The Difficulty and Necessity of Redefining/Defining Genres

When you think of First Person Shooters, RPGs, or Adventure Games, which title automatically comes to mind?

Most likely the game that you're thinking of is a AAA title, and is exceedingly popular.

Developers are people, too. They think this way as well. If the game of the year is Grand Theft Auto III, then they've GOT to copy it because that game was popular. Looking back through the history of games, however, we see so many varying titles which were all popular. That means, no, FPSs are not the only good type of game and that there are infinities of other ways to make a good game without copying Halo 2.
Halo 2 was a good game. They followed one of the many paths to make a great game. Does this mean there is only one path to a great game? Of course not. Again, throughout the history of games there have been defining titles. Titles that everyone looked at and said, "That is a good game. We have to copy it." These games ranged from Platformers to Puzzle games, to RPGS. The list of genres goes on and on. There are so many awesome genres, why do developers have to make a Halo rip off? Because people love Halo.
But what makes their game better than Halo 2? Usually, nothing. There's nothing new in it. "Okay, let's shoot some aliens and have guts splatter here and there. Ooo! And let's name the main character Leaderchef. He's somewhat of a cook."
This doesn't cut it for me. I need originality. There's nothing wrong with making a new FPS, it's how you make it. It needs to be something a player has never seen before, with elements never even heard of in the FPS genre. Developers need to strive to redefine genres. They get too stuck on the fact that there's no way they can beat Halo 2 in the FPS section. But there is a way, and they have to find find a way. Developers need to strive to make their games better than the last best seller. They need to be constantly taking game development to a higher, newer level.

Now for some of my development insight.
What do we find when we look at most modern games?
I find three repeating principles which really bug me.
1. Constant fighting and violence. I'm not saying this is bad, but it's really worn out it's welcome for me. It's way overused.
2. The characters are almost always superhuman and have "awesome skillz". This doesn't relate to the player at all and they, of course, excuse it as fake. The point of a game is to pull the player in, and to do so they need believable worlds and believable characters.
3.Top-down camera views. Man I hate those.

Now, if these things were reversed... what kind of game would you have?
1. The mind is the greatest weapon. The player must think of ways to avoid conflict, using whatever abilities they have; stealth, cool items etc.
2. The characters are ordinary people cast into extraordinary circumstances.
3. A nice camera either smoothly following the character, or a First Person View.
These three concepts are the beginning of creating a game that I know I would really enjoy. If you apply enough uniqueness and "coolness" into the game, you're off to a good start. It just takes a lot of thinking. And when I say a lot, I mean a lot.

In conclusion, we shouldn't be afraid to bust the bubble of game development. We need to be constantly reaching for new ideas and a way to beat the previous game of the year. It only takes a good imagination... and a development team devoted and completely understanding of the game, and the world the game presents.

If you wish to discuss this more, please comment.
Peace,
Trev

Different Types Of Fun in Games

By Hobbit

Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a fun game. That's why I'm writing an article on it even though Trev did already. First let's look at the different types of games and what makes them so fun.

What kind of games you like depends on what type of person you are. Let's say you're a guy who barely plays video games, you might sit down and play Wii Sports and have a lot of fun with it. Or let's say you're a somebody who plays games all the time; you might enjoy something more like LOTRO. The Wii, is a video game system that has a motion sensing controller so to play tennis you swing the remote like a tennis racket; that makes it very easy and fun for non-gamers to pick up and play. Whereas Lord Of The Rings Online is a massively multi player online role-playing game with lots of different things to do and more depth for more advanced gamers.

The Wii is obviously very fun just swinging around and playing tennis. Many people have bought it because it is so fun with it's motion sensing technology. There are also fun games out there that are not simple. Halo 3, a first person shooter, has controls that are a little complicated.

Now that we've looked at what kind of games are fun for different people and what is fun for everyone; let's look at some historically fun games. Super Mario Bros. This game was amazing! Jumping on goomba's and going in pipes was never as fun as this. Then there's Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. This game had just the right amount of puzzle solving, fighting, and exploring to make it one of the funnest games of all time; even though, Trev's Mom thought it was to0 complicated. Then there's Donkey Kong 64. This game was also a great cross between fighting and exploring. Star Fox 64 had an awesome lock on targeting system and sweet boss battles. Add 4 or 5 different difficulties and a sweet multi player mode and you've got one of coolest and most fun games ever. And finally, Metroid Prime 3. This is a great FPS; to shoot you aim at the screen and pow! Plus a great storyline, tough bosses, and puzzles. This game rocked.

Well I've just scratched the surface of different games and fun; if you want to know more about this subject please comment.

See Ya Later

Hobbit