opportunity. If a film breaks a cliche, it needs to spend lots of time explaining what it''s doing. Boring.

But games are different. They can say what they want to, and provide you with an interesting experience to explore the theory. The method of communicating does not have to be the same as with human-interaction, so the cliches can be dropped if you design your game carefully enough that it actually educates the player in how to communicate/act in this new world.

Not easy, but maybe worthwhile.

8

I agree with most of that, except for rule #2:

quote:

---

2. The use of hardware 3D acceleration of any sort is forbidden. Software 3D engines are not forbidden, but the game must run at 20 frames per second or better in 640 x 480 16-bit SVGA mode or the nearest available equivalent.

Justification: By adopting a simple, well-known display standard and sticking rigorously to it, both designers and programmers are freed to concentrate on tasks of real importance.

---

I see why he''s saying that, but there are a few flaws with his reasoning:
1) Software 3D engines take much longer to develop, which moves focus away from other important tasks, not towards them.
2) Hardware 3D is much more standardized. Notice that games look a lot more similiar now than they did 5 years ago?
3) Why ignore something that''s already there and will save you time?

This rule also bothered me a bit:

quote:

---

7. Violence is strictly limited to the disappearance or immobilization of destroyed units. Units which are damaged or destroyed shall be so indicated by symbolic, not representational, means. There shall be no blood, explosions, or injury or death animations.

Justification: Although conflict is a central principle of most games, the current "arms race" towards ever-more graphic violence is harmful and distracting. Explosions and death animations are, in fact, very short non-interactive movies. If you spend time on them, you are wasting energy that could be more profitably spent on gameplay or AI.

---

I agree with limiting violence, but throwing it away completly forces you to do without a significant dramatic element. Killing someone is much more profound and significant than using your ray gun to teleport them to jail.

One more thing, this statement really bothered me:

quote:

---

"Finally, I acknowledge that innovative gameplay is not merely a desirable attribute but a moral imperative. All other considerations are secondary."

---

I hate this type of reasoning. Thinking like this causes people to add gimick features just because they think that they need to be "innovative". I''m not saying innovation is bad at all, but your concern should be designing what works for the overall idea that you''re trying to present to the player. Designers shouldn''t focus on doing something different, but rather doing something better. Often times when you''re looking to make things better, you''ll actually generate more innovative ideas anyway.

I have to pick up on this again:


Item 7: No killing.
There''s a lot of opposition to this idea, and I understand why. Most people here are developing either "realistic" FPSs, or "realistic" CRPGs. This rule seems to be ripping out the heart of these games, you can''t put in violence!

However, think a bit further.
Think Quake, but instead of rocket launchers, remote teleportation devices. When you get hit, you get teleported to the penalty box and the person that hit you gets a frag count.
Where is the difference in gameplay? There is none. However, there is no needless graphic depiction of bodyparts flying around all over the place and blood all over the floors. The graphic depiction of violence is offensive to a great many people. In some countries (Germany) it is illegal to sell a game that graphically depicts the death of human beings. All units in RTSs in Germany are mechanised.
This detracts NOTHING from the gameplay at all. It simply removes an unnecessary offensive element from the game.


Also, I think it''s important to realise that Ernest Adams is a GAME designer. He is not talking about a military simulation, or fantasy world simulation, he''s talking about a game. Along the lines of Pokemon, Tetris, Sokoban, Bubble Bobble. There is conflict in these games, but no blood, senseless graphic violence, death, cutscenes are unimportant, etc.

It is towards developing more original games along these lines that he''s preaching.
Not Quake 245.3 including complete physical simulation of the effects of ballistic bullets on organs and soft tissues with realistic damage.
You must look at it in that light (in my opinion).
If you ARE developing a first-person shooter with realistic elements, consider the Dogma2001 rules not for you. They do not apply, because you are developing more of a simulator than a game. The advancements and innovations in your development lie mostly in the realism of the simulation, not in the mechanics of playing the game.

People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.