Why all games are "the same"
by Forrest B. Walker · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 10/08/2001 (10:14 pm) · 30 replies
I spent years in the game industry, going as far back as DOS 2.1
I cannot begin to name all the games I worked on, but I can name on one hand the genres. With a couple of BRILLIANT exceptions such as _The Incredible Machine_ every game I worked on was a variation of "whacking wizards in the woods".
I had an "exaulted" position in one major producer's power structure where I got to help "decide" next year's games. Here is why, in a nutshell, all we get is another variation of wizard whacking...ready?
It has nothing to do with the 90 to 95% male testosterone laden audience. That audience is the industry's own self fulfilling prophecy.
It has to do with MARKETING. Ever wonder why there are so many sequels?? MARKETING has no imagination. They know how to market a sequel, or a metoo game. They have no idea how to market a new idea. IN FACT, I was once told by a VP of Marketing that it would be, and I quote, "too much work" for him to develop a marketing strategy for a new idea. He said this in front of the senior management, and he got away with it. I have NEVER told a boss "that game is too difficult for me to work on".
OK, rip away!
I cannot begin to name all the games I worked on, but I can name on one hand the genres. With a couple of BRILLIANT exceptions such as _The Incredible Machine_ every game I worked on was a variation of "whacking wizards in the woods".
I had an "exaulted" position in one major producer's power structure where I got to help "decide" next year's games. Here is why, in a nutshell, all we get is another variation of wizard whacking...ready?
It has nothing to do with the 90 to 95% male testosterone laden audience. That audience is the industry's own self fulfilling prophecy.
It has to do with MARKETING. Ever wonder why there are so many sequels?? MARKETING has no imagination. They know how to market a sequel, or a metoo game. They have no idea how to market a new idea. IN FACT, I was once told by a VP of Marketing that it would be, and I quote, "too much work" for him to develop a marketing strategy for a new idea. He said this in front of the senior management, and he got away with it. I have NEVER told a boss "that game is too difficult for me to work on".
OK, rip away!
About the author
#2
I'd say rather that it's because a person's minds in general, including memory and imagination, is largely associative. Ideas don't really "come out of nowhere," but are previous experiences merged with other ones. For a truly new ideas to come along it takes quite a bit of jumps of this sort, going from one idea for say a plain shooter, to something slightly different, to something slightly different, and so on.
This might be a bit extreme, but I'd go so far as to say human thought isn't really capable of something entirely new. It might seem new, with something taken from one experience and applied to something completely different, but it really isn't.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
10/08/2001 (11:49 pm)
It can't just be marketing, because of the great amount of mods that are out there. People have a lot of opportunities to make "new" games, and these mods are largely the same old thing.I'd say rather that it's because a person's minds in general, including memory and imagination, is largely associative. Ideas don't really "come out of nowhere," but are previous experiences merged with other ones. For a truly new ideas to come along it takes quite a bit of jumps of this sort, going from one idea for say a plain shooter, to something slightly different, to something slightly different, and so on.
This might be a bit extreme, but I'd go so far as to say human thought isn't really capable of something entirely new. It might seem new, with something taken from one experience and applied to something completely different, but it really isn't.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
#3
But, I guess that's a different subject..... =)
10/09/2001 (2:03 am)
I think the human mind is _more_ than capable of coming up with something new, however most human societies don't particularly encourage new and different ways of thinking.But, I guess that's a different subject..... =)
#4
-
10/09/2001 (9:48 am)
Your mind is capable of generating new ideas. Your body is capable of climbing Mount Everest. You rarely find it worth the trouble.-
#5
Seriously tho, look at a game like _The Incredible Machine_ and realize that it was done in practically a vacuum. No one knew what to expect out of Tunnell at the time, he had pretty loose reins, and he came up with TIM. He could just as easily of done another shooter, or wizard whacker because it could be marketed easier. TIM grew and propspered because it was different.
10/09/2001 (11:20 am)
My body, for one, and I think I am with about 99% of the people in the world, is NOT capable of climbing Everest!Seriously tho, look at a game like _The Incredible Machine_ and realize that it was done in practically a vacuum. No one knew what to expect out of Tunnell at the time, he had pretty loose reins, and he came up with TIM. He could just as easily of done another shooter, or wizard whacker because it could be marketed easier. TIM grew and propspered because it was different.
#6
They are "professional" marketing people, who really do NOT understand the product. I can understand this to some extent, and if they are TRULY professional, this should harm the issue. What does harm the games industry is that marketing people get into positions of control and power (they also get paid way above thier value).
Here's a prime example, on UK TV now, there is an advert about a mobile phone provider (I think), they have an ad where it starts "Hello, I'm XXX, Marketing Manager of XXX company, so I know what we need out of XXX". The idea that a marketing manager in a company has ANY clue about the company's products at anything more than a superficial level is just ludicrous.
I'm not a fan of the kind of people attracted to sales and marketing to be fair.
Phil.
10/09/2001 (11:50 am)
The problem is that marketing people by thier very nature do NOT want to understand what it is they are marketing, because by doing so, they undermine the idea that they can market ANYTHING.They are "professional" marketing people, who really do NOT understand the product. I can understand this to some extent, and if they are TRULY professional, this should harm the issue. What does harm the games industry is that marketing people get into positions of control and power (they also get paid way above thier value).
Here's a prime example, on UK TV now, there is an advert about a mobile phone provider (I think), they have an ad where it starts "Hello, I'm XXX, Marketing Manager of XXX company, so I know what we need out of XXX". The idea that a marketing manager in a company has ANY clue about the company's products at anything more than a superficial level is just ludicrous.
I'm not a fan of the kind of people attracted to sales and marketing to be fair.
Phil.
#7
I'm not a big fan of marketeers either, but it isn't because they are all cut from the same cookie mold (brylcreem hair, Pepsodent teeth and Gucci loafers!) it has a lot more to do with the overvalued aspect and the refusal to recognize basic realities. One of those realities is development time.
I have seen well over a million dollars wasted on advertising that went out months before a title shipped, because the marketing schedule was out of synch with the development "schedule". Marketeers lived in a world with 3 to six month lead times for advertising. If they bothered to look into the status of the product when they made the commitment to advertise, they would see that they were wasting money, that they should wait. They never understood that. Except for one company which shall go unnamed. They were mostly privately held, and had a couple of blockbuster titles selling regularly, paying the bills. A person I had trained in QA and left where I was to become the QA manager at this company stayed in contact with me. He called me a couple of times to tell me that they had "canned" their next title, and it would hit the shelves the same week their advertising hit the stands. They did it right. Places I worked were constantly on 7 day weeks trying to get a title out because our advertising was now 3 months old.
Meanwhile, the marketeers were already plotting the ads for the sequel. It drove me nuts.
One of the reasons I joined this GG forum, and made my services avaialble to developers, is because I believe that independents can and should be the future of games. Corporate structures never really understood their own development staff in the gaming industry. That is a two way street which I would gladly go into a discussion of in another string. However, what I am saying here is that once a beauracracy (sp?) takes hold of an artistic enterprise, disconnects happen.
10/09/2001 (2:07 pm)
Reply to Phil;I'm not a big fan of marketeers either, but it isn't because they are all cut from the same cookie mold (brylcreem hair, Pepsodent teeth and Gucci loafers!) it has a lot more to do with the overvalued aspect and the refusal to recognize basic realities. One of those realities is development time.
I have seen well over a million dollars wasted on advertising that went out months before a title shipped, because the marketing schedule was out of synch with the development "schedule". Marketeers lived in a world with 3 to six month lead times for advertising. If they bothered to look into the status of the product when they made the commitment to advertise, they would see that they were wasting money, that they should wait. They never understood that. Except for one company which shall go unnamed. They were mostly privately held, and had a couple of blockbuster titles selling regularly, paying the bills. A person I had trained in QA and left where I was to become the QA manager at this company stayed in contact with me. He called me a couple of times to tell me that they had "canned" their next title, and it would hit the shelves the same week their advertising hit the stands. They did it right. Places I worked were constantly on 7 day weeks trying to get a title out because our advertising was now 3 months old.
Meanwhile, the marketeers were already plotting the ads for the sequel. It drove me nuts.
One of the reasons I joined this GG forum, and made my services avaialble to developers, is because I believe that independents can and should be the future of games. Corporate structures never really understood their own development staff in the gaming industry. That is a two way street which I would gladly go into a discussion of in another string. However, what I am saying here is that once a beauracracy (sp?) takes hold of an artistic enterprise, disconnects happen.
#8
-
10/09/2001 (2:23 pm)
A healthy body can climb Mount Everest, it just takes a few years of strenuous preparations. A healthy mind can generate completely new ideas, it just takes a lot of time and hard work. Lack of sleep can also generate new ideas but sadly new ideas does not help much unless they also are good ideas.-
#9
Hopefully GG will change all that :-)
10/09/2001 (3:48 pm)
Personally, I do not think marketing even comes into play until way after most of the major decisions are made. MARKETABILITY is another matter. Games are getting more and more expensive to develop. Folks bankrolling a new game dont want to make a major gamble with their money, so they want to stick to proven formulas that sell. I think this is why we see the same games rehashed with different models and slightly different story lines, why we see games that are tied to successful franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc), and very few truly original game ideas coming into existence. Hopefully GG will change all that :-)
#10
10/09/2001 (6:02 pm)
I am in agreement with James. People with cash want proven and predictable ways of making more money. Occasionally you will find someone willing to take a gamble.
#11
First, the marketeers have say before any game is given a green light. They, as you might think, are not brought in after the game is in development, MOSTLY. I CAN name a couple of exceptions to my own rule, but they were EXCEPTIONS out of the 40 or so games in 3 companies where I saw the inside.
As for taking a gamble..._Civilization_ was a gamble, by a mostly independent creator. The SIM series of Will Wright, genius that he is, were not the first "god" games, CIV was. Now the concept has been copied so many times that nothing is new.
(BTW folks, games are not alone in this "easy way out". Formulas are the basis for most movies and TV shows.
Remember the movie Network? where the assistant is pitching the shows for next year?
"Curmudgeopon old cop and young handsome cop...."
"curmudgeoon old doctor and young handsome doctor..."
Yeah, thats what I'm talking about in games.)
If I am walking around in a first person scene carrying:
A) A machine gun;
B) a Zap gun; or
c) a blow torch
and I have
A) No armor
B) light armor; or
C) heavy armor
and I am fighting
A) Bulls that fly;
B) Mechaguys with radon zap guns; or
C) Nuns with electron loaded crosses
it does not matter to me if I am in
A) Outer space;
B) WWII; or
c) hell.
It is all the same game. Eye candy, frame rate, whatever, the same game.
And to return to an original point of mine, this is why 95% of the people who own PCs have NEVER bought a game. Shooting bulls in space with my radon emitting zap gun appeals to a very small market.
10/09/2001 (6:42 pm)
Reply to James and ShawnFirst, the marketeers have say before any game is given a green light. They, as you might think, are not brought in after the game is in development, MOSTLY. I CAN name a couple of exceptions to my own rule, but they were EXCEPTIONS out of the 40 or so games in 3 companies where I saw the inside.
As for taking a gamble..._Civilization_ was a gamble, by a mostly independent creator. The SIM series of Will Wright, genius that he is, were not the first "god" games, CIV was. Now the concept has been copied so many times that nothing is new.
(BTW folks, games are not alone in this "easy way out". Formulas are the basis for most movies and TV shows.
Remember the movie Network? where the assistant is pitching the shows for next year?
"Curmudgeopon old cop and young handsome cop...."
"curmudgeoon old doctor and young handsome doctor..."
Yeah, thats what I'm talking about in games.)
If I am walking around in a first person scene carrying:
A) A machine gun;
B) a Zap gun; or
c) a blow torch
and I have
A) No armor
B) light armor; or
C) heavy armor
and I am fighting
A) Bulls that fly;
B) Mechaguys with radon zap guns; or
C) Nuns with electron loaded crosses
it does not matter to me if I am in
A) Outer space;
B) WWII; or
c) hell.
It is all the same game. Eye candy, frame rate, whatever, the same game.
And to return to an original point of mine, this is why 95% of the people who own PCs have NEVER bought a game. Shooting bulls in space with my radon emitting zap gun appeals to a very small market.
#12
Your tough but hardened...
a. space marine
b. B-movie hero
c. army guy
...must go up against...
a. aliens from another dimension
b. an evil corporation
c. random heartless thugs
d. various evil animals
e. demons
...in order to...
a. save the universe.
b. get the girl.
c. rid the world of evil.
d. just kill lots of things.
You navigate levels comprised of...
a. boxy buildings
b. crates
c. height-mapped terrain
d. spaceships
e. random poorly-lit buildings
f. some part of hell
g. more crates
...all by your lonesome, but tough and hardened, self. In the end you encounter...
a. some large demon
b. an elusive government agent
c. a really big and ugly alien
d. a slow and fat man who has nothing better to do with his time than hire goons to unnecessarily kill things
...putting a stop to the ultimate evil. In the end, you're showered with...
a. a text description of the aftermath
b. some cutscene that doesn't connect with the gameplay/marginal story at all
c. the credits which show you the illustrious people who slaved to regurgitate your precious tripe
...which play against...
a. bad techno.
b. wannabe rock music.
c. a tinny MIDI orchestra.
d. nonsensical ambient sounds.
e. silence because the team spent their entire budget on graphics and couldn't afford a music guy.
Did I miss any games there? ;)
(Edited for readability. You can also fill in the blanks with whatever other words you want as well.)
10/09/2001 (7:13 pm)
Heh, your post reminds me of Mad Libs. How about this:Your tough but hardened...
a. space marine
b. B-movie hero
c. army guy
...must go up against...
a. aliens from another dimension
b. an evil corporation
c. random heartless thugs
d. various evil animals
e. demons
...in order to...
a. save the universe.
b. get the girl.
c. rid the world of evil.
d. just kill lots of things.
You navigate levels comprised of...
a. boxy buildings
b. crates
c. height-mapped terrain
d. spaceships
e. random poorly-lit buildings
f. some part of hell
g. more crates
...all by your lonesome, but tough and hardened, self. In the end you encounter...
a. some large demon
b. an elusive government agent
c. a really big and ugly alien
d. a slow and fat man who has nothing better to do with his time than hire goons to unnecessarily kill things
...putting a stop to the ultimate evil. In the end, you're showered with...
a. a text description of the aftermath
b. some cutscene that doesn't connect with the gameplay/marginal story at all
c. the credits which show you the illustrious people who slaved to regurgitate your precious tripe
...which play against...
a. bad techno.
b. wannabe rock music.
c. a tinny MIDI orchestra.
d. nonsensical ambient sounds.
e. silence because the team spent their entire budget on graphics and couldn't afford a music guy.
Did I miss any games there? ;)
(Edited for readability. You can also fill in the blanks with whatever other words you want as well.)
#13
10/09/2001 (7:21 pm)
hey, that's a neat idea. Have a game that before you play, have the user select a bunch of random items and the game will change to whatever you selected. Like say for one you picked Dr. Booger for one item, then the evil boss will end up being dr booger or something. A madlib fps!
#14
10/09/2001 (7:30 pm)
The scary thing is that someone actually made a game like that... Check out The 3D Gamemaker. 
#16
A really original idea cannot generate the necessary hype in those first weeks to get a payback for the investors. It's too new, there aren't enough hooks for reviewers to compare it to. The market hesitates to see what others think and then it is swept away by the next big hype.
It's not fair, but it's what happens.
You can make an original game with some new ideas - but unless you have huge backing, a prolonged ad campaign (which costs $$$) or a groundswell of interest based on beta first adopters and perfect timing in the market a completely new idea is just a sinkhole for money from an investor point of view.
On the other hand the next try has the advantage of seeing all the mistakes made by the first team, a product to which they can be favorably compared to by the press, less of a hill to climb with public awareness, and a much better shot at being profitable.
That's the tale of new games in retail. Frankly, I hope GG's online business model kicks it's ass. Back to work.
10/10/2001 (6:02 am)
The major reason that a totally original game never gets the green light is simple. The average amount of time a game sits on the "good" shelf is a couple of weeks at best. Endcaps at stores like EB and CompUSA go for about a million bucks during peak season. During that time the new game must get enough of a following that later purchasers are willing to wade into the middle aisles to look for it.A really original idea cannot generate the necessary hype in those first weeks to get a payback for the investors. It's too new, there aren't enough hooks for reviewers to compare it to. The market hesitates to see what others think and then it is swept away by the next big hype.
It's not fair, but it's what happens.
You can make an original game with some new ideas - but unless you have huge backing, a prolonged ad campaign (which costs $$$) or a groundswell of interest based on beta first adopters and perfect timing in the market a completely new idea is just a sinkhole for money from an investor point of view.
On the other hand the next try has the advantage of seeing all the mistakes made by the first team, a product to which they can be favorably compared to by the press, less of a hill to climb with public awareness, and a much better shot at being profitable.
That's the tale of new games in retail. Frankly, I hope GG's online business model kicks it's ass. Back to work.
#17
Basically I think it goes like that old saying: "dont judge a book by is cover" sure, we have enough FPS, RPG, and RTS in the Pc market to fill an olympic pool with. But lets face it, the best of that crop are not even similar to each other even if they share the genere, when a true "clone" comes out of the woodworks and it really has nothing that can be called by is name, it goes straight to the bargain bin, where it belongs.
Im not saying that I dont go for originality, originality is what makes a game tick, what fun is to play something you have played a thousand times before? (you hear that resident evil clone factory?) sometimes games tend to be unoriginal, but going the straight opposite way can create something that is more likely bizarre than fun, something that a single glance a gamer would say "thanks, but I will stick to shooting bad guys with this large gun here if you dont mind" and sometimes it creates something so breathetaking that it strikes with fierce at simple sight (like "ico")
However hitting that "truly original" nail, maybe too much of a trick for my taste (both for a gamer and as a developer), I prefer "perfection of the genere" over "complete originality" anytime, I mean think about it, if every creative game developer would have thought "doom is getting old lets just not do any fps anmymore lets do something else" we just wouldnt have "deus ex", "counterstrike" and "tribes 2" (I just love tribes 2 =) ) think about it for just a sec. Instead they said, "doom gameplay is getting old lets do something cool with it".
BTW. I wouldnt mind AT ALL to see a 3d realistic physics version of "the incredible machine" even if it isnt an "original" game it would be the coolest thing ever. =)
Those are just my 0.02 monetary units at work.
Keep on coding!
p.s.
If you want to see serious versions of games that look "like all others" check this ones out.
"deus ex" -A complex, RPG-fps game you can play over and over again, using diferent skills sets and techniques, good, good stuff. also includes a conspiration Xfiles meets matrix style history, neat really neat.
"half life" -A great "virtual reality" like fps with a thriller story and a surprise waiting just around any corner. (great sdk for modding as well =) )
"undying" -If the graphics and sound wont get you the story will, excelently crafted by clive barker, full of turn of the century supernatural fear. Brilliant work. really scary as well.
"Tribes 2" even though is pretty similar in gameplay to the first, tribes 2 sports a really cool engine that is able to create pretty realistic landscapes and a realistic physics engine, which makes the game to be more involving and believable. besides battles are twice as big, cool really , really cool =)
10/10/2001 (11:09 am)
Well.. I think is unfair to just say "all games are the same" specially games who really made it out there. Is easy to see a new FPS come out and just say "PFF another FPS" try to compare Doom, Half Life and Tribes 2 then look at me straight at the face and tell me they are the same.. if you do you will be lying your teeth out and you know it, or you havent played any of those games.Basically I think it goes like that old saying: "dont judge a book by is cover" sure, we have enough FPS, RPG, and RTS in the Pc market to fill an olympic pool with. But lets face it, the best of that crop are not even similar to each other even if they share the genere, when a true "clone" comes out of the woodworks and it really has nothing that can be called by is name, it goes straight to the bargain bin, where it belongs.
Im not saying that I dont go for originality, originality is what makes a game tick, what fun is to play something you have played a thousand times before? (you hear that resident evil clone factory?) sometimes games tend to be unoriginal, but going the straight opposite way can create something that is more likely bizarre than fun, something that a single glance a gamer would say "thanks, but I will stick to shooting bad guys with this large gun here if you dont mind" and sometimes it creates something so breathetaking that it strikes with fierce at simple sight (like "ico")
However hitting that "truly original" nail, maybe too much of a trick for my taste (both for a gamer and as a developer), I prefer "perfection of the genere" over "complete originality" anytime, I mean think about it, if every creative game developer would have thought "doom is getting old lets just not do any fps anmymore lets do something else" we just wouldnt have "deus ex", "counterstrike" and "tribes 2" (I just love tribes 2 =) ) think about it for just a sec. Instead they said, "doom gameplay is getting old lets do something cool with it".
BTW. I wouldnt mind AT ALL to see a 3d realistic physics version of "the incredible machine" even if it isnt an "original" game it would be the coolest thing ever. =)
Those are just my 0.02 monetary units at work.
Keep on coding!
p.s.
If you want to see serious versions of games that look "like all others" check this ones out.
"deus ex" -A complex, RPG-fps game you can play over and over again, using diferent skills sets and techniques, good, good stuff. also includes a conspiration Xfiles meets matrix style history, neat really neat.
"half life" -A great "virtual reality" like fps with a thriller story and a surprise waiting just around any corner. (great sdk for modding as well =) )
"undying" -If the graphics and sound wont get you the story will, excelently crafted by clive barker, full of turn of the century supernatural fear. Brilliant work. really scary as well.
"Tribes 2" even though is pretty similar in gameplay to the first, tribes 2 sports a really cool engine that is able to create pretty realistic landscapes and a realistic physics engine, which makes the game to be more involving and believable. besides battles are twice as big, cool really , really cool =)
#18
10/10/2001 (12:16 pm)
BurningRose, all of those great games were very original when they first camed.
#19
There are 2 elements that are quite guilty of games being alike.
1.-Drama elements, (check out the article at gamasutra) Basically if your game tries to tell an history you must get it involved in the elements of drama. Since the elements of drama are the same for just about every single history games end up looking alike. Unless they dont try to tell an history (like puzzle,dance or music games) in which case they look diferent but similar to each other.
2.-Hardware limitations..
FPS are good because the object of the game is to point and shoot while moving around. you can easily code and interface this with a mouse and a keyboard. (and everybody has those) a 3d card is also needed for additional speed.
Try to do a game in which you LITERALY have to talk your way out of situations and you will face lots of technical diciculties. voice recognition problems, interface problems, AI problems, etc plus the fact that not everyone has apropiate hardware for it.
As a matter of fact just try to bring a true pen and paper rpg into a computer game in which your character can do anything his/her heart desires to come out of a situation, and you will hit a LARGE brick wall there. With current technology you just cant bring every concise desire into reality for a gamer, Imagine your character wishes to have an spell to create a million different critters right there! (welcome to 1 fps crashland !) There are loading issues, memory issues, map issues, AI issues, brushes issues,BSP issues that refrain you to do something like that, and the simple fact that you probably never thought he/she would do that!
For a lot of years I wondered "why all FPS games have to be played inside a building? why can I just go outside and climb in? " or "why all RTS have to be 2d?" or "why fighter games have to be 2d and why cant I control a mob of characters fighting a mob of characters?" (this dates back in 1993) the reason.. hardware limitations, back then, creating a landscape will have brought down my PC to its knees. (heck running a real 3d game will have brought my 386 to it knees) basically the best (and probably the only) way to do those things at playable speed was the one that was already being used.
As hardware advances so do games, even though many claim that hardware only makes games look better, lets admit it, games like black & white, the sims, counter strike, tribes 2, max payne would have never existed if technology had stayed in 1993. (unless we have managed to insert copious ammounts of memory to a 386, although the games would still have been really slow or limited)
This is the reason why developers tend to stick with formulas for game making, first of all it works! (most famous and top wanted games are either sequels or expansions of other games), second they allow you to expand just about anywhere you like inside a radius(you just have to use your imagination to the max), third you dont take as many chances as by making a completely new kind of game (you have 50/50 chance of making it with a completely original game), and most important of all, most probably technology will support it, since it already works in a similar concept.
=)
10/10/2001 (1:25 pm)
Well yes, but the basic idea (first person shooter were you kill either demons,soldiers,ghosts or aliens) was not, so those are examples of "seemingly unoriginal" games that made it big. (and are great fun to play)There are 2 elements that are quite guilty of games being alike.
1.-Drama elements, (check out the article at gamasutra) Basically if your game tries to tell an history you must get it involved in the elements of drama. Since the elements of drama are the same for just about every single history games end up looking alike. Unless they dont try to tell an history (like puzzle,dance or music games) in which case they look diferent but similar to each other.
2.-Hardware limitations..
FPS are good because the object of the game is to point and shoot while moving around. you can easily code and interface this with a mouse and a keyboard. (and everybody has those) a 3d card is also needed for additional speed.
Try to do a game in which you LITERALY have to talk your way out of situations and you will face lots of technical diciculties. voice recognition problems, interface problems, AI problems, etc plus the fact that not everyone has apropiate hardware for it.
As a matter of fact just try to bring a true pen and paper rpg into a computer game in which your character can do anything his/her heart desires to come out of a situation, and you will hit a LARGE brick wall there. With current technology you just cant bring every concise desire into reality for a gamer, Imagine your character wishes to have an spell to create a million different critters right there! (welcome to 1 fps crashland !) There are loading issues, memory issues, map issues, AI issues, brushes issues,BSP issues that refrain you to do something like that, and the simple fact that you probably never thought he/she would do that!
For a lot of years I wondered "why all FPS games have to be played inside a building? why can I just go outside and climb in? " or "why all RTS have to be 2d?" or "why fighter games have to be 2d and why cant I control a mob of characters fighting a mob of characters?" (this dates back in 1993) the reason.. hardware limitations, back then, creating a landscape will have brought down my PC to its knees. (heck running a real 3d game will have brought my 386 to it knees) basically the best (and probably the only) way to do those things at playable speed was the one that was already being used.
As hardware advances so do games, even though many claim that hardware only makes games look better, lets admit it, games like black & white, the sims, counter strike, tribes 2, max payne would have never existed if technology had stayed in 1993. (unless we have managed to insert copious ammounts of memory to a 386, although the games would still have been really slow or limited)
This is the reason why developers tend to stick with formulas for game making, first of all it works! (most famous and top wanted games are either sequels or expansions of other games), second they allow you to expand just about anywhere you like inside a radius(you just have to use your imagination to the max), third you dont take as many chances as by making a completely new kind of game (you have 50/50 chance of making it with a completely original game), and most important of all, most probably technology will support it, since it already works in a similar concept.
=)
#20
IIRC, they were working on one. They had a mysterious screenshot in InterAction (Sierra's long-gone magazine) once. Jeff can probably verify this.
10/10/2001 (1:42 pm)
Quote:BTW. I wouldnt mind AT ALL to see a 3d realistic physics version of "the incredible machine" even if it isnt an "original" game it would be the coolest thing ever. =)
IIRC, they were working on one. They had a mysterious screenshot in InterAction (Sierra's long-gone magazine) once. Jeff can probably verify this.
Torque Owner Mark O
Default Studio Name