The Future of Game Design
IGN has the beginnings of an interesting series up entitled The Future of Game Design. The first part of this series covers game design elements that we've seen in the past that the author would like to see show up more often in future games. From the article: "We need better art direction in our games. Not just more polygons or slicker textures, but games with a better sense of visual style. Off the top of my head, one of the first games that really showed a distinct sense of art direction and style in this generation of games was Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus. That game oozed with style, and even though it was simple and quick, it became one of my favorites because the main character, Sly, had real character." As we start to get into Uncanny Valley territory I hope more artists take the approach that Sly and WoW have.
Art direction is good and all, but is anybody writing games to convey *atmosphere* these days? Take the first two Thief and System Shock games. These games had atmosphere. You felt the panic and dread in SS2 as a former human rounded the corner, lead pipe in hand, swinging at you while moaning, "Kiiilllll mmmeee!" Your heart pounded as you crept up behind that guard and clocked him over the head, picking up his corpse just in time to duck into the shadows before his friend saw you.
These were games you could play at night, with the lights off, and actually scare the crap out of yourself. And it wasn't because of toonish graphics or special effects - it was because of atmosphere.
I don't think that the graphics are as important as the gameplay. That's why we download emulators! Why else would perfectly intelligent computer geeks knowingly navigate spyware-ridden web sites searching for games? They must be good games.
Of course I'm glad that graphics are becoming more realistic, but that's not good for every game. Who really wants to play a game starring an overweight plumber or an actual hedgehog.
"May evil beware, and may good dress warmly and eat plenty of fresh vegetables." -The Tick
I can agree with the author on just about every criticism he makes, but some of the things he wishes were better are huge hurdles. For instance its trivial to say "We should have better AI in games!" but, in reality its damn hard to try to make AI better. Most current AI (the AI the author was talking about) is scripted and is therefore limited by the programmer's ability to think outside the box. Yeah, when you're in a game and the enemy does something weird we automatically think "Duh! Its obvious that this is stupid!" But when you're designing and writing the game, its not always obvious. The designer has to think ahead "Well, what would happen in this situation?" and then program that particular situation in.
Or take voice recognition AI. It would be great in KOTOR if I could simply tell a companion to go attack the guy on the left and then I attack the guy on the right. Again, this is not a trivial hack or by any means some hidden conspiracy to prevent ease of use. The AI would have to understand the idea of left, right, and attack along with actually understanding when I state into a microphone "Attack the guy on the left." Yeah, we could script this, but see previous problem.
I realize the author is critiquing games to make them better, which is good, but failing to understand how some problems are very difficult can sometimes aggravate more than motivate. Nothing aggravates me more than a fanboy who simply states "How hard could it be to do X?"
"I want.. like a friggin' orgy!"
This guy just takes a handful off the latest buzzwords and says he wants them "only better." What's new?
Nothing he mentions actually relates to real GAMEPLAY. It's all just buzzword nonsense. Better AI, better art, better physics. I'll tell you what, I've played plenty of board games that can't conceptually have any of that and are 10x more fun than any video game. Or look at great games that are still fun today. Mario? Physics? Yeah right. Tetris? Art style? Not a chance. Robotron? AI? Laugh! Would they be better if they had these things? No. They're games, not a cyber utopia.
Get over yourself, Mr. Douglass C. Perry. Just admit you want to get jacked into the Matrix and you don't really want to play games.
How about Alien Hominid? That game oozes style, though it's rather short. I've beaten it on Hard and I'm still playing it. Armies of ridiculous FBI and KGB agent enemies, crazy guns, hilarious huge bosses, cartoony gore and a smiling alien that my girlfriend thinks is cute.
It's hand-drawn graphics, but not cell-shaded. It doesn't push any technical limits. It doesn't need to.
You can't go wrong.
My stupid web site
You make an excellent point. Perhaps it was more of the innovation that impressed us years ago. Today's video games, while constantly (arguably) increasing in quality, are not very different. Maybe it was because video games were uncharted territory that we liked them so much back in the "Good Old Days".
I suppose the way to revolutionize gaming would be to make games more innovative (like the Nintendo DS, the Sony EyeToy, or DDR). If only the companies tried more stupid stuff, then they might hit something worthwhile.
"May evil beware, and may good dress warmly and eat plenty of fresh vegetables." -The Tick
This article is actually worse than most of IGN's bilge.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Graphics are meaningless. But you can't sell a game unless it has cool screen shots eh? What I need are story lines! Also an atmosphere and good characters. Take a look at games like Final Fantasy VI and Xenogears. These are good examples. To be honest, I haven't come across a GOOD game for a while. Pretty sad eh? Oh well.. gives me more time to study! :-)