Why to play games, and why to create them

Page: 1 2
Jun 13 2001, 10:26 am
In response to Leftley
On 6/13/01 12:46 pm Leftley wrote:
What you're describing is a completely separate pitfall, and yes, a dangerous one which I fall into from time to time. It's so much easier to dream of creating than it is to create.

Okay then that's the pitfall I'm describing.

And I proscribe as a cure trying to complete a game with an audience in mind.
Jun 13 2001, 10:36 am
In response to Deadron
I see this a lot in the gaming industry. 99% of the industry is dedicated to created games for a very small subset of people, which is fine...but at the same time they try to ignore the fact that among the top 10 selling games of all time, most of them are mainstream appeal games with little or no violence. They try to explain it away because it's not a game they want to play, and it's harder to understand the appeal.

If it wasn't for the fact that they're hellbent on getting as much profit as possible, this would be a spectacularly great stance on their part.
Jun 13 2001, 10:42 am
In response to Deadron
On 6/13/01 1:26 pm Deadron wrote:
On 6/13/01 12:46 pm Leftley wrote:
What you're describing is a completely separate pitfall, and yes, a dangerous one which I fall into from time to time. It's so much easier to dream of creating than it is to create.

Okay then that's the pitfall I'm describing.

And I proscribe as a cure trying to complete a game with an audience in mind.

This is all well and good, but you seem to be--and this very well could just be me, so please correct me if I'm wrong--putting an awful lot of emphasis on "audience" as in "other people."
Jun 13 2001, 10:44 am
In response to Leftley
On 6/13/01 1:36 pm Leftley wrote:
If it wasn't for the fact that they're hellbent on getting as much profit as possible, this would be a spectacularly great stance on their part.

This is what mystifies me...among the top 10 games of alltime, I believe, are games like:

Tetris
SimCity
Barbie (something or other)
Myst
Riven
The Sims

So if game companies want to make serious money, I'd think they'd be thinking "Hmm maybe intelligent games that let people play with interesting things from life sell...what can we do there?"

But no they look at this list and think "Hmm we need the 43rd ripoff of Command & Conquer/Doom/Warcraft..."
Jun 13 2001, 10:52 am
In response to Leftley
On 6/13/01 1:42 pm Leftley wrote:
This is all well and good, but you seem to be--and this very well could just be me, so please correct me if I'm wrong--putting an awful lot of emphasis on "audience" as in "other people."

Basically it comes down to this:

I want BYOND to be successful.

I've put a couple of years of almost 100% of my free time into this system, and I want to see it flourish.

I look at the hub and I see:

DBZ games
23.545 never-to-be-finished RPGs
personal (usually unfinished) experiments
pointers to games that don't exist yet and maybe never will

Fortunately I also see games from Zilal and Air Mapster and Gughunter and Gazoot (and even a couple puzzle ones from Spuzz) that are actual playable games that pay back a player for their time.

I want to encourage more of the latter and fewer of the former. When players come to this system, they should find hours of carefree enjoyment...not frustrating click after frustrating click.

So when I see posts from some of our best designers saying things that come down to "screw the players I'm here for me", I see a great loss in potential games that will help build the BYOND community. I see the potential of losing a system which is the first thing I've ever found that really works for me.

I get worried.

Then there is the fact that not enough people around here seem to be money hungry...but that's another debate to have.

So let a thousand games bloom...just please try to finish 750 of them or so, and make them so players can actually enjoy them.

Otherwise enjoy BYOND while you have it, cause its days are numbered without those games.

Ultimately I'm making a very selfish plea.
Jun 13 2001, 11:14 am
In response to Deadron
On 6/13/01 1:44 pm Deadron wrote:
On 6/13/01 1:36 pm Leftley wrote:
If it wasn't for the fact that they're hellbent on getting as much profit as possible, this would be a spectacularly great stance on their part.

This is what mystifies me...among the top 10 games of alltime, I believe, are games like:

Tetris
SimCity
Barbie (something or other)
Myst
Riven
The Sims

So if game companies want to make serious money, I'd think they'd be thinking "Hmm maybe intelligent games that let people play with interesting things from life sell...what can we do there?"

Tetris lets people play with interesting things from life? Oh yeah, just the other day I was driving home from work and some gigantic blocks started falling from the sky and I had to manipulate them telepathically so that the fell locked into well-aligned rows to get them to disappear. That's what I like about Tetris, so much real-life involvement.

(If that statement's not sarcastic enough on its own, note that I neither drive nor work.)

I also notice that my life has an awful lot of running around across various time periods on an island looking for answers placed in arbitrary and random locations to puzzles with no apparent logical relation, also located in arbitrary and random locations. I also design cities for a hobby. Not little model cities, just abstract, dummied-down population models.

I won't even comment on the Barbie one.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the typical gamer outlook of things. But a choice between typical gamerdom and the cultural mainstream is a choice between the lesser of two sucks.
Jun 13 2001, 11:14 am
In response to Deadron
Ultimately I'm making a very selfish plea.

Kinda ironic, ain't it?

Anyways, the main danger here isn't inherent in experimenting and creating novelties for oneself, it's experimenting and creating novelties for oneself and then releasing them billed as complete products.
Jun 13 2001, 11:21 am
In response to Leftley
On 6/13/01 2:14 pm Leftley wrote:
Tetris lets people play with interesting things from life?

Something I try to avoid in discussions is pointing out the obvious. When I point at a list of half a dozen games and make a generalization, I expect intelligent people to understand that I'm making a generalization.

One thing I refuse to engage in is "I can find an exception to that". Great, so can I. Now can we get back to the topic at hand?


Don't get me wrong. I don't like the typical gamer outlook of things. But a choice between typical gamerdom and the cultural mainstream is a choice between the lesser of two sucks.

I guess we have different interests in gaming...if the mainstream likes The Sims and SimCity and such more than Quake, then I happen to think the mainstream has the better taste.

Not that I don't enjoy games like Quake at times.

Oh and I've totally left out hugely successful games like Civilization and such. I'm with the mainstream on that one too.
Jun 13 2001, 11:46 am
In response to Deadron
On 6/13/01 2:21 pm Deadron wrote:
On 6/13/01 2:14 pm Leftley wrote:
Tetris lets people play with interesting things from life?

Something I try to avoid in discussions is pointing out the obvious. When I point at a list of half a dozen games and make a generalization, I expect intelligent people to understand that I'm making a generalization.

You pointed at a list of half a dozen games that largely didn't fit into the generalization. My argument was childish, and I'm probably being overly defensive in this general argument, but I do overwhelmingly get annoyed when someone points at two pointless wastes of time, one of which I like and one of which I don't, and says that only the one I like is a pointless waste of time. Again, yeah, I'm beingly overly defensive. Sorry.

I guess we have different interests in gaming...if the mainstream likes The Sims and SimCity and such more than Quake, then I happen to think the mainstream has the better taste.

Not that I don't enjoy games like Quake at times.

I think the main difficulty of the mainstream accepting games like Quake is the gaming community itself. The FPS genre is an excellent vehicle for wonderfully immersive games of strategy (in multiplayer) or suspenseful thrill stories (in singleplayer), neither of which have to necessarily be about guts and gore... yet few games even make a token effort to do either. Using the vehicle metaphor, it's like going from New York to Los Angeles... by taxiing down the highway in a 747. And to the extent that games do set themselves up for success in these goals, gamers set them up for failure with their online attitudes. Regardless of whether we're talking Sims or Quake III, games should be about having fun, not about 0\/\/nZ3ring j00. And of course, these people inevitably color the mainstream's perception to the point where, by and large, the mainstream won't have anything to do with it. Is the mainstream justified in feeling this way? Perhaps. But there are standard mainstream actions which are just as irrational and buttheaded, and to gamers' credit they often have no trouble picking up these behavoirs.
Jun 13 2001, 11:57 am
In response to Leftley
On 6/13/01 2:46 pm Leftley wrote:
I think the main difficulty of the mainstream accepting games like Quake is the gaming community itself.

I don't agree. Sure the community itself would drive most people away, but the real reason they don't play is because running around killing people doesn't interest a lot of people. (Everyone it interests is already playing, pretty much.)

It's what you do with the technology that matters.

I've met mothers, grandmothers, etc playing EQ. They are happy with an immersive environment that is used in a way they like.

Though EQ is only the tip of the iceberg that shows the potential...while it's introducing new audiences like older women to computer games, it still barely meets their gaming needs. They want a rich world where they can do interesting things (which most -- though certainly not all! -- don't define as killing rats over and over).

Most of the women I've discussed EQ with (which is many) would play much more if there were really interesting trades and better ways to develop community.

What's fascinating, once again, to me is that game designers are making the next set of Massively Multiplayer RPGs focus much more on PvP. WTF? PvP is the LEAST popular aspect of any existing massively multiplayer game.

If you want to make a really successful massively multiplayer game, create one that allows older women to have a lot of fun making and doing things. You'll create a more intelligent game and stand a chance of getting a huge audience.

Actually there is ONE designer doing this...Will Wright. They are working on an online version of the Sims that might meet much of this.

But the ultimate killer game will be first person, I think, and I don't know of anyone working on that one.
Jun 13 2001, 12:16 pm
In response to Deadron
On 6/13/01 2:57 pm Deadron wrote:
On 6/13/01 2:46 pm Leftley wrote:
I think the main difficulty of the mainstream accepting games like Quake is the gaming community itself.

I don't agree. Sure the community itself would drive most people away, but the real reason they don't play is because running around killing people doesn't interest a lot of people. (Everyone it interests is already playing, pretty much.)

I'm talking about the FPS genre more than Quake-style games specifically. My argument is that games like Quake don't do a tenth of what they could and should be doing. Running around mindlessly killing people doesn't, for the most part, appeal to me either, nor does it appeal strongly to any of the people that I like that I've met playing Quake, Half-Life, Unreal, etc. Now, granted, I've been out of the gaming loop for a while, and in my status as a fringe gamer I'm seeing some really, really interesting looking games go by, the first steps in the right direction since Half-Life (which was mostly steps for singleplayer games, but they were good steps.) And some arguments can be made that the mainstream doesn't like the prospect of them being in a game where the goal is to kill people, but a quick look at box office ratings will tell you that violence alone won't turn away the mainstream.
Jun 13 2001, 1:22 pm
In response to Leftley
I'm talking about the FPS genre more than Quake-style games specifically. My argument is that games like Quake don't do a tenth of what they could and should be doing. Running around mindlessly killing people doesn't, for the most part, appeal to me either, nor does it appeal strongly to any of the people that I like that I've met playing Quake, Half-Life, Unreal, etc.

Oooh... if you have a PlayStation, check out the oldie but goodie Jumping Flash 2. It could loosely be considered a first-person shooter, but... well, it's very different. And Baron Aloha is one of the best videogame villains ever!
Jun 13 2001, 1:46 pm
I would have to totally agree with Ron on this one.

Im a 16 year old High School student. For anyone that has been through High school you know it can be very stressfull at times. I love to play games, specifically RPGs; however, Im not your typical game player. Ive been to game tournaments for Counter Strike, Star Craft, and Quake...and I can honestly say I stand out like a sore thumb. I would consider myself a pretty popular kid in my school, your typical jock muscle head even. When I show up at these tournaments the looks I get from kids are rather...well not good. They have the look "Get outa here muscle head" writen all over their faces. I sit down to play with these kids and I can obviously tell they expect to cream me. When they realize that I am indeed a pretty good player it seems to shock them. How could a stupid jock be good at Star Craft? After of few hours of play they begin to talk to me as one of there own (A geek). And that is the only reason I go tournaments. I meet new people every time, and very friendly people at that after the initial shock of my presence is over. For me the fun of online games is meeting people. The interaction is worth more to me than any single player game, it alows people to truly escape from their life and be someone else. That is what is addicting.
Jun 13 2001, 1:50 pm
In response to Orinelly
On 6/13/01 4:46 pm Orinelly wrote:
I would have to totally agree with Ron on this one.

Im a 16 year old High School student. For anyone that has been through High school you know it can be very stressfull at times. I love to play games, specifically RPGs; however, Im not your typical game player. Ive been to game tournaments for Counter Strike, Star Craft, and Quake...and I can honestly say I stand out like a sore thumb. I would consider myself a pretty popular kid in my school, your typical jock muscle head even. When I show up at these tournaments the looks I get from kids are rather...well not good. They have the look "Get outa here muscle head" writen all over their faces. I sit down to play with these kids and I can obviously tell they expect to cream me. When they realize that I am indeed a pretty good player it seems to shock them. How could a stupid jock be good at Star Craft? After of few hours of play they begin to talk to me as one of there own (A geek). And that is the only reason I go tournaments. I meet new people every time, and very friendly people at that after the initial shock of my presence is over. For me the fun of online games is meeting people. The interaction is worth more to me than any single player game, it alows people to truly escape from their life and be someone else. That is what is addicting.

See? This is what I'm saying (pretty clumsily, looking back.) Mainstream culture and gaming culture are way too wary of each other.
Jun 13 2001, 4:38 pm
In response to Deadron
And I proscribe as a cure trying to complete a game with an audience in mind.

Sigh... Ron, I'm not sure whether you think I'm being on the offensive here or not, but it sure seems like you do. =(


My games are made to have fun. Anything else when making a game isn't having fun, it's just doing work. While game making is a very prominent profession (one that I would actually like to aim for), the people who make games in the big companies aren't fully experiencing the creation aspect. They're just throwing together a few functions and sending it off to the person who links it all together in an executable, checks out the most obvious bugs, and then tells the respective people to fix it. One of the reasons while I'm partially afraid of my ideal career choice. =/

Me, on the other hand, I enjoy what I'm doing. I want that enjoyment to last. It will end, eventually. I have a todo list for AntWorld that if people really wanted to see, I could post it on my webpage. But until it ends, I'm going to keep on doing it.

And yes, I do have an audience in mind. Sci-fi fans, particularly Fallout, Shadowrun, and Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. fans, are my goal for TekForce. I am a sci-fi fan, too. =)

Likewise, people who enjoy roleplaying-enforced environments with a copius amount of realism (but not too realistic) will love Haven. It has realism, and it has aspects that are far from realistic, because they might as well go hunting in real life if they play a totally realistic game. I am a fan of realism, but not too much. =)

AntWorld will appeal to the casual and hardcore gamer alike, hopefully; it has comical aspects, and your ants are autonomous. Hardcore people will micromanage away, because that is possible, while casual people will just let the AI do the work and concentrate on telling the ants some general orders. I enjoy relaxing while playing a game.

Hunter, Knight's Bridge, Spuzzbomb... those are just social games. The only real purpose they serve is to have something to do while you're chatting with other people. And if you want, you can play to win as well.

And, finally, Slurpy appeals to the puzzle gamer in us all. =)


I don't know why I posted all of the target audiences... after all, I don't need justification to know that what I'm doing is fun. I also don't need to know how many people will like or dislike my games... that's up to them to decide when they play it. =|


...That's all I'm going to say on this matter. I think I'll probably be suckered into saying something else for no reason... that is, let's just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

(Of course, you can feel free to reply with an argument. But it takes two to argue. =)
Jun 13 2001, 4:56 pm
In response to Spuzzum
On 6/13/01 7:38 pm Spuzzum wrote:
(Of course, you can feel free to reply with an argument. But it takes two to argue. =)

I'm not going to argue. I'm only going to reiterate that there is fun and learning to be had in finishing things that other people (whoever those people might be) enjoy playing.
Jun 13 2001, 5:00 pm
In response to Deadron
I'm not going to argue. I'm only going to reiterate that there is fun and learning to be had in finishing things that other people (whoever those people might be) enjoy playing.

I can't disagree with that, actually.
Jun 14 2001, 8:14 am
The connection troubles I've been having that were preventing me from participating in this discussion on the terms I'd like (not to mention cutting me off from my webcomic addiction) got me so mad I had to resort to working on Delve!.
Jun 14 2001, 8:39 am
In response to Leftley
On 6/14/01 11:14 am Leftley wrote:
The connection troubles I've been having that were preventing me from participating in this discussion on the terms I'd like (not to mention cutting me off from my webcomic addiction) got me so mad I had to resort to working on Delve!.

HEY! you know if you haven posted that i would have never relized i can download every calin and hobbes comic ever made! THANK YOU!!
Jun 14 2001, 12:59 pm
In response to jobe
On 6/14/01 11:39 am jobe wrote:
On 6/14/01 11:14 am Leftley wrote:
The connection troubles I've been having that were preventing me from participating in this discussion on the terms I'd like (not to mention cutting me off from my webcomic addiction) got me so mad I had to resort to working on Delve!.

HEY! you know if you haven posted that i would have never relized i can download every calin and hobbes comic ever made! THANK YOU!!

man comics take a long time to load when your getting them off the 1997 servers..
Page: 1 2