Let's Get Going
by Jeff Tunnell · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 12/06/2000 (12:00 pm) · 14 replies
This was one of our most popular forums on the old GG site. Let's get some activity going here.
It is my feeling that game design progress has stagnated. We keep seeing the same old re-hashes of old games. Yet another RTS, or FPS, or FRP. We need to bring the excitement back!
The only breath of fresh air I have seen in the past two years has been The Sims. Will and EA took a chance, but look how it has paid off... $50MM in sales and counting.
Imagine what would have happened if the executive producer at EA had told Will to tone it down a little, or add some violence because out hard core audience won't "get it." First of all, he probably would have lost one of the best designers in the industry, and he would have spent the usual $3-4MM to put out a product that may have sold 150,000 units or about $5MM in sales.
Even though publishers like to do games that are "kind of like this, but different" in order to reduce risk, in reality that kind of thinking is way more risky than doing something new and different.
Come on, let's get this thread moving again.
Jeff
It is my feeling that game design progress has stagnated. We keep seeing the same old re-hashes of old games. Yet another RTS, or FPS, or FRP. We need to bring the excitement back!
The only breath of fresh air I have seen in the past two years has been The Sims. Will and EA took a chance, but look how it has paid off... $50MM in sales and counting.
Imagine what would have happened if the executive producer at EA had told Will to tone it down a little, or add some violence because out hard core audience won't "get it." First of all, he probably would have lost one of the best designers in the industry, and he would have spent the usual $3-4MM to put out a product that may have sold 150,000 units or about $5MM in sales.
Even though publishers like to do games that are "kind of like this, but different" in order to reduce risk, in reality that kind of thinking is way more risky than doing something new and different.
Come on, let's get this thread moving again.
Jeff
About the author
#2
Then all you need to do is swoop down on the successful ones and whack a box and label around the game - voila, instant success, zero risk.
From what I can tell large distributors like Activision did the whole outsourcing thing a few years back and got rid of their in-house dev teams. Now they are talking about doing more stuff in-house.
Teams of dedicated and proven game makers would make easy pickings... but this is where I think people need to be really tough. You can potentially do much better setting up your own company and selling the rights for a game to a distributor than you can becoming an employee for a large company.
Sam Hinton
Xenwars Developer
12/07/2000 (4:27 pm)
I think that garage games are a potential goldmine for software development companies. Here you have all these small time but talented developers out there prototyping games and market testing them for you for free.Then all you need to do is swoop down on the successful ones and whack a box and label around the game - voila, instant success, zero risk.
From what I can tell large distributors like Activision did the whole outsourcing thing a few years back and got rid of their in-house dev teams. Now they are talking about doing more stuff in-house.
Teams of dedicated and proven game makers would make easy pickings... but this is where I think people need to be really tough. You can potentially do much better setting up your own company and selling the rights for a game to a distributor than you can becoming an employee for a large company.
Sam Hinton
Xenwars Developer
#3
12/20/2000 (10:37 pm)
I certainly agree with Jeff there. I think a good example is in strategy wargames. Those are my favorite types of games and they just don't make them any more. The industry seems to believe that those types of games don't sell well. I think it's just that re-painting Civilization for the millionth time doesn't sell well.
#4
The Sims was a great game, I bought it the day it came out and its a game my wife and I, and my friends, can play together and just try all sorts of combinations and experiments. However, I feel is suffers from Sim syndrome, in that it reaches a sort of plateau where the only thing that really keeps the player going is additioanl media, like expansion packs, user-created content and mods. It's not like Half Life where you finish the game, and buy another or maybe spend some time with real life again... you don't WANT to stop playing the sims, but suddenly it becomes a bit stale. Sims Online, the little of read of it, will reduce this syndrome dratsically. But still, I doubt that one player's actions will affect the _community_ very much. What I'd love to see is a game where the player is under pressure to succeeed, not just succeed to see the end credits, but to be a vital part of a living social organism.
MUSHs are the nearest thing I've come to that, because the work on a very small scale, with a small base number of players, and of that, a fraction of them online at the same time. even still, many MU*'s still try to make these expansive game universes filled with automated shop keepers, and miles and miles of beautifully described, but desolate, rooms and environments. I think we need to focus on the fears and rewards of being a real character, someone that people hate, or love, or admire, or are willing to scarifice their lives for, because they know you and they know what you've done, rather than alarge RPG like Ever quest where you're lucky if you see the same player twice in one day.
Am I crazy? Kinda sounds like it, huh? :)
12/22/2000 (7:14 am)
Man. I posted this monster post about the future of socially oriented MMORPGs but it looks like the BBS ate it because it's not in the game design section. But that's something I'm interested in right now... combining role playing with a social structure where people rely on the community, and the community relies on its players. I posted an example of a village, where almost every role is taken by a player character, and small enough that anything one player does, impacts others in any number of small or large ways.The Sims was a great game, I bought it the day it came out and its a game my wife and I, and my friends, can play together and just try all sorts of combinations and experiments. However, I feel is suffers from Sim syndrome, in that it reaches a sort of plateau where the only thing that really keeps the player going is additioanl media, like expansion packs, user-created content and mods. It's not like Half Life where you finish the game, and buy another or maybe spend some time with real life again... you don't WANT to stop playing the sims, but suddenly it becomes a bit stale. Sims Online, the little of read of it, will reduce this syndrome dratsically. But still, I doubt that one player's actions will affect the _community_ very much. What I'd love to see is a game where the player is under pressure to succeeed, not just succeed to see the end credits, but to be a vital part of a living social organism.
MUSHs are the nearest thing I've come to that, because the work on a very small scale, with a small base number of players, and of that, a fraction of them online at the same time. even still, many MU*'s still try to make these expansive game universes filled with automated shop keepers, and miles and miles of beautifully described, but desolate, rooms and environments. I think we need to focus on the fears and rewards of being a real character, someone that people hate, or love, or admire, or are willing to scarifice their lives for, because they know you and they know what you've done, rather than alarge RPG like Ever quest where you're lucky if you see the same player twice in one day.
Am I crazy? Kinda sounds like it, huh? :)
#5
Rev, you are right on track. Us GG'ers are talking about a lot of the issues you raised in your post right now. One of our ultimate goals is to make MMP games and communities. The V12 technology is one step toward that vision.
Jeff
12/22/2000 (7:52 am)
The BBS ate it? Crap... Maybe you could rewrite it in a text editor, then post to the forum.Rev, you are right on track. Us GG'ers are talking about a lot of the issues you raised in your post right now. One of our ultimate goals is to make MMP games and communities. The V12 technology is one step toward that vision.
Jeff
#6
12/26/2000 (2:12 pm)
Are there any details regarding the V12 technology and how it will help make MMGs a possible reality for the small-time developer?
#7
-the entertainer
-the audience
Understanding this dynamic though is only the first step in a lifelong study of what games can become as an entertainment medium. We haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
01/05/2001 (9:00 pm)
Good Point. We need to rediscover "What gaming is?" and that is, entertainment. And what is entertainment, but a ritual involving two parties:-the entertainer
-the audience
Understanding this dynamic though is only the first step in a lifelong study of what games can become as an entertainment medium. We haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
#8
1. They are another outlet for artists and animators
2. They are a place for writers to write, and for people to read a la RPGs
3. Music and sound f/x play an important role as well
4. We have the other stuff that the movie/music/book industry doesn't have, programmers, testers, ummm...etc.
well anyways, videogames are quickly approaching movie like budgets, and some even surprass movies in sales (final fantasy, zelda, etc.), and it show cases art, music, writing, and the hard work that these fine people put into games...except Acclaim, who is evil.
02/19/2001 (8:16 pm)
I believe that videogames are the best form of entertainment out there...if applied correctly. 1. They are another outlet for artists and animators
2. They are a place for writers to write, and for people to read a la RPGs
3. Music and sound f/x play an important role as well
4. We have the other stuff that the movie/music/book industry doesn't have, programmers, testers, ummm...etc.
well anyways, videogames are quickly approaching movie like budgets, and some even surprass movies in sales (final fantasy, zelda, etc.), and it show cases art, music, writing, and the hard work that these fine people put into games...except Acclaim, who is evil.
#9
And while I don't want to be devil's advocate, I want to analyze the 'why' of this 'conceptual stagnation' or 'ideas on ice' phase of the video game industry.
Video games are no longer a 'cult' activity, they are broadly accepted as a mainstream hobby and pasttime. With mainstream comes the inevitable 'institutionalizing.'
This is a lot how Hollywood works. Someone comes along, and makes a great 'innovative' movie, and then everyone and their mother wants to cash in on it. For example, the movie "Glory" was the first 'modernized' pre 1900s historical motion picture. It also won two academy awards, was nominated for three others. More importantly, it made money, lots of money.
Why? Because an audience previously untargeted and left out by Hollywood (history buffs), finally had something made for them on the big screen. So in addition to the regular friday nighters, all the Civil War buffs and history hobbyists went to see it too.
At the time of Glory's release, Hollywood was in its action phase (Last Action Hero, Hudson Hawke, Waterworld.) Hollywood was spewing out movie after movie with identical concepts, just bigger budgets, more cussing, more this more that. But nothing really 'new' except the stuntwork, or the special effects.
After Glory, a plethora of historical epics evinced such as Last of the Mohicans, Gettysburg, and ultimately culminating in Braveheart and the "Patriot". Hollywood saw that profits were to be made, and so they jumped on the opportunity.
What basically happened is that someone took a risk, in an untouched market, and when the risk paid off, Hollywood (which hates taking risks), then saw tangible profit possibilities and jumped on it.
Now to my point. The video game industry has become a LOT like this. Let's use Blizzard Entertainment as an example. That company pioneers 'nothing.' All they do is wait for an innovative concept to come along. If the concept does well in the VG market, they invest in a game for that genre, polish it up, 'perfect' it to quote Tom Zileas Cadwell, and then ship it.
Big video game companies are like that. They don't want to dump money into a game which has no established precident of success in the VG market. They, like Hollywood, prefer to wait for someone else to put themselves on the line, the proverbial "little guy with the big idea" (Tucker), and if that person doesn't hang him/herself, THEN the video game corporations follow suit, just with bigger budgets.
And since MOST of us only have opportunity to purchase and play games made by these 'larger' publishers (Blizzard, Westwood, Origin Systems, LucasFilm, Microsoft -- since only the larger companies can afford to have nation and worldwide distribution), we fall into their 'profit trap.' We think that since they're making games of this genre and this or that style, then so should we as an IGD. After all, the public will be more receptive to a game from an IGD if it's somewhat similar to the games put out by the larger corporations.
But truly, the existing genres are really capped. How many more controls can be added to a Flight Simulator without making some up? How much farther can graphics and variety go in real time RTS? How interesting is it to gain experience after killing monsters in RPGs? Another chess variation?
These concepts have been done to DEATH, resurrected, and done to death again, and again, and again. Jeff is right, it's time for new concepts, new ideas, innovations, and unprecedented projects.
The question is, who of you is up to the challenge? Who of you is willing to take that 'risk' and develop something which has never been market tested? Who of you will spend hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours, sacrificing time with your girlfriend or boyfriend, children, spouses, social groups, and everything to publish a game that has not even the slightest proven track record of success?
Think on it.
03/10/2001 (5:59 pm)
I agree 100% with Jeff (and also with Camille who recently posted a new plan -- Check out the What's New section). And while I don't want to be devil's advocate, I want to analyze the 'why' of this 'conceptual stagnation' or 'ideas on ice' phase of the video game industry.
Video games are no longer a 'cult' activity, they are broadly accepted as a mainstream hobby and pasttime. With mainstream comes the inevitable 'institutionalizing.'
This is a lot how Hollywood works. Someone comes along, and makes a great 'innovative' movie, and then everyone and their mother wants to cash in on it. For example, the movie "Glory" was the first 'modernized' pre 1900s historical motion picture. It also won two academy awards, was nominated for three others. More importantly, it made money, lots of money.
Why? Because an audience previously untargeted and left out by Hollywood (history buffs), finally had something made for them on the big screen. So in addition to the regular friday nighters, all the Civil War buffs and history hobbyists went to see it too.
At the time of Glory's release, Hollywood was in its action phase (Last Action Hero, Hudson Hawke, Waterworld.) Hollywood was spewing out movie after movie with identical concepts, just bigger budgets, more cussing, more this more that. But nothing really 'new' except the stuntwork, or the special effects.
After Glory, a plethora of historical epics evinced such as Last of the Mohicans, Gettysburg, and ultimately culminating in Braveheart and the "Patriot". Hollywood saw that profits were to be made, and so they jumped on the opportunity.
What basically happened is that someone took a risk, in an untouched market, and when the risk paid off, Hollywood (which hates taking risks), then saw tangible profit possibilities and jumped on it.
Now to my point. The video game industry has become a LOT like this. Let's use Blizzard Entertainment as an example. That company pioneers 'nothing.' All they do is wait for an innovative concept to come along. If the concept does well in the VG market, they invest in a game for that genre, polish it up, 'perfect' it to quote Tom Zileas Cadwell, and then ship it.
Big video game companies are like that. They don't want to dump money into a game which has no established precident of success in the VG market. They, like Hollywood, prefer to wait for someone else to put themselves on the line, the proverbial "little guy with the big idea" (Tucker), and if that person doesn't hang him/herself, THEN the video game corporations follow suit, just with bigger budgets.
And since MOST of us only have opportunity to purchase and play games made by these 'larger' publishers (Blizzard, Westwood, Origin Systems, LucasFilm, Microsoft -- since only the larger companies can afford to have nation and worldwide distribution), we fall into their 'profit trap.' We think that since they're making games of this genre and this or that style, then so should we as an IGD. After all, the public will be more receptive to a game from an IGD if it's somewhat similar to the games put out by the larger corporations.
But truly, the existing genres are really capped. How many more controls can be added to a Flight Simulator without making some up? How much farther can graphics and variety go in real time RTS? How interesting is it to gain experience after killing monsters in RPGs? Another chess variation?
These concepts have been done to DEATH, resurrected, and done to death again, and again, and again. Jeff is right, it's time for new concepts, new ideas, innovations, and unprecedented projects.
The question is, who of you is up to the challenge? Who of you is willing to take that 'risk' and develop something which has never been market tested? Who of you will spend hundreds or perhaps thousands of hours, sacrificing time with your girlfriend or boyfriend, children, spouses, social groups, and everything to publish a game that has not even the slightest proven track record of success?
Think on it.
#10
Since I don't, I'll stick to making what I like. I'll also encourage others who can't think of something original to do stuff they like, and damn everyone else.
I'm pretty sure this has been gone over somewhere else, but I can't remember where. So I'm going to leave it here and wait for someone else to find it (unless I find it first, in which case I update) ;)
The next question is - how original does a game have to be to make it. Some people say a new storyline is all it takes, others say it's the interface. Yet others say you need a new controller (Umm... cut that to singular, only heard one guy say that). So how do we know what is actually original and what is just more of the same?
03/10/2001 (7:07 pm)
If I had the originality, I'd do it...Since I don't, I'll stick to making what I like. I'll also encourage others who can't think of something original to do stuff they like, and damn everyone else.
I'm pretty sure this has been gone over somewhere else, but I can't remember where. So I'm going to leave it here and wait for someone else to find it (unless I find it first, in which case I update) ;)
The next question is - how original does a game have to be to make it. Some people say a new storyline is all it takes, others say it's the interface. Yet others say you need a new controller (Umm... cut that to singular, only heard one guy say that). So how do we know what is actually original and what is just more of the same?
#11
I had the privelege to attend the last two E3 shows. The first time, I was humbled. The second time, I saw it for what it was, mostly fluff and hype. By far the most interesting products I saw were in the smaller hall. After speaking to other small developers, I got the idea that slowly there was a change taking place in the industry right under the feet of the 'big' game developers upstairs. We will not see creativity coming out of bloated development houses, and publishers who dont want to take any risks(i wont name names). The greatest games of the future are going to come out of the garage, or basement.
Anyway, getting back to my point (i think i had one...) dont give up on good games, because theyre on thier way. If you dont see a game you like make your own. Was this thread intended to be a place to present and develop game concepts? If so, I would be glad to contribute. The rant is over.
Maurice (SRP)
03/11/2001 (11:34 pm)
I'm an IGD and a gamer. The feeling that the industry has run out of ideas has been growing inside me for a long time now. There are still a few games i hear about that I want to play, but they are rare. What I would like to do is forget about creating the next big thing. I try not to even consider what catagory a game will fall under. We're working on a concept now that I've never seen before, experiences I have never had. To me, that is what makes a great game. think back to all of your favorate games, and what stands out are experiences that amazed you, or scared you, or were just plain fun. When psycho mantis told me to put my controller down and read my memory card, I got goosebumps! My approach to game design is always based around giving the player an experience that nobody has ever had before. Let the game reviewers and critics label your game.I had the privelege to attend the last two E3 shows. The first time, I was humbled. The second time, I saw it for what it was, mostly fluff and hype. By far the most interesting products I saw were in the smaller hall. After speaking to other small developers, I got the idea that slowly there was a change taking place in the industry right under the feet of the 'big' game developers upstairs. We will not see creativity coming out of bloated development houses, and publishers who dont want to take any risks(i wont name names). The greatest games of the future are going to come out of the garage, or basement.
Anyway, getting back to my point (i think i had one...) dont give up on good games, because theyre on thier way. If you dont see a game you like make your own. Was this thread intended to be a place to present and develop game concepts? If so, I would be glad to contribute. The rant is over.
Maurice (SRP)
#12
03/12/2001 (8:35 pm)
Its odd, huge companies that have been around for awhile and inovated the industry are now resting on tried and true franchises *cough* nintendo *cough*, who in fact created the side scroller genre, action rpg, and mascots, dozens of them. The only original ideas I can think of (of the present) are Parappa the Rapper, Jet Grind Radio, RPG Maker, Fighter Maker, but would original include innovative? Take for example Fear Effect, uses a similar control system, camera, style as resident evil, but FE uses FMV backgrounds which gives life to the game, with minor glitches. Now I want all of my games that are RE style to have FMV bacgrounds. I think I should quite posting when I'm tired.
#13
My idea of an original game is not based upon genre, it is based upon play experience. I found Wolf3D, Doom, Quake and Halflife all to be completely original in relation to each other, because each did the same thing differently (Okay, maybe there is something to this don't post while tired thing, hehehe)
So long as the game isn't an exact clone of another, I'm happy to play it (Get too close and I won't buy it though, be warned...). I think maybe my interpretation of original is too vague, because I can't think of any games that aren't original at the moment...
I'll have to get back to ya on this one...
03/13/2001 (1:24 am)
I find posting when I'm tired a very good way to maunder on without getting blamed for it too much ;)My idea of an original game is not based upon genre, it is based upon play experience. I found Wolf3D, Doom, Quake and Halflife all to be completely original in relation to each other, because each did the same thing differently (Okay, maybe there is something to this don't post while tired thing, hehehe)
So long as the game isn't an exact clone of another, I'm happy to play it (Get too close and I won't buy it though, be warned...). I think maybe my interpretation of original is too vague, because I can't think of any games that aren't original at the moment...
I'll have to get back to ya on this one...
#14
03/15/2001 (2:15 pm)
The first thing that came to mind while reading this thread is that (if you haven't) you should check out www.erasmatazz.com, specifically the library -- LOTS of docs dealing with the stagnant industry, what gaming is, etc. etc. etc. -- and most aren't even recent... sort of depressing. 
backtracking
The tech in 2-3 years will be great I'm sure, and thats when it'll be capable of running our game. Thanks to this site and xgames3d.com for all the helpful employees and members o n the forums!
Joseph A. Hatcher Jr. aka-Xhadoe
AGFRAG Entertainment(TM)