Opening Keynote At GDC 2005

RobotWisdom writes "Alice of the Wonderland weblog has managed to transcribe and post the opening keynote address by Raph Koster from the Game Developers' Conference. It was based on his book, 'A Theory of Fun'. My favorite quotes: 'Fun is the feedback the brain gives while successfully absorbing a pattern.' and 'The differences between Cheers, Friends, and a medieval morality play are NOT THAT BIG.' Very upbeat, thought-provoking and inspiring." As an FYI: I'll be leaving for the sunny western coast in less than 8 hours. Expect coverage all week starting as soon as I get over jet lag tomorrow.

Comments

Gaming's future

[MrWa]

Koster is known for two things: Ultima Online and SWG. Now, which one of those games is fun? When it came out UO was revolutionary and, ignoring the few people that remember Meridian 59, launch the graphical MMORPG or whatever the current "in" abbreviation is nowadays.

The real question, now, is who can be trusted to make fun games that are not work (i.e. EQ). Is there any game designer or publisher willing to put out a truly innovative and fun game, something that doesn't rehash the same basic game design points that we have been playing the past 6 years? FPS frag-a-thons with improved graphics, MMORPG's better graphics and more delivery quests, RTS clickfests, turn-based strategy games...nothing new has come out in a long time that was also fun.

On Marketplace today they discussed the GDC and the growing interest of Hollywood. With the growing dominance of EA and the interest of Hollywood, are we looking at the beginning of the decline (so far as quality, innovation, and "fun" are concerned) and the introduction of a new phase of "gaming" as pre-packaged entertainment for the masses?

Does anyone else fear that when gaming no longer has the "I'm MrWa. I'm a gamer" connotation and becomes mainstream that the development stage - and the fun with it - has ended?

Re:Gaming's future

[Scarblac]

mmoarrrrpg

Everything is done by puzzles (e.g., advanced tetris-style games). A ship sails because the navigator plays the Navigation puzzle, using movement points created by people playing the Sailing puzzle, in ship vs ship battle people play the Gunnery puzzles to load guns, ships can grapple after which everyone fights each other hand to hand in Swordfighting puzzle games. That's different from yet another graphical MUD!

Re:Gaming's future

[American AC in Paris]

Does anyone else fear that when gaming no longer has the "I'm MrWa. I'm a gamer" connotation and becomes mainstream that the development stage - and the fun with it - has ended?

Not really, no.

I mean, we've had books for--how many centuries, now? We burn through entire forests printing drivel that should never have been scrawled to a page in the first place, yet we still have brilliant authors producing everything from fun, entertaining stories to landmark works of literature.

One can argue that games require substantially greater investments in time and talent, but that hasn't stopped games like Counter-Strike from becoming mind-bogglingly successful. Every year brings new tools, new resources, and new venues of distribution for the small-time developer.

That the soulless content machine is waxing does not automatically mean that the creative spark must wane. It's still there, and it'll continue to give us give us good, fun games.

Re:Gaming's future

[JFMulder]

nothing new has come out in a long time that was also fun.

I won't say Katamari Damacrai because somebody already said so, and anyway, I haven't played it.

What I'll say tough is as far as PCs are concerned, yeah, maybe there's nothing really new. I can't really say, I dropped PC gaming a years ago in favor of consoles.

For something fresh and new, the DS is probably what the industry needs. Just look at the gameplay elements in Castlevania DS, Yoshi Touch and Go and Wario Ware Touched. Those are great ideas and in the case of Yoshi Touch and Go brand new gameplay ideas.

As far as TV based consoles go, I think the most refreshing game I've played on this current generation of consoles (owning only an Xbox) was Beyond Good and Evil, whose only fault is that it came out when a lot of AAA sequels came out and didn't get enough coverage. It a stleath game that doesn't piss you off like the original splinter cell did. It's got some fighting in it, and has great gameplay mechanics to earn money and solve missions.

Re:Gaming's future

[servognome]

With the growing dominance of EA and the interest of Hollywood, are we looking at the beginning of the decline (so far as quality, innovation, and "fun" are concerned)
I don't think there is a decline in any of those aspects. "Fun" is different for different people, the introduction of new segments of society to gaming have also changed the kind of games being played.
Madden football is definately "fun", but the reasons are different than what traditional gamers like. Madden football is more of a social experience, get together, drink beer, play football. Personally I don't think Unreal Tournament or other frag-fests are fun, but they appeal to a different audience.
In terms of innovation, it's always difficult to define. In some respects pretty much every game has been done already. RPG's harken back to "adventure", MMOs are just graphic MUDs, Katamari Damacy is just a new take on Pac-Man/loadrunner, etc.
As for quality, it's a toss up, try playing an old game, sure it won't crash, but the UI may be annoying, or the presentation is lacking.

Re:about Raph Koster and others...

[Winterblink]

Ah, but then you have MMOs like EVE Online, a game that is virtually "path-less". PVP is there, but it's there as a reality of venturing into unregulated space. You don't HAVE to participate in PVP, you can stay in relatively comfy empire space and pursue a research career, manufacturing, etc. There's no singular path defined for a character at all. Sure you can put more skill into science rather than combat skills, but that doesn't mean you can't fight.

Essentially what we have here is a virtual sandbox consisting of thousands of star systems and a player driven economy (that works). So why isn't it as hugely popular as others? If I were to venture a guess, it's that when people play these games they NEED that direction, some path laid out for them to follow. I've heard EVE being described as being "hardcore", and I'd have to agree -- beyond the initial tutorials, you're thrown out into the universe to make your own way. Those of us who play it love it, but I can definitely see a segment of the gamer populace shying away from it for that simple fact.