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

Back to Basics Part One: Smaller = Bigger = Better

By Guybrush Threepwood

It is common nowadays to see a game with fifty playable characters, twelve worlds, seventy-five maps along with split-screen and online multi-player capabilities. What does this tell me? Some people had a lot of time on their hands. They probably don't feel too good when they see that their game got a 3.5 out of 10. "But it was BIG! It had fifty characters!". Right there is the whole problem. Where does the game get it's uniqueness with fifty characters? How can you possibly tell an emotional story with fifty characters? How can the player get drawn into a world with twelve different worlds?

This is where many games fall, one after the other every year. It's too big! We think things need to be as technical as possible in this world, where really, it's the little things that count. Players cannot relate to a world with twelve different worlds and fifty playable characters with superpowers. It's just not believable. We live in one world, with usually a pretty small group of friends.

There is so much more to explore in one world, than in twelve.

Taking this one world and making the opportunities for exploration and discovery nearly endless would draw you in closer-- way closer than having multiple worlds with very little time put in to making them believable and alive.

Bellow: The game "Beyond Good & Evil is a great example of making a game smaller, and thus, more detailed.

Maybe look at it this way; you're spreading some nice golden butter across a pancake. When the butter is first applied to the pancake it covers a small area and is "massive". As you spread it out, it thins out until it is nearly invisible. This is true with game worlds. The smaller the world, the thicker the butter. The bigger the world, the thinner the butter.



Remember, the player's view of the world and of the game must be preserved; the world must always seem mysterious and full of unexpected surprises, and so must the game.

Now, moving onto the characters. It is easier, and way more efficient, to have fewer playable characters. Preferably one, in my opinion. Focusing on just one character's point of view and emotions will attach the player to the character in a way not possible with multiple playable characters. It will make the story deeper, and the sense of mystery even more abundant.

It's amazing how a game can become absolutely incredible if one focuses on the smaller things. One world and one playable character ultimately equals one big world and one big playable character.

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

Ethics in Games: A Few Basics of My Design Philosophy

By Guybrush Threepwood

Revenge, Love, Redemption, Betrayal, Peace, Despair; These are only a few themes that are included in most games. These are not bad-- if they're used right. But, what discerns "bad" from "good"? It all rounds down to the common word, ethics. Some people may argue that ethics are none-existent and we are free to do whatever we want to do if it feels good. Does this justify murder? You would most likely say, "no".
Good job, you just discerned right from wrong. This is just a small look at the big picture. My belief is, yes there is RIGHT, and yes, there is WRONG.

In this muddled modern culture we have to keep a clear head to what is right and what is wrong. If you do something for a good reason and a good cause, it always will feel better than doing the wrong thing.

This is true, too, in games. If there's one game which deals heavily on making right or wrong decisions, it would be Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. In almost every piece of dialog, the game delivers the option to do good or evil; doing good will not only give you points towards the "light side" but will give you a feeling of nobility, whereas doing evil will give you points towards the "dark side" and there will probably be a time where that decision will make you feel like dirt.

The point of a game is to tug at a players emotions, it's not about clobbering a bunch of guys, it's to authentically create emotion. Most games nowadays stray far and wide from this concept, right onto the bandwagon of poor reviewed games.

Throughout the years, there is evidence to the importance of "emotion tugging". More often then not, a game gets a good score and a great player reception by playing with their emotions. If the character is angry, the player needs to be angry, if the character is sad, the player needs to be sad. Here are a few games that have seemed to hit the target with this philosophy;

Final Fantasy VI (Not to mention pretty much every other Final Fantasy, but this one is unique in my opinion.)
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (One of the most beloved of the franchise, it really introduced emotionally storytelling to the series.)
Star Fox 64 (Probably my favorite game of all time)
Fire Emblem

And many others.

One very unique game that has a way of playing with your emotions is Animal Crossing.
You may not think of it as a very emotional game, but the way it begins to become "your second life" is one of the most brilliant aspects I've seen in a game.

Let's move on to something I like to call "Emotional Consistency". You cannot have a game that has strong emotions at one point, then they stop abruptly and everything is okay again. You cannot have a character mourning a character who he didn't even have a relationship with. This may seem like a no-brainer, but this mistake is repeated over and over again.
If a character dies, this character shouldn't disappear from the entire game, but be remembered by the other characters, and each character needs to have their own ways to deal with this grief. The easiest way to think of "Emotional Consistency" is to think over the character's personality and think of how he or she would realistically deal with the problem at hand.
Also, think logically. Don't just think about the character, think of how you would respond to this event.

The next thing I want to discuss is character realism. No, this doesn't mean how real the character looks, but how believable they are in their world, and even, in our world. If the character is a person, it needs to act like a person, and needs to have the personality of a person. If it's an animal, it needs to act like an animal and have a personality like an animal. If there's a person walking down a street, and you run into them, would they just keep walking? No, they'd probably yell at you. If you started breaking things in a city, the people would all run or avoid you, and the police would come and pick you up.

Graphics can be traded for realism. Or even better, why not focus on them both. It may take a while, but the result would be worthwhile. My view, though is that realism should come before graphics. I've seen games that have the best graphics, but fall short on actually being believable.

That's all I have for now, but think over these things today. Think, too, of how you can make a game believable, truly fun, emotionally balanced and ethical all at once.

I'll talk more about what makes a game "Truly Fun" in my next article.
Please, leave some comments if you wish to discuss this article further.

Till then, peace,
Trev