Notgames Forum
March 19, 2024, 10:57:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 25
286  General / Everything / Re: IGF confirms conservative climate in games industry on: March 16, 2010, 10:19:36 AM
Quote
I cannot see a big difference between the two in terms of gameplay. If anything, most indie developers seem to desire to go back to early arcade gaming when games were still "pure", while commercial games sometimes try to open up the medium to a wider audience.
I think this is very true and the more experimental indie games are often based upon some classical gameplay like platformer and shoot em up (not just control-wise but core gameplay).

As for the 3d technology not being used, I think the problem is skill and knowledge. Now that many 3d engines are becoming free and with better tools this will hopefully change in the future. Right now it seems like most indie games are made in GameMaker or similar. While I think a lot of interesting games that can be (and are!) made in GM and similar, they are not going to explore 3D to any greater extent. It is also worth mentoning that pixel art (as seen in monaco) are much more simply to do than 3D and time-constraints are a very imporant factor. The dev that did Monaco has made 3d games (that where kinda close to not-game standards!), so I think it is not a skill problem for him at least.

I read his blog about the game and how he found it much easier to make Monaco and made it very fast (compared to time he spend on other games). Perhaps this prize will discourage him from making more experimental games?
287  General / Check this out! / Re: Games as experiences on: March 13, 2010, 01:43:28 AM
I personally feel the pressure of having "long gameplay time" ever since I stared making commercial games. When designing free games this was never an issue, but when money comes into play there is ALOT of pressure on gameplay time. Publishers ask for it, Reviewers take it into account and gamers nag about it. There is very few people who say that a game should be as long as it needs to be, instead all seem to say LONGER IS BETTER. This is really disturbing and really hinders me as a designer. I really try to push it aside, but since I need to take money for it, I feel this need to give it proper value and not "cheat" my user. I know this is really bad thinking, and I try to step outside of it Smiley But I have been bombarded by it so much that it as really stuck to me  Undecided

I think many (most?) designers are stuck in this and in similar ways to the need for "fun" and replayability (luckily I feel no pressure for those things). It is something that has been hammered by external forces for a long time and people are afraid of not having this and might even have some unconscious processes that lead to the fixation to these things.

Why is this so? Well as you say, money is part of problem. And it also a problem of seeing games as toys, which have been very nicely explained here:
http://www.dreamdawn.com/sh/post_view.php?index=6867
http://www.dreamdawn.com/sh/post_view.php?index=6886

What is so sad is that few people really honestly care about it, but those that do are the ones screaming the most and designers hears it. When it comes to length, I personally really hate long games, 10h is pretty much max what I want to spend on a game and I am very hesitant to start playing a game that I know will be longer. I simply have better things to do and I think many other people feel the same. Yet, publishers want to say 30h of gameplay! "Pro" reviewers have a lot of more time to spend on games and hence 4h is not that much for them as for me or other people.

These 3 things (fun, length and replaybility) are so tightly connected to games and yet they are probably the things that hurt games the most (and here I mean games that just try to be normal-run-of-the-mill games too!). They always pop up when talking about games with publisher, journalists, etc.
I almost never get the question: "What emotions do you want to evoke?", but almost always question like: "What enemies are in the game?", "Is it replayable?", "How long is it?", "What does the player do?", etc. So the whole business is kind of enforcing these things on themselves in an evil spiral.

Imagine if interviews to a novelist would be like this! "How many pages will the book be?", "What kind of font will you be using?", "What does the protagonist does most of novel?", etc. It would be totally absurd! And yet it just comes natural for games.
288  General / Check this out! / Re: Games as experiences on: March 12, 2010, 11:00:00 PM
I would really like for this to be a more common design philosophy. Many action games take it at heart, but in those games the gameplay is so interwoven with the experience that the games do not come out much more differently. Still even though one might think the "player is action hero" experience would be easy to accomplish, many games still fail. For example in Resident Evil there is a strange merchant and shooting galleries that heavily detract from the core experience of being a hero shooting zombies. I would really like to see normal games embrace this idea of "creating an experience" more and I think there is such a huge problem with many games because designers are stuck to the concept of providing entertaining gameplay diversions (like RE4 shooting galleries, etc).

Note that this is a problem with very simplistic (and frankly mostly uninteresting) shooting games! Even in this category many games fail to embrace the notion of creating a worthwhile experience!

Still worse is with games that try to create interesting and meaningful worlds and then for some reason adds a lot of gameplay that does nothing but distract. A recent example of this is The Void, which contains fantastic art and an interesting premise, but is bogged down by very unforgiving gameplay. I really wanted to be immersed in the world, but I simply couldn't because of how the game plays. It is really a shame. I think they came up with many to them interesting gameplay mechanics but did not really consider how it would affect the experience.

The same also goes for adventure games that often bog down the experience with strange puzzles and too long dialogs. There are many games I want to play to explore and experience the world they create, but all of the extra additions just make break most immersion.

I am not talking about removing gameplay or anything here. I am not suggesting to convert these games into not-games. I am simply talking about focusing on an experience and then making sure the player gets it. So many games that I have played fail at this, even though they could have managed it without doing anything out of the ordinary and could have left almost all normal gameplay intact. Instead, designers are so eager to add "fun", replayability and longer gameplay time that they simply forget what they (I assume) set out to do in the first place!

To summarzie: Many games fail to create the intended experience even when sticking to simple, standard gameplay. And this is before we try to move in to more interesting subjects and meaningful games...
289  General / Check this out! / Re: Making Computer Games is Easy on: March 09, 2010, 06:34:52 PM
I thought the article had some good points! Although one should perhaps not be too quick on judging sidescrollers, etc since that is more of an interface choice than gameplay (as soon as u start hopping on platforms, etc, you go down more well defined path though). Guess that author implied that though.

Quote
In the end Braid is not better than Mario. Not even as a metaphor.
For me Braid did not feel as a step closer towards art in games (whatever that means...). I really liked the game and most of all its esthetically design such as the vague texts, the visuals, music etc. Was really a joy to play and experience. But I did not feel like it gave any deeper meaning any more than Mario did.
Whenever people remake platformers or similar, then it is almost always a reflection on the game mechanics. I have never seen an example where it is a reflection connected to real life. In Watchmen, the superheros are put in a real world context and ll kinds of implications are worked out from there. If platformers where to bring the games in new direction, they should do something similar. But as you say Michael, then you will probably have to abandon the qualities of the old game and this is sacrifice few (none?) wants to make.
290  General / Check this out! / Re: 5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted on: March 09, 2010, 09:02:39 AM
I know it is meant to be kind of satire, but still very true. That so many popular games (Wow, Plant vs Zombies, etc) are pretty much fancy slot-machines is scary. Still worse is that additive features are actually good for a game's score!
Quote
The hilarious presentation, unusual subject matter, and super addictive defense gameplay are good reasons alone to give this game a try
Quote
Hilarious and addictive.
Quote
Simply addictive and fun with surprising complexity for a casual game.
From reviews of Plant vs Zombies. I am I the only one who finds this scary (and immoral from the devs)? It is like reviewing alcoholic beverages and then giving plus-points for the more additive sorts...
291  Creation / Reference / Re: A history of not games on: March 08, 2010, 02:07:32 PM
Quote
ImmorTall
I liked it, but think it could be made a lot better with a few additions. For example, be able to interact more with the children and so on. I thought the level of interaction was a bit limited, without needing to be.
292  Creation / Notgames design / Re: Scene based narrative on: March 07, 2010, 12:29:24 PM
Quote
I suppose the better path for a scene-based game would be to make clear the means and nature of interaction
This is the major problem for me. Because when you clearly mark all the interaction options (as in a branching dialog system), it is easy for the player to go compulsive and feel a need to go over evey option. At least this happens to me in adventure game where I fear to miss vital clues to puzzles or storyline and goes through all options even though I would not really want to. But as you say, if the interaction possibilities are hidden, then it is easy to miss out on things or (as you say) give the feeling that they have missed something.

Is way out of this to explicitly show the importance of all interaction, and thus telling the player "you really need to check these things out, but these other things are just minor and can be skipped"? Another problem arise though with having everything visible and "in your face" interaction areas; the player does not feel that they are exploring themselves, but just browsing through a designer's script. Perhaps I have no need to worry though and that a player simply ignores the visibility of the action points?
293  Creation / Notgames design / Re: Scene based narrative on: March 06, 2010, 12:31:51 PM
It depends on the game. I can think of game ideas where linear would not be good. But for the ideas that are whirling around in my head now, imposing some sort of linear structure seems appropriate. What I want to be able to do (given my current ideas) is to give the player as much freedom as possible and still be able to focus on conveying a certain message, theme, etc. I believe that this limiting of action-space can be good for gameplay (as I explained earlier, it does not overwhelm the player), but I also believe it is good for design. The way I have worked on games for over 10 years is to be able to have write down a synopsis and use that in order to plan as much as possible. While I like the idea of the game flowing from some simple start, this is not the way I am used to working and when I have tried it, problems have arisen (it was not until we made proper planning for Amnesia that the project really started shaping up).

I guess it depends a bit on the whole authorship thing too. This is really another discussion, but I can kinda sum it up here: When working on a game there is usually a lot of people involved, even for a small team like us, we have a core team of 5 persons and then the same amount (if not more) of freelancers that handles misc stuff. This means, that once content is made, it is hard to have artistic control and I take on the role as a coordinator more than artist. Sure, there is a lot of tweaking that can be done and tons have been made in projects, but it is mostly on lower level as consistency needs to be kept and there is always fear of the dreaded "domino effect". This means that I would like to be able to "see" the game before it is implemented and to limit the scope of possible interaction it lets me do that. If I would have just let it all flow from a simple base mechanics, it would all be a mess and very hard to keep track of. I guess that sort of development works if you are very few working on the project, but they way we make games now it does not.

I think this is a large reason why many (all???) major game productions feel so "soul-less". Even in games like Bioshock, which has an interesting concept, things are extremely shallow and nobody really wants to take "responsibility" (just check interviews with Kevin Levine where he insists that the game is just about having fun and any message is accidental)

As a final note: I have recently began writing a short story (in Swedish! Tongue) whenever I have time to spare and motivation. There is a vast difference on personality to this work, compared to when I work on game. Even though I pour a lot of myself into a game, I can kind of distance my self from it and not take it so personally. But with a written story, it is very personal and it feels more like a work that I really have to stand for and defend. I would like to have this in a game and to feel that I have really put part of myself into it. Amnesia is a step close, but far from the extent I would like. This does not mean that I need to design everything myself, it just means that I need to be able to "project" myself into at the design process and then make sure it sticks when production starts.

Now this became a really long rant. Sorry bout that Smiley
294  Creation / Notgames design / Re: Scene based narrative on: March 06, 2010, 01:01:30 AM
Quote
What exactly is the advantage of structuring a game in different scenes
For my part, the main reason it is to make user focus and not feel overwhelmed. For example, if game requires the player to explore a house, then just letting the whole house be explorable from the start might feel like "too much" for the player and faced with all possibilities they decide to do nothing instead. The scene based narrative solves this by letting the player explore one place at the time and thus confiding the player to a smaller area and letting her explore without getting lost. This can off course be solved in other ways, such as the metroid style where new areas are blocked until some condition is met, but this easily makes the game more complex and harder to handle.

Another advantage is that it makes it easier to handle change. For example, lets say a game takes place at one location and changing scene is simple going forward in time. Then for each "scene", it can be change according to things made in the previous scene. An example would be a dinner party where the first scene is the appetizer, next the main course, and so on.

It is also easier from a design perspective and lets you easier plan what things that can interact with one another. If the player can explore a huge world then there is no telling what strange things they might do that could break the experience.

Of course, sometimes having a large world might be preferable, but I think scene-based-narrative solves some problems that might arise.
295  General / Check this out! / Re: The Games Collective on: March 05, 2010, 10:26:40 PM
What is the new forum about btw? And any idea what caused people to migrate?

I am not sure why hobbyist would not belong with not-games?

Quote
It's a calling. It's a mission.
While I sorta feel this way, I see creating stuff as focal point of my life. But I am sure that people who just want to try it out would like to discuss it? I just feel like it would be fun to have people here who think that games should be games and that anything else is a lost cause. That would bring some different viewpoints in here that might be interesting to hear. Or perhaps I should just post on gamasutra for that kinda feedback Tongue
296  Creation / Notgames design / Re: Scene based narrative on: March 05, 2010, 10:18:45 PM
Quote
It'd be nice to figure out a way to present the scene slightly differently each time, though...  Maybe there'd be different details shown?

I like how it is done i Forbidden Siren. You revisit the same level several times, but using different characters and things you did on past visits can influence what you see. Also, since the time of visits is not chronological things you end up doing stuff that you previously encountered too (if I recall correctly) Smiley

I also like the idea of revisiting places but adding slight differences.
297  Creation / Notgames design / Re: Scene based narrative on: March 05, 2010, 08:17:29 PM
Quote
Kyntt is a perfect non-scrolling platformer example of a scene-based narrative.
My thought was more that there would be very little (if any!) going back for forth between scenes. Also, and idea was the exit of each scene would be fairly obvious and the player could leave when they felt like it. This means that the player could remain and explore a certain scene until they thought it was enough and then move on.

I agree that games like God of War, Devil may Cry, Painkiller etc have this kind of design where they lock you into a very short area and then throw enemies at you, when enemies are killed you can move on. These are a very simplistic and extremely constrained examples though, but the idea is essentially the same. What I am interested in exploring is using this for more not-gameish works and I think that using a limited environment and a clear (or at least easy to find) exit could allow for a good base to build a large variety of different experiences. The idea is also that the scene is very non-linear with many different things that can be done. For example, one simple scene could be a kitchen where the player could try out different equipment and then exit by just going through a door.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer! Smiley
298  General / Check this out! / Six-Chamber Champion on: March 04, 2010, 10:38:23 PM
http://gamesforcrows.blogspot.com/2010/02/six-chamber-champion-and-371-in-1.html

I found it kind of interesting. It is basically a game about Russian roulette and there is no real win scenario. It just puts you in a very awkward (to say the least) position and then lets you decide what to do. It is quite fun/disturbing/thrilling replaying and trying out different things to do. Also note that the game as a certain element of chance, which I think further enhances the experience. It is also a games where you are meant to get immersed in the situation rather than just try and beat it.
299  Creation / Reference / Re: Hey, anyone played Heavy Rain yet? on: March 03, 2010, 10:19:00 AM
Perhaps add spoiler tags?
300  Creation / Notgames design / Re: Exploring Deeper Meaning In Games on: March 03, 2010, 09:45:32 AM
God at play:
Good points! I really want to have criticism as I find it crucial to evolve.

The mugging example was not the best and I realized that interaction version it could done in linear media too, soon after writing it. I think the message that one should not focus on specific events remains though, but I would have liked to have a better example myself too Smiley However, pretty much any interactive experience can be done in some linear form after it has been completed.
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 25
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!