Game designers' thoughts...

[Dan_N]

Ok, here's a topic where somebody gives a damn about you, the game designer...
Where people listen and heal...
Here's a topic where you can discuss freely (but watch the language!).
Talk about yourself, projects, your day job and other stuff...
And don't talk just adventure... talk other game genres or other game creation tools.
Ask questions and wait for answers... Just feakin' talk.

I'll start with a question: What adventure genres think have the most succes? Dark horror, or light comedy?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Since your actual question relates to adventure games, this should probably be in the adventure talk forum.

Also:  Comedy has shown the most profitable run of the adventure game genres, particularly with Lucasarts.

Examples:

1.  Secret of Monkey Island series - big success
2.  Sam & Max - success
3.  The Dig - commercial failure (at least to lucasarts)
4.  Day of the Tentacle - big success
5.  Loom - commercial failure (at least to lucasarts)

What Lucasarts learned was that either they weren't good at making serious adventures or that players simply prefer quirky adventure games.

[Dan_N]

Actually, the first question was about adventure games due to lack of inspiration...

Now, the way i'd like this thread to work is like this:
you answer a previous question and then ask another question which the next person who posts must answer and then that person asks a question and so forth...
When you reply, you must answer the question and then you can optionally add some text and then you must ask a new question. ok?

Ok, here's a new question:
What are more profitable: computer games or tv shows?

[ildu]

Okay, I'll bite (see. Stephen Colbert/The Colbert Report ). While this thread probably wouldn't get through the watchful eyes of some of the mods due to the random and disorganized nature of it, I'm gonna go with it .

If we are to talk of the success that adventure games have had in their specific genres, it's well and good, but I'd much rather talk about the formula of success that adventure games should follow to succeed in the games industry today. The games industry has arrived to a point where realism is the standard. Games are also notably becoming more like other massmedia, such as movies and tv. So one should either shoot for realism and movie-like execution, or alternatively do the exact opposite. Recent successful adventure games have all been quite realistic in nature, i.e. Syberia, Still Life, Fahrenheit, Dreamfall, etc., and pretty much all of them have very cinematic storytelling. So if one was trying for a sure bet with an adventure in the games industry, I'd advise to go with a realistic style, a cinematic and movie-like plot and with some kind of gimmick. I'd probably go with a dark story as well, perhaps a murder mystery or a horror story, since that's what the public seem to want these days.

I used a multiply filter on my views in that statement so it would hopefully create some controversy and start a debate . Rebuttal anyone?

EDIT:

Now, the way i'd like this thread to work is like this:
you answer a previous question and then ask another question which the next person who posts must answer and then that person asks a question and so forth...
When you reply, you must answer the question and then you can optionally add some text and then you must ask a new question. ok?

Come on, we'll get no debate that way. That'd be like having random people spewing out random opinions as 'truths' without being contested.

[Dan_N]

ok, ildu, thanks for biting, and debates are good, but i had something else in mind for this thread. i stated the rules for this thread and i ask: pretty please with sugar lumbs and candy on top follow them...

with the risk of repeating myself:
- answer
- some text (optional)
- question

answer must be separated from some text by an empty row and question must be separated from some text by another empty row, or at least put some bolded "answer", "some text", "question" or something...

The question part should be something like "what do you think about...", or "what's ...? ... or ..." or even "what is the ...est ...?" or something like that and can be from any field.
This thread is not a competion or something organised, it's just something to make people think in their spare time...

Ok?

i'll try again with another question:
What do you consider the peek of gaming?
Today, when we have all this technology that allows us to make bigger and better games, or yesterday, the period when the first pioneers romed the cyberspace in search of new and exciting gaming experiences?

[Phemar]

I think the pinnacle of gaming technology would be something like The Matrix. Except if you get hurt there you don't get hurt here.

Oh, and Dan_N_gamez, you can edit the topic. Just edit your post then correct your error in the subject!

[Dan_N]

I said it before and i'll say it again: debates are great, ildu...
Hell, if you made a debate thread i'd surely join in to discuss, well, that depends on the topic, but here i just want all sorts of questions getting all sorts of answers.
As long as people at least think before they post for goodness' sake!

And zor, read the rules, man, come on!
Answer, say something, ask!

I have a new one for you game designers:
What form of creation would you choose to make a game?
A simpler, user-friendly, but more restrictive game creation tool, or a more complex, but more liberal programming language?

[ildu]

I'm not arguing here. I posted the edit before your reply. Okay, let's do it your way.

What form of creation would you choose to make a game?
A simpler, user-friendly, but more restrictive game creation tool, or a more complex, but more liberal programming language?

Definately a more complex and non-restrictive tool. It's not gonna take you lots to learn how to use the more complex engine and if you want to use complicated features that aren't featured in the simpler engine, you can always learn those specific things by asking people and following tutorials, without being a pro at it.

So here's my question:

If you were given an opportunity to create a commercial game of any kind, without restrictions (to a plausible extent), meaning unlimited money and man-power, what kind of game would you create and why?

[Dan_N]

If you were given an opportunity to create a commercial game of any kind, without restrictions (to a plausible extent), meaning unlimited money and man-power, what kind of game would you create and why?

Well, I'd make it a hardcore SF (cyperpunk-ish probably) RTS game with easy-to-understand gameplay (Blizzard-ish), tutorials, three races (or houses ) completely different (units, architecture, functionality), but perfectly balanced, campaigns for each race that would simply kick arse, much like Blizzard's Starcraft. Don't get me wrong, I love making adventure games, and i can only dream of having the respect yahtzee's gained in the amateur adventure game comunity, but making a good RTS game has been a personal dream of mine ever since i played Dune 2 on a little 386... ah... (nostalgia hit... ouch) and every day i wake up cursing EA for killing Westwood! Bastards!

Anyway, from now i'll try to leave most of the talking to yourselves, but if i see an interesting story, i'll pitch in...

Ok, here's the next question:
Who would win in a fight: Neo or Spider-man ? (it's been a long standing argument between myself and a friend and i did say ask about anything) Hehe! Just kidding! Anyway, here's the REAL question:
Does gameplay & story give up graphics in the long run? I mean are games that have bad graphics but good gameplay and story considered worse than games with excellent graphics andd bad everything else? Why? I would like two answers to this question (Why? is considered part of the question) and only the first reply gets to give the next question. thank you.

-- Oh, and new rule: small comentary is allowed as long as if it doesn't include questions.

Goodnight (i'm gonna read some yahtzee comics and sleep).

[fred]

Does gameplay & story give up graphics in the long run? I mean are games that have bad graphics but good gameplay and story considered worse than games with excellent graphics andd bad everything else? Why? I would like two answers to this question (Why? is considered part of the question)

The verge towards realism in computer graphics has been dominant for a long time, because there was technological drive and competition to achieve it, but I think that since realism is becoming still easier to attain, we'll begin to see more different artistically developed styles, especially as we get more tools like zbrush or character studio that make computer graphics creation intuitive for the arts person. So with stranger aeons even the public opinion on "great art" may develop and diversify slightly.

I don't think there's any easy answer to your question, but if your game has great graphics, people will give you the benefit of doubt with regards to gameplay and story-telling (which is good from a publisher's point of view, since more people will buy the game and try it out, even if they find out later that it sucks because of bad story or gameplay). If your game has bad graphics, less people will pick it from the shelf, but those that do will then be the more surprised if it has great story and/or gameplay. Actually, we've had great games much longer than we've had great graphics. But people expect the most from the media, so I guess it makes sense that most game rating systems make an average on all game aspects, graphics/gameplay/audio etc.

Promotional art is very important for publishing. For example, artists were hiredÃ,  to work exclusively on promo material for the hitman games - for the full duration of the game production phase. Shows how important graphics are from a marketing point of view.

I don't think any element can be fully neglected in game development if the game has to beat the competition commercially. It needs to be outstandig in every way. But progress can be made in the individual disciplines (graphics, gameplay, story etc.) in smaller indie productions that have the limited goal of showing off just one new concept or feature.

If I'm the first to answer this question, my next question(s) will be: Are games parasitic? Can they be beneficial parasites, or is it just in their interest to keep us (the hosts) alive for as long as possible while feeding on us?