Doom. Mechwarrior. Quake. Zelda??? There is a big distinction, is there not? Two of those games I can''t sit through because the concept is just silly to me (Quake/Doom). Another I can play but the idea is still pretty corny (MW). But the last game, I''ll sit through like a charm. The mood will not change. That game is based on the ye olde formula: you can get this when you get that and you get that when you go here. And that game is Zelda. The old one. It''s so simple: walk around and get the items needed to beat the first dungeon. Now go to the dungeon, get the items inside, beat the boss and get the reward for doing so. Now repeat the process. Now take the other three. Walk around. Shoot. Complete objectives. Fight the boss if any. Advance to the next level. Now many, many games are based on that formula, but now I think it''s time to move on. There are too many Quakes and Dooms, and not nearly enough Zeldas, Marios, Sonics (actually I never got into Sonic that much, but some people did so I''ll include it anyway). You can''t beat any full commercial FPS in thirty minutes or less without cheating. Mario Bros. 2 (NES) can. My brother did it all the time. The idea of Mario 2 is so childish, but anyone, whether they grew up with it or not, can''t help but to play it and love it when they do. There are warps and secret areas everywhere, and the dream-themed concept keeps the push going. New original games are out like Pro Skater, but all a lot of these games are are different games using the same or similar engines as the FPSs. My point: The FPS is popular, but it is NOT the next generation of games. It is the CURRENT generation of games. Every newbie wants to make one, for cryin out loud. Doesn''t that say something? Besides that, there are other genres like RTSs, and RPGs that are that are following the same pattern as FPSs. Ernest Adams wrote a recent article called "Dogma 2001". While a lot of it was crap, it did make many good statements to live by. The most creative person proves they are creative; notice the root word create. They don''t just follow trends and make excuses about it like I won''t make any money! or But the recent computers might not support it! Whatever. Make an original game like YOU would, and avoid what id or EA has done. Shigeru Miyamoto (the big man at Nintendo) has been called one the greatest (or was it THE greatest) video game designer of all time. Why? Because he knows how to use a person''s childhood experiences to HIS advantage, and thus make the best games. I suggest the rest of us learn to do that as well.

Um?

Well I''m not certain where this thread will be taken, but you''ve missed out of a lot of games ... ones that are 3D but are particularly notable (Deus Ex for its extra-step toward turning a FPS into a plot-based RPG; Ultima IX for giving the industry''s first walk-through explore-at-your-leisure world).

As for noting Nintendo games as innovative... sorry, but with console hardware limiting creativity, I''m not certain they even fit into the category. Sure, they''re great for a quick fix, but when particular content of a game must be left out of a game because of low hardware specs (storage media in particular), you really aren''t allowed the (often) necessary freedom to innovate.

What I''m attempting in my game might be a little shocking in comparable genres (mainly RPG) simply because I want to do things like take away number systems from the user without comprimising fairness or comprehensible and perceptible advancement in the game. I might use titling for ease, but even that may be a stretch for what I want to accomplish.

Ah well, it''s late. Let''s see if this plot thickens.


MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

I think you''re missing the point. The method in which a game presents itself, and the method in which it receives input from the player, does not dictate its genre. While it''s true that most first-person games revolve around shooting, and most side-scrollers revolve around jumping, these are not hard-fast rules slated into the field of game development.

You seem to be an old-school gamer, not just because you''re still revelling in games from the late 80''s, but because you cannot appreciate what goes into such titles as Quake and Mechwarrior. I say this because I''m fond of both. So, from what you wrote, my objective should be to create another Quake or Mechwarrior, correct? You did say that we should make the games we want to play.

You''re welcome to make a side-scroller if you like. I''m a die-hard fan of the Castlevania series, and I wouldn''t mind seeing a few more of these titles hit the shelves myself. (The market could use a few more Symphony of the Nights.) But not many people feel the same way. I wouldn''t hold my breath if I were you.

My current (debut) project is an RPG parody. I hope that''s original enough for you.

Yes, I DID grow up with Nintendo games like MegaMan and Zelda, but I never said everyone should make a game for an extinct console. What kind of an idiot would say that?

I agree (like I said) there are good original games out now, but what I''m saying is a good game is done well, with at the very least 90% originality. Don''t go too far (like making a super exact physics engine and ending up with Trespasser), but don''t stick with all cliches and end up with #500 on the list of Doom clones. See?

I''m not at all saying we should all remake Zelda or Tetris or Mario or anything else that we all grew up with (well I did at least), because then someone else would come and say "Enough Zelda clones! Make your own games!"

I''m saying just be original. Completely original. Completely original. Completely original.

Completely.



Of course you could just clone Doom again. Carmack would be proud... or would he?

And yes 3d is awesome. I never said "2d Forever!". There are many 3d games I like: Jedi Knight, Mechwarrior 4 (that''s right, I did say I CAN sit through it no matter how cut-and-dry the gameplay is), Medal of Honor 1 & 2, Cruisin'' Exotica (same as past Cruisin''s, but still cool), and Ready 2 Rumble: Round 2 among others.

Well I've stated it before, and for the sake of redundancy I'll say it again... if you play any game (or partake any form of entertainment) for what it's supposed to represent, and if the game is well presented and *makes sense* for the context in which it is presented, then it should be enjoyable.

(Example: Quake III being presented as a macho, big-guns, in-your-face, kick ass multiplayer online shooter. Proper execution? I would say, yes.)

But if you try to fit a game into a predefined genre that was not in mind when the game was written (or a described genre, in the case of my personal idea of The Role Playing Game), then no, it will suck (in your eyes, in your opinion).

(Example: I think RPGs need to present game features like thought provocation, situational stress that doesn't need to be dealt with violence, and a way for you to control your character's personality rather than just combat stats and inventories. Hence, 99% of console RPGs and a majority of PC RPGs in my opinion are trash, but the few that I do enjoy, I really enjoy ... namely Fallout, Deus Ex, some of the Ultimas, etc. Likewise, if id Software tossed really out-of-whack weapons or if all the weapons in the game were original rather than some of them taken from current-day technology, the game might be viewed differently.)

So you see, clearly defining a game isn't so easy as what it was 10 years ago... there are action RPGs, fantasy strategy adventures, and so on. I think it's what you put into the game, not how different it is from everything else that is out there, that makes a game great, fun, or remotely enjoyable.

That doesn't mean that I'm trying to make my RPG represent something cloned from what's currently available. I have some cool ideas that, if properly executed, might really offer interesting differences that will represent what *I* believe an RPG can be. Time will tell, and it'll take a lot of work, etc, but it's something I've been working up to for a very long time.


MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.org

Edited by - MatrixCubed on April 9, 2001 2:56:24 PM

I think I understand your point... Indeed, creating a clone of a clone of a clone is not going to advance the terrain of PC-games any further...

Personally, I believe we should advance to the ''perfect'' games. Not mixtures of games, containing a little bit of everything, but games that take their genres to the extreme...

For a 3d-shooter like Quake, well, it''s pretty easy... I guess the only thing you can advance there are the graphics. The basic idea, point-and-shoot, is well-represented in todays games... C''mon, point and aim, what can you improve on that? (sorry to all those quake fans out there...)

Butm when you take the RPG, you can see it isnt even a bit close to ''perfect''. They are all linear. They are all limited. And, if I may say, after a while even boring... Though Fallout2 lasts very long

So, what would *you* devote your time to? For me, it''s simple. In the area of the RPG, there are still many huge breaktroughs to make. So that''s my area But yours?

quote: Original post by Ronin_54
For a 3d-shooter like Quake, well, it''s pretty easy... I guess the only thing you can advance there are the graphics. The basic idea, point-and-shoot, is well-represented in todays games... C''mon, point and aim, what can you improve on that? (sorry to all those quake fans out there...)

Butm when you take the RPG, you can see it isnt even a bit close to ''perfect''. They are all linear. They are all limited. And, if I may say, after a while even boring...

Personally, I think that''s one reason why making RPGs is so popular. Not just the current frenzy, but overall.

RPGs have the most potential (anyone who''s read any of my other posts knows where I''m going with this ) to be more than simple games. If we can break out of this "Must have a single plot", "Must advance towards a single goal" mentality, that is where the RPG will truly shine, and move from being a simple RPG to a true virtual world.

I''m not single minded (well not yet, give me time ), I look at other types of game, but all I see -with the exception of puzzle games like Tetris, Voris, zoop, Frog Hop, etcetera- is concepts which will one day blend into RPGs.

FPS, turn brain off, point, and shoot. What could they contribute? Well, there''s the first person perspective paradigm for a start. RPGs are finally, slowly starting to take that up over the iso tile based approach (Don''t get me wrong, I don''t dislike the tile based method, its just that I find it too limiting -activities such as flight, and attacking from above are a tad difficult.)

Additionally, there''s the concept of leaping straight into a fight, with no transitions necessary. Most RPGs don''t seem to do that -yet-. Does anyone remember the game "Strife"? Came out a few years back, RPG using FPS engine. You could do most things you can do in any CRPG, talk to anyone, perform quests, walk on any flat surface you can see. You could also do what you do in FPS. Namely kill anyone and anything, even mid-conversation. Just hit the key, and pow.

RTS games, as everyone knows, are slowly merging with RPGs, and MUDs/MOOs/MUSHs/MMOs are starting to tower over the whole muddle.

My point is, if everything goes as I believe it will, in 10-15 years, there won''t be many separate genres left, aside from the RPG, probably the online form. Everything else seems to be merging with it.

Essentially, Doom & Quake become Zelda, and vice-versa

quote: Original post by Ronin_54

So, what would *you* devote your time to? For me, it''s simple. In the area of the RPG, there are still many huge breaktroughs to make. So that''s my area But yours?

A good, solid, fun, original game that can last for as long or short as you want it to. Like I said, Mario Bros. 2 could be beaten in less than half an hour with warps and stuff, but if you took the long way it would take days or even a few months.

I like hidden stuff. Not just obvious hidden areas (like blowing up a barrel of fluid to reveal a hidden med kit), but really unsuspected stuff. Like hilarious character animations that aren''t always found the first day you start playing the game. In Conker''s Bad Fur Day (yet to play it, but looks like something I''d like), I''ve heard you can piss on your enemies. Where did that come from?

A secret area shouldn''t just reward a player for finding it ON ACCIDENT. It should do either that or two other things (or all): make him laugh or make him scared.

Also, a good game never does only one of those. That''s boring. It''s not a bad idea for the game to only have hidden rewards and laughs to be just plain fun, but if a game has only hidden rewards and scares, it makes you a little paranoid-- not the best feeling in the world and definitely not something I go for. If it only has hidden laughs, the mood quickly dies and the game gets boring. If it only has scares, well, right back to the paranoid thing. If it only has hidden rewards, it ends up boring as hell.

A good game is fun.
A good game is expandable (customizable controls, lots of hidden stuff, etc.)
And most of all, a good game is not played once and thrown out. (we all still play Monopoly don''t we?)

A good game is... good.