Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
Story != Game
Ah that's it... that's why I can't find any games that I like. Because in pretty much all the games I play, gameplay is not story. There are games with strong stories, but entirely unrelated gameplay. Ex: Final Fantasy: epic, lovely stories with... statistical, turn based battles. Most all adventure games... sweeping, magical stories with... "logical" combinations of random items in order to progress the game. There are games with story intermixed with gameplay (Halo, Half Life, others). And you could argue that some games do give story, but ony mood-specific or base level ones(shadow of the colossus... the gameplay communicates the strong theme of david vs goliath). I'm not saying that shadow of the colossus doesn't have a nice story... if I had a ps2 you can bet it'd be in my libary, but its mix of gameplay and story really can't be generalized to other types of play. It works very well for that specific game, but don't look to build other games based on the same principles.
Very few games that I know of communicate complex, deeper-than-face-value story through gameplay. Facade does... supposedly Storytron will... so maybe that's why I'm excited about these. You aren't dealing with the story, hoping to get back to the "heart" of the game. The heart of the game is the story: character interaction, mood, setting... it's not just "side dishes" as Koster might call them.
I don't like gameplay... I like stories. That's why I want to make stories, not games.
Very few games that I know of communicate complex, deeper-than-face-value story through gameplay. Facade does... supposedly Storytron will... so maybe that's why I'm excited about these. You aren't dealing with the story, hoping to get back to the "heart" of the game. The heart of the game is the story: character interaction, mood, setting... it's not just "side dishes" as Koster might call them.
I don't like gameplay... I like stories. That's why I want to make stories, not games.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
A Beautiful Game
Just watched "A Beautiful Mind" again... but since I actually knew who Nash was this time and actually had a clue what was going on, I liked it much more than the first time I saw it.
And once again, I must admit that russel crowe is pretttttty much in all of my favorite movies. Gladiator, cindarella man, a beautiful mind... the man's got it covered. Then again, a lot of the movies that he's in (at least recently) are at times dark movies but still with a persistent hope to them. EXACTLY the kinda game story I want to make. I don't want to make an game where everything is roses, but I don't want to give a cynical, hopeless view of mankind. I want to give my view as it is now... yes, a lot of things are messed up, but by god a lot of things are just so beautiful. Then again, that's just because I've been raised optimistic, with a nice home and loving family, all that. Everything's handed to me, so of course I see things in the end as basically good.
So maybe I should think about the fact that maybe everything just isn't so good in the end... and yet if I did that I'd be an emo punk, whining about my wonderfully easy life. Crap. What to do...
And once again, I must admit that russel crowe is pretttttty much in all of my favorite movies. Gladiator, cindarella man, a beautiful mind... the man's got it covered. Then again, a lot of the movies that he's in (at least recently) are at times dark movies but still with a persistent hope to them. EXACTLY the kinda game story I want to make. I don't want to make an game where everything is roses, but I don't want to give a cynical, hopeless view of mankind. I want to give my view as it is now... yes, a lot of things are messed up, but by god a lot of things are just so beautiful. Then again, that's just because I've been raised optimistic, with a nice home and loving family, all that. Everything's handed to me, so of course I see things in the end as basically good.
So maybe I should think about the fact that maybe everything just isn't so good in the end... and yet if I did that I'd be an emo punk, whining about my wonderfully easy life. Crap. What to do...
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Boasts 40+ hours of gameplay? I'll pass,
I'm not sure why adults use "hours of game time per dollar" as a measure of how good a game is. As I see it, there's two types of people
Kids: Lotsa time, little money
Adults: Lotsa money, little time
Obviously, not all adults have lots of money, and not all kids have tons of time (but they should! let them play!), but roughly that is the relative breakdown.
So if you're an adult, you can blow money, but the game just won't be worth it when you have 40 hours of diluted gaming as compared to 10 or fewer horus of nop notch stuff. Of course, you can have 40 amazing hours of gaming, but honestly, I've yet to come across a game that will just keep me riveted and in love for that long. Sure I'll play it, but there just isn't the "by god this is great!" feeling you get constantly from a shorter game.
Plus, I'll never finish it. It just gets old, there's more stuff to play... it gets dropped by the wayside.
Gamasutra's question of the week dealt with this, and I'm encouraged to hear that at least most other game developers prefer short and sweet. Of course, game designers are known for their short attention span, for figuring out what the game is at its core, then tossing it aside, but maybe other adults prefer shorter games, so I might be in luck.
Bleh... I hate to call what I would like to make games... but honestly there's just no better term right now. Interactive entertainment is too broad, too verbose. And anything that's not a game but might be called a game.... is "interactive". Gotta be some way to get around that interactive word...
Kids: Lotsa time, little money
Adults: Lotsa money, little time
Obviously, not all adults have lots of money, and not all kids have tons of time (but they should! let them play!), but roughly that is the relative breakdown.
So if you're an adult, you can blow money, but the game just won't be worth it when you have 40 hours of diluted gaming as compared to 10 or fewer horus of nop notch stuff. Of course, you can have 40 amazing hours of gaming, but honestly, I've yet to come across a game that will just keep me riveted and in love for that long. Sure I'll play it, but there just isn't the "by god this is great!" feeling you get constantly from a shorter game.
Plus, I'll never finish it. It just gets old, there's more stuff to play... it gets dropped by the wayside.
Gamasutra's question of the week dealt with this, and I'm encouraged to hear that at least most other game developers prefer short and sweet. Of course, game designers are known for their short attention span, for figuring out what the game is at its core, then tossing it aside, but maybe other adults prefer shorter games, so I might be in luck.
Bleh... I hate to call what I would like to make games... but honestly there's just no better term right now. Interactive entertainment is too broad, too verbose. And anything that's not a game but might be called a game.... is "interactive". Gotta be some way to get around that interactive word...
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Guardin' the Garden goes gold!
Now say that ten times fast!
That's right, Guardin' the Garden, the first official game project for me, went on display at the GDIAC Fall 2006 showcase.
And it only crashed 4 or 5 times in approximately 12 hours of play (4 computers for 3 hours)! Hot stuff.
In some ways I'm so happy and proud, because the game went over really well. Actually, one of our problems was turnover, as people would start playing and tend not to rotate out, so a couple times we actually needed to ask people to let others have a chance. I see this as one of two things: either are game is downright fun, or it evokes that same feeling that you get from Everquest or other game where you're not really having fun... but ah you just want to win!
Oddly enough, I actually still play our game for fun at times. I figured that after living and breathing the game for its development cycle, I'd be sick of it, but actually the levels still are fun, with the exception that the game chugs at times... which means I'm suddenly hitting my beloved motion sickness EVEN FOR MY OWN GAME! I'm ashamed.
The reason I'm not entirely happy with the outcome is because I'm not sure how much I can credit myself for the success of the game. I know for sure that I wasn't the biggest force in getting it made. Muhammad was... he was a very good programmer who sunk more hours into the game than even me probably. So no, I can't really call this game "mine". But how much of the game is mine, then? How much can I look at Guardin' the Garden, and say... this is my work... this is what I am capable of. It matters since I'll have to appraise what I can do next semester without Muhammad. How much of the game relied on him, and how much can I actually do next semester and beyond? It's a question that bugs me. Plus I don't want to take credit for the game if I didn't truly impact it.
Eh... I'll mull it over... taint such a horrible question.
Pretty sure I made a horrible impression on the EA rep. She had graduated from Cornell last year, and I was tumbling over my words when I remembered that she had gone on to EA so must be here to "observe" and not just for old time's sake. I had my eyes so peeled for the usual University Relations person that I totally blanked on seeing the Cornell grad (I feel mean talking in general titles, but I assume it wouldn't be good form to give names). Oh well.. hope I didn't come off as too much of an oaf and incompetent person. When she asked what I did on the game, I wonderfully lost a hold of all the work I did, the jobs I had over the development cycle. Of course I did manage to spill out that I did a lot of the game paperwork... wow now that's what EA's looking for for sure... ayiyiyi....
Anyways, overall I'm glad the game got well received. No EA internship spilling out of this probably... but hey just try harder next time...
That's right, Guardin' the Garden, the first official game project for me, went on display at the GDIAC Fall 2006 showcase.
And it only crashed 4 or 5 times in approximately 12 hours of play (4 computers for 3 hours)! Hot stuff.
In some ways I'm so happy and proud, because the game went over really well. Actually, one of our problems was turnover, as people would start playing and tend not to rotate out, so a couple times we actually needed to ask people to let others have a chance. I see this as one of two things: either are game is downright fun, or it evokes that same feeling that you get from Everquest or other game where you're not really having fun... but ah you just want to win!
Oddly enough, I actually still play our game for fun at times. I figured that after living and breathing the game for its development cycle, I'd be sick of it, but actually the levels still are fun, with the exception that the game chugs at times... which means I'm suddenly hitting my beloved motion sickness EVEN FOR MY OWN GAME! I'm ashamed.
The reason I'm not entirely happy with the outcome is because I'm not sure how much I can credit myself for the success of the game. I know for sure that I wasn't the biggest force in getting it made. Muhammad was... he was a very good programmer who sunk more hours into the game than even me probably. So no, I can't really call this game "mine". But how much of the game is mine, then? How much can I look at Guardin' the Garden, and say... this is my work... this is what I am capable of. It matters since I'll have to appraise what I can do next semester without Muhammad. How much of the game relied on him, and how much can I actually do next semester and beyond? It's a question that bugs me. Plus I don't want to take credit for the game if I didn't truly impact it.
Eh... I'll mull it over... taint such a horrible question.
Pretty sure I made a horrible impression on the EA rep. She had graduated from Cornell last year, and I was tumbling over my words when I remembered that she had gone on to EA so must be here to "observe" and not just for old time's sake. I had my eyes so peeled for the usual University Relations person that I totally blanked on seeing the Cornell grad (I feel mean talking in general titles, but I assume it wouldn't be good form to give names). Oh well.. hope I didn't come off as too much of an oaf and incompetent person. When she asked what I did on the game, I wonderfully lost a hold of all the work I did, the jobs I had over the development cycle. Of course I did manage to spill out that I did a lot of the game paperwork... wow now that's what EA's looking for for sure... ayiyiyi....
Anyways, overall I'm glad the game got well received. No EA internship spilling out of this probably... but hey just try harder next time...