I understand what you are saying, but you're not quite getting what I'm saying because we've gone off on a tangent debate regarding art vs. commercial merit. In my last post, i made a small error in how I phrased something. I said:

12 hours ago, bishop_pass said:

None of the things I suggest cost money. However, they do need an investment in imagination. Perhaps those who want to imagine need to also learn to imagine ways to imagine. As mentioned earlier, the naysayers have put themselves in boxes, and are having trouble imagining how knowledge of film and sensitivity to the art of cinema can take game development past its immature state.

I should have said this:

None of the things I suggest cost money nor will they hinder sales. However, they do need an investment in imagination. Perhaps those who want to imagine need to also learn to imagine ways to imagine, and that also means you, Kavik.. As mentioned earlier, the naysayers have put themselves in boxes, and are having trouble imagining how knowledge of film and sensitivity to the art of cinema can take game development past its immature state. And you, Kavik have built your own box as well.

Have you read all of my posts? In particular, my second post in this thread? I link to the post directly right here.

Actually, I have tried to do essentially what you are describing in my own universe.  I the story of my own universe I have tried to make it a blending of serious, thought provoking sci-commentary on modern times while at the same time regularly injecting comedy and pop-culture references into it.  This comedy and references are meant to diffuse the seriousness/"artsyness" of it all for the mass market audience.  So that it is the "Best of Both Worlds" in appealing to the average person while also still drawing in the "serious cult audience".  I have attempted to make it be both of the things we have been describing at the same time.  So my goal in my own story has been to achieve essentially what you are describing.

Of course, I still have no idea if I have succeeded on that point because I have never been able to get a single person to say a single word too me about the story.  I don't expect you to read it, and am just using it as an example, there are about 700 pages of material on my blog.  But, if you do read it and take it all in to the point that you have figured out who Cindy actually is, please let me know what you think of it.  I'd really like to hear what at least one person (who has taken it in well enough to realize who Cindy is) thinks about the story.

Kavik,

It sounds like you're making a good attempt to do what I've been saying, but I might disagree with a few aspects of it. For one thing, games aren't films, so how one analogizes what I've been saying about films to games requires some imagination. While your average joe can't often understand or enjoy an art-house film, what makes an artsy game too much for the average joe? Sometimes compromises are the worst thing you can do.

You're right, I'm unlikely to wade through 700 pages of material on your project.  There comes a point where you know you've got it right, and have the confidence to judge your own material. Fair warning: it's usually not the first time you're confident of your own material. Your first time usually occurs when you really don't know what you're doing. And then at some point, you realize you don't know what you're doing, and you make it a goal to figure it all out. This isn't like programming, where it's a bit more obvious whether you know what you're doing. But even there, I admit the same pitfalls exist. You mostly need to know the domain, and then you know what you don't know, in the case of programming. In writing, or filmmaking, there's no precise definition of what the domain is. It's easier to overestimate how good you are. In fact, this is another argument for why watching great cinema can and does help. A good hint as to whether you know what you're doing or not might be whether you like great cinema or not. If you don't like it, then you're not understanding it, and if you're not understanding it, then you're missing how the pieces go together, and why it's superior.

I have about five scripts sitting on deck for entering pre-production, or near completion. Two are essentially complete. Both are great scripts in my opinion. One is truly great, I believe. The other has a great story, but it seems flat in its presentation. I need to go over it again,  and do a rewrite. It's just something you feel.

Why don't you try watching one of these films, and see what great cinema really is:

• Woman in the Dunes (Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1964)
• Yi Yi (Edward Yang, 2000)
• In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar-wai, 2000)
• Yearning (Mikio Naruse, 1964)
• Late Spring (Yasujiro Ozu, 1949)
• Sansho the Bailiff (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1954)

You might ask: "Why all Asian films?" Because Asian films have a certain aesthetic to them. They have a certain way of presenting the story that is truer, and more artistic. There is more humanity in their films, stronger observations, better metaphor, and less stringent attitudes about adhering to a standard grammar. You will learn a great deal.

10 hours ago, nigelrob said:

To get some inspirations for the story/characters of your game.

Nobody has really mentioned character inspiration yet, so it's a good that you brought it up.

However, what I've been trying to say is to look beyond content directly, and start looking at grammar, tone, theme, metaphor, and rhythm. And, since Hollywood isn't the best provider of films heavy with those elements, look beyond Hollywood to other cinema, and notably, look at what are considered to be the great films. Surprisingly, The Dark Knight (IMDB lists it very high), and other similar films aren't the great films. I stress this, repeatedly, because once you make an effort to discover great cinema, you land in groups that are discussing many films you've probably never heard of. As an example, I listed six films considered to be great (among the greatest) in my post above. 

And then, once you've become attuned to grammar, tone, theme, metaphor, and rhythm within film, apply those observations not necessarily to trailers and cutscenes, but instead to gameplay. It will require imagination. Nobody said it would be easy. Nor should it be.

This subject is deep. There's more to be mined than you might imagine.

I strongly recommend everyone learn the standard film grammar, or rather, how film grammar is taught in courses and books. It's the grammar used in most every Hollywood film. It's also the basis for most all films. However, films outside of Hollywood often augment it with unique invented grammars, and also break many of the standard rules as well.

A good subset of the basic rules are:

• The 180 degree rule
• The 30 degree rule
• Matching eyelines
• Narrowing eyelines as intimacy develops
• Narrowing field of view as intimacy develops
• Use establishing shots

These rules result in nearly invisible cuts. Start watching other cinema besides Hollywood films, and you'll notice the rules being broken, typically to good effect. And when you notice things, you learn things.

But as I said, this subject goes deep. You must be very attentive to what you're watching. You'll see much more.

Here are seven more great films:

• Werckmeister Harmonies (Bela Tarr, 2001)
• The Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1975)
• The Face of Another (Hiroshi Teshigahara, 1966)
• Chungking Express (Wong Kar-wai, 1994)
• 2046 (Wong Kar-wai, 2004)
• The Naked Island (Kaneto Shindo, 1960)
• Pale Flower (Masahiro Shinoda, 1964)

Has anyone here seen Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice? I don't rank it in the same class of films I've been mentioning. But I don't really dislike it in the way it has been criticized either. I found it entertaining, anyway. I would like to share a specific example regarding that film, and in particular, a specific shot from that film.

For that matter, has anyone seen any of the other films I've recently mentioned, specifically in the last two posts I've made? They are loaded with many of the elements I've been discussing. I suspect few here have seen the other films.

Regarding Batman v Superman, there's a shot that has a pattern very similar to a shot in one of the other films I mentioned. I call it a slipper shot, although, in the case of Batman v Superman, there are no slippers in the shot. Patterns are where the ideas are.

Who has seen Batman v Superman?