Well, I'm about to open up a can of whoop-ass on a topic that has piqued my interest of late. (DEUS EX END-GAME MINI-SPOILER) I just finished Deus Ex, and the end game sequence consisted of a small scripted end-sequence, and some quotes from well-known authors and novels. Not flashy, not visually stunning, just something to make you think. Not really anything that would rock the charts as far as eye candy is concerned. (/SPOILER) And it really impressed me. Now, I understand the necessity of visuals in games, but why should such games as (insert any N64 title here), Doom III, PS2 titles, etc, be raved upon so much, when they really don't cause any thought provocation, or because they offer little more than run'n'gun flashiness? I'm a little disturbed that this is how games have evolved. The majority of games out there haven't taken major steps in awakening one's imaginative impulses... instead, they seem to have devolved into "who can use the most video card features at blazing fast FPS, while using 3D sound and 236-button joystick interfaces", all for the low, low price of what you'd pay for an inexpensive meal for two at a respectable restaurant. There's the business side of it, where certain things in games (cartoony Nintendo graphics, extreme violence, realistic mech-bots, or whatever) that really seem to sell... but currently companies really only seem to be selling visual realism... customizeable movies? Choose-your-own-path theater? Take the newer game consoles for example... they don't have great hardware in them (32-64mb ram, limited 3D-ish sound cards, great video hardware, and no storage media). Seems these games are designed for a small quick-fix version of what ever the game's genre is (RPG = action strategy w/ inventory management, FPS = killkillkill, Racing = racing, etc). I guess you could lay blame on two different entities: (1) the larger companies, who offer a little taste of a game (or game feature, etc) and essentially play the role of The Dealer offering the first hit for free , and (2) the mindless masses, who soak up nearly anything thrown in front of their bloodshot, late-night bleariness eyes. What I'm suggesting is that developers concentrate less on quick-fix games (I see a LOT of MMORPG questions on the MP forums... how many of you folks are designing the combat and magic systems first?) and more on games that might not draw users in as quick-fix, but actually offer something more along the lines of thought-provocation and social interaction. Of course, a lot of this is opinion, but I'm curious to see how many (legit) Anonymous Poster flames I get for the above rant. MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org Edited by - MatrixCubed on April 2, 2001 7:50:00 PM

Hey graphics mean squat in this area, I personally think that Links Awakening has a great thought provoking story but hey thats me



perception -> Consciousness -> life

I can agree and relate on some subjects, but I totally disagree on others.

One, I like a good story. Classic RPGs interest me. I''ve just rediscovered titles such as Final Fantasy 5 and 6, and I want to take a look at the Phantasy Star series. But, let''s face it, no RPG ever showed any technological breakthrough. Which is good, because they don''t have to. But, like it or not, it''s (mostly) the fast-paced, mindless, shooters and such that actually drive the industry in any way technologically. Think about it: if all we were using were business apps and RPGs, I don''t think the computer indeustry would really advance. I mean, who really needs a Thunderbird 1GHz for a home office machine? But, its the gamers that drove this. While I like a good RPG, there is also the stress relief that one gets from mindles, simulated destruction. After a hard day at school with my teachers breathing down my neck, hopping on my computer and playing a little UT deathmatch is fun. It takes that stress you had and let''s you do something with it. A lot of the flashy games out there do lack something else, but there are some very good ones. Neocron (an MMORPG in the works) is looking promising. Plus, the various military combat simulators make for an interesting first-person strategic game (Infiltration, Counterstrike, etc.)

People are going to buy what they want. Personally, I prefer a more laidback game in general (aside from the occasional frag or two ). Look at The Sims. One of the greatest selling games for the PC. And what do you do? You put your own life on hold to play someone else''s boring life. If you ask me, it''s silly. But it works. And, most people will agree it is fun. There has to be a variety in the industry. Companies have to survive. I mean, I love RPGs, but I sure as hell wouldn''t want to have the choice to pick up an RTS, or an FPS if I wanted to.

You really can''t "blame" companies. That part is a bit opinionated. You could say the companies are trashing the gaming industry, or you could say they are the back bone. Fact of the matter is, you really can''t group. One of the biggest gaming companies ever, Squaresoft, is all about RPGs. Capcom has a huge variety of games. Look at the Resident Evil series of games. Immensely successful, with wonderful storylines, and fun gameplay.

Really, this whole discussion is really all based on opinions, so anybody is really right in this one.

Comming up with a thought provoking idea is hard enough. Explaining through the use of a game is nearly impossible. "Magnolia," "American Beauty," "Seven," "Twelve Monkies," ect just really wouldn''t work as games especially an FPS or an RPG. Maybe an adventure game.

Ben
http://therabbithole.redback.inficad.com

Two words: "Niche market."

The majority of games are combat and/or puzzle solving. The sole reason for this is audience taste. Big bloated publishers who can only stay afloat on multimillion dollar game sales have no choice but to cater to the least common denominator. The LCD hates complexity and hates depth. Thus games are the way they are. Simple. Shallow.

Niche market is the only way to go to fix this. You get a smaller core of dedicated customers who actually appreciate something other than combat and puzzle solving. There are actually some pretty innovative games out there (King of Dragon Pass is one good example) but they don''t play well to the mass market, and so you don''t hear as much about them.

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

"Audience taste" (Wavinator)

Well a part of the point I''m trying to make, is how can the audience know different options if none have been presented to them? It''s like saying that a lot of white meat (e.g. some seafood) tastes like chicken... if you have a more cultivated palette, you might refute that claim.

"You really can''t ''blame'' companies" (ArtemisX)

Sure you can. When was the last time an audience said, "Mr. Schwartzeneggar, we love your family-values movies, but stick to action puh-LEEZ!"? Partially through ratings, certainly. But a portion of sales can be made just because of a name, and I don''t believe there is much of a difference in the game industry.

"Links Awakening has a great thought provoking story" (sEntiEnt)

Can''t comment, because I haven''t played it... but if it''s like any other console RPGs, then I might be predisposed to bias.


Maybe I didn''t start off on the right foot with this rant, but my main concern is that some companies want to bastardize what could be a very thought provoking and enlightening experience, simply because there ARE no other media that have similar interactivity. If we were to excel at assembling top-notch interactive experiences, and not worry about silly little quick fixers, then the audience WOULD be able to pick out the cream from the crop.

Without it as such, there''s really only a "me too" trend going on with game development. Developing games because OpenGL and TCP/IP and X-Box are (insert positive bandwagon adjective here).



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

One thing to consider is WHY people play video games. Ya I like a good story line, deep plot and cool characters. But honetly if I wanted to spend a few hours socializing I would hang out with my friends or go out to the clubs or whatever. I would much rather socialize with real people than a computer AI, no matter how cool, thought provoking, or complex. When I play video games I often don''t want a lot of dialog or storyline, I just wanna kill something and I like the excessive eye-candy. When I''m looking for something deeper I don''t turn to video games.

Just a thought.

I once had an argument with someone, where he was saying "All you care about is graphics in games, but it''s the gameplay that matters; I don''t care if it looks like crap" and I was responding "A game without gameplay is nothing, I agree; but graphics enhance the experience, and they ARE important."

Then I popped in an Outcast demo.

For those of you that have never played Outcast, it''s an amazing piece of programming. It uses a voxel engine, has realistic water with distorted reflections, a highly advanced AI system, and an immense world. In this game, you slowly uncover a story as you journey through many worlds. But although the graphics are impressive to someone who does graphics programming, the average gamer will dislike them, primarily because they''re used to polygons at high resolution, and they think 640 x 480 voxels are ugly (I STRONGLY disagree, but that''s an entirely different topic.). In short, they think its ugly.

As soon as the demo loaded, he said "this game sucks," just from seeing the initial frame.

He wouldn''t accept his own reaction as proof that graphics quality -or at least perceived graphics quality - matter a great deal.

Now I''m not saying a game with good looks is necessarily good, or that an ugly game is necessarily bad. I do agree that companies should stop putting every cent they have into a high-tech graohics engine, and instead work on the storyline.

But graphics doo matter.


What really are bothers me is not just that companies focus too much on graphics, but that they aren''t creative in general. How many Quake clones have appeared since its release? How many Command and Conquer clones since its? Too many. Now many of these games are quite good; Unreal Tournament is a good Quake clone, and WarCraft II and StarCraft were good Command and Conquer clones. They were fun, and that''s good. But the fact is that they were exceptions. There are just too many almost identical games flooding the market, and that bothers me, because, no matter how good as a game is, if its based on a worn-out concept, it will get boring too quickly as well.

The lack of creativity extends to the graphics department too. That''s part of the reason I like Outcast. How many voxel-based games have you seen lately? If you can name more than Outcast and Delta Force, I''ll be surprised. Outcast used creative graphics programming. That''s more than can be said of the 100+ "Direct3D or OpenGL accelerated polygonal engines using BSP trees" engines you find on the shelves. Hardware is partly to blame. I like having the ability to get thousands of triangles each second onto my screen as much as anyone else, but I don''t like that fact that that''s the ONLY thing on my monitor!

This type of "let''s copy off of everyone else untill we beat that idea dead" isn''t confined solely to the game companies; you see it in the media and just about every other industry. But since this is game dev.net, I''ll stop my rant here.

As far as games go, they generally aren''t intended to be thought-provoking, except for a certain choice few.

Personally, I''ve always found the Final Fantasy series to be worth more than just the gameplay. They attempt to explain things that other games wouldn''t touch.

Most recently, I finished Crono Cross for the PSX, and while the ending sucked, the game itself was full of deep messages.

-Brian



"Back to the code mines... ka-chink... ka-chink..."

Obviously I can''t speak for the nameless many who purchase and play games. However, I think I can shed a little light on what they collectively are saying with their purchases (along with my own personal opinions).

First, most game players are male. Your average male player is looking to escape reality for a while. To immerse themselves in an environment where they can allow their more primative brain to operate, giving their overworked higher thought processes a well deserved break. This is why many games available today are focused on violence and sex. These are simple, basic urges in the male psyche. They also have built in positive reenforcers (adrenaline feels good, ya know).

For female players, I would have to guess that they would have similar reasons for picking a game. However, in their case, females are more typically social creatures and would prefer games that emphasized these innate predispositions.

Please note that these are generalizations, but they should IMHO apply to the general masses.

That''s not to say that some games could not be thought provoking. Many people prefer more complex forms of entertainment provided it is a context that allows them to relax into their natural selves, as apposed to the masks we put on in the public eye.

Another niche in this environment would be games that actually (gasp) taught the user something pratical. For instance, the Air Force is now supplimenting its normal pilot training with commercial off the shelf video games. I honestly haven''t seen much of this kind of application, but it could be an interesting niche.

[input flame now]