Game design...what inspires us?
Darren Reid
Jason <leig...@pxsoftware.com> wrote:
>I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to combine the best
features of
>each? Or do you concentrate on what you think will sell (ie. "Well, bloody
games are
>popular now so lets make a killfest ; ROTT").
I get my best ideas from playing games and thinking "this would be great, if
only I could do these other things as well..."
My friends and I brainstorm this way a lot...for the longest time, the #1
wants where network play and game editors. Probably still are, but many games
have these options now.
When I teach this subject, I use many tecniques...I have a brain-storming
mneomic aid called "SCAMPER" that I use:
S:What can be substituted? Who else instead? What else instead? What other
material? What other process? What other place?
C: What can be combined with it? What about a blend, an alloy, an assortment,
an ensemble? Combine units? Combine purposes? Combine appeals? Combine ideas?
Combine concepts?
A: Adapt? What else is like this? What other ideas does it suggest? Does the
past offer a parallel?
M: Modify? New twist? Change meaning, color, motion, sound, odor, form, shape,
orientation, position? Other changes?
Magnify? What to add? More time? Greater frequency? Stronger? Higher?
Longer? Thicker? Extra value? Duplicate? Multiply? Exaggerate?
P: Put to other uses? New ways to use as is? Other uses if modified? Other
places to use? Other people to reach?
E: Eliminate? Minify? What to eliminate? What to subtract? Smaller? Condensed?
Minature? Lower? Shorter? Lighter? Split up? Streamline? Understate?
R: Rearrange? Interchange components? Other pattern? Other layout? Other
sequence? Transpose cause and effect?
If some of these things seem difficult to apply to game design, approach them
with the idea that strange approaches to a problem can provide the most unique
answers. This was part of the basis behind Brian Eno's oblique strategy cards,
and whether you are a fan of his music or not, you have to admit that he was
prolifically creative. The oblique strategy cards are another great aid: try
http://www.nwu.edu:80/music/eno/ for links to the text of them.It also has
links to creativity and surrealism info.
One note: I do use these aids myself, but only for the small things that pop
up that I don't want to implement in a no-brainer way. The big ideas are more
of a satori-type experience, brought on by life experience. I think it was
Sydey J. Parnes who divided creativity into 3 S's: Sensitivity, Synergy, and
Serendipity. I add Satori to that list, but maybe that's 'cause I'm fast
becoming an old fart.
Jason Zisk
> I would like to start yet another thread on games design. This time however,
>I would like to discuss what actually makes a person think "Damn, that would
>make a great game!". It intrigues me to find out what the rest of you think about that.
>I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to combine the best features of
>each? Or do you concentrate on what you think will sell (ie. "Well, bloody games are
>popular now so lets make a killfest ; ROTT").
I look at games that "could be better only if...". If the game is
mildly enjoyable, then it has potential. Almost every game I play can
be improved some way. This is usually not a big deal, but if I really
enjoy a game but can't stand to play it because I keep seeing things
that could be better that is a candidate for my own designs.
Take the game Speedball 2, it was a fun game. I can't play it now
though because all I see are ways to improve upon it. In the near
future I will probably make a futuristic sports game, what Speedball 2
was supposed to be.
Another is Ogre Battle(Japanese game). It is great, but it just
wasn't taken far enough. A current game I am working on takes the
general idea of the game(very general) and pushes it to the extreme.
So I guess other people's follies are my inspiration.
- Jason Zisk a.k.a. Sufferin' Pup
- Sophmore at the University of Hartford College of Arts and Sciences
- email: suf...@cris.com
BobaFettX9
creates
this tremendous passion in me. 3D is the future.
As far as game ideas, it sucks to clone other people's ideas and add a few
new twists thinking you can make a better game. I did that in the
beginning
and I was disgusted.
Now I just use my own personal ideas based on my personal tastes.
If other people like it, fine, if not, fine. I think you have a better
chance of
coming up with something original this way. I figure if I write a game
that
I like, other people will probably like it too.
I think it's a mistake to write a game thinking about what other
people
like and what kinds of games are currently popular and what will sell.
Look at all the DOOM clones. They all suck. The last thing I want to do
is create a DOOM type game.
Jason
I would like to start yet another thread on games design. This time however,
I would like to discuss what actually makes a person think "Damn, that would
make a great game!". It intrigues me to find out what the rest of you think about that.
I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to combine the best features of
each? Or do you concentrate on what you think will sell (ie. "Well, bloody games are
popular now so lets make a killfest ; ROTT").
Let me know what you think.
Michael Hewner
my programmer friends. It's a bit more intresting than "Hey guys, lets create
the best text editor we possibly can!".
As for game design itself we usually just try to attemp new ad intresting
things. I mean, I don't get paid so I just do the thing I think would be
coolest! I do draw some ideas from other games I like but I try to make
something new and exciting (or at least amusing).
Mike
phil carlisle
leig...@pxsoftware.com "Jason" writes:
Definitely thinking about the mechanics of a type of game, and thinking
if those mechanics have obviously been used before, in application of
the same type..
I think most modern games are shallow now, they lack interest because they
lack imagination.. they try and make up for this with gloss, and packaging
and artwork and texture mapping etc..
so what I try and do is thing "what type of game would I be happy to play
for a long time, which would feel new each time, and which would be worth
the time developing (in terms of being able to adapt its engine..)"
I think I have some strong idea's, I also have some good friends who's
opinion I regard highly.. one of the best indicators of a good idea..
Cheers.
--
Phil.
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Phil Carlisle - p...@espr.demon.co.uk (back to the old address) |
| Now looking for interesting work. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Steve Hyatt
Steve
Henrik Steen
could increase their market potential by actually listening to customers
and release a "new and improved" version of what is essentially the same
game.
I've heard this if-only over and over from people who stop playing an
otherwise good game because of small bugs or irritating features. Adding
such small features might actually sell the same product to the same
people once more. Look what the manufacturers of operating systems do
(and they seem to be making money doing it).
Henrik
David S. Issel
| Lack of anything better to do.
|
| Steve
Oh no! The thing that inspires me is to have lots of other stuff that I
should be doing (i.e. homework, jobs around the house etc.)
Dave.
--
I was going to procrastinate... But, I think I'll do that tomarrow. :-)
KaptenKirk
with
>my programmer friends. It's a bit more intresting than "Hey guys, lets
create
>the best text editor we possibly can!".
Well I've done both business & game programming. If you like programming,
business programming can be fun too (as long as your boss doesn't make you
miserable). But game programming is more fun and a LOT more challenging.
In business programming you just follow simple logic and make sure your
program works well, and you give the customer the features they want.
In game programming, you have to be creative, you have to compete with
the best game programmers in the world, you have to understing existing
complex algorithms and also come up with new ones, you have to solve
a lot more problems, and you have to have more technical knowledge.
KaptenKirk
>could increase their market potential by actually listening to customers
>and release a "new and improved" version of what is essentially the same
>game.
But the games people emulate are games that are already successful!
Successful games don't need new and improved versions, at least not
new versions with MINOR improvements. Only huge improvements are
successful, such as the improvement of DOOM over Castle Wolfenstein.
If you're thinking about minor improvements over a successful game,
forget it, because the game playing public is not interested. The
improvement
of Quake over DOOM will also be huge, so it will be successful.
Rainer Deyke
: I would like to start yet another thread on games design. This time however,
: I would like to discuss what actually makes a person think "Damn, that would
: make a great game!". It intrigues me to find out what the rest of you think about that.
: I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to combine the best features of
: each? Or do you concentrate on what you think will sell (ie. "Well, bloody games are
: popular now so lets make a killfest ; ROTT").
Playing games always inspires me. I always get annoyed with the short
comings of games and think "I could do something better than that."
--
+----------------------------------------------+
| Rainer Deyke (rai...@mdddhd.fc.hp.com) |
| "The Earth shall inherit the meek" - Carcass |
+----------------------------------------------+
Lyle Murphy
$.02 ... I have made 4 games prior to this last one. They were all pretty
bad. Concept was bad and the graphics were poor. I am into a mutiplayer
Game Master Play By e-Mail (GM PBeM) senerio now. My first attempt was not
too bad. Though I finally reasoned the game was to slow and complicated to
control on my part. The players would have lost interest. It was wholely
text based. People like some sort of graphics now adays and graphics is real
hard to do. Then I discovered ASCII and GIFSCII graphics. These are very
impressive and easy to do once you learn how. Go to the news group
alt.ascii-art and watch around awhile and you will see what I mean. It's
not as fancy as bit graphics but a lot simpler to do (and copy and change
if you like). Then I came across the corewar concept. This is where you
write a program in Redcode to fight another program like fighting robots.
So by combining these two concepts I have made a completely different game
that is fast, with graphics that are acceptable, and exciting as the players
face to write a program in a special language I made to control their robot
in this game. They have to do this every week to control their robot, As well
as commuicate with 5 other team partners for strategy. All I have to do as
GM is collect and interpret their programs and send them back their results
in an ASCII-ART animated GIFSCII format which holds their interest. They get
full involvement and player to player participation. Should work!
__ __ __ ___ __ | ly...@madvax.mo.ti.com
/ / __ __/ /__ / |/ /_ _________ / / __ __ | AGS Midland College
/ /__/ // / / -_) / /|_/ / // / __/ _ \/ _ \/ // / | Phi Theta Kappa
/____/\_, /_/\__/ /_/ /_/\_,_/_/ / .__/_//_/\_, / | Nuclear Trained Navy
/___/ /_/ /___/ | Tread where others fear!
Patrick WJ Evans
> Jason (leig...@pxsoftware.com) wrote:
>
> : I would like to start yet another thread on games design. This time however,
> : I would like to discuss what actually makes a person think "Damn, that would
> : make a great game!". It intrigues me to find out what the rest of you think about that.
> : I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to combine the best features of
> : each? Or do you concentrate on what you think will sell (ie. "Well, bloody games are
> : popular now so lets make a killfest ; ROTT").
>
> Playing games always inspires me. I always get annoyed with the short
> comings of games and think "I could do something better than that."
Unfortunately, playing a game and thinking "Gee, I should have written
this... i think I'll write my own version of it." and "wow, I have a new
original idea that resembles nothing on the market... and I'm the *only*
one who thought of it" are two different things. Have you ever wondered
why many beginners write their own version of Tetris?
Look at all the copy-cats of each major "style" of game... it's really
too bad. Of course, the same could be said about the movie industry. =-)
------ //
Patrick Evans {cs94...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca || er...@trentu.ca} (")
York University, Undergrad Spec. Hons. Computer Science UU\
Toronto, Ontario, Canada "Bunnies bunnies everywhere!" (>(>*
Kent.Dalton
>> This may be a little off topic, but it seems to me that several games could
>> increase their market potential by actually listening to customers and
>> release a "new and improved" version of what is essentially the same game.
KaptenKirk> But the games people emulate are games that are already
KaptenKirk> successful! Successful games don't need new and improved
KaptenKirk> versions, at least not new versions with MINOR improvements. Only
KaptenKirk> huge improvements are successful, such as the improvement of DOOM
KaptenKirk> over Castle Wolfenstein.
I fail to see how Doom from a gameplay or design perspective is a revolutionary
improvement over Wolf. In fact a coworker and I were discussing the
evolutionary trend (similar game *design* w/ improved *technology*)
recently, and Doom was agreed upon as an example of the opposite view of
the point you are trying to present. Go back and play the hidden Wolf
levels in Doom II (huge selling sequel BTW ;) sometime. ;)
No one will argue that an excellent original design sells well/better
than an unoriginal one, but I would say that the current trend is that
there are an increasing number of highly derivative designs out there that
sell well (instead of WC I, WC II, WC III, WC IV, Origin should just call
them WC 286, WC 386, WC 486, WC Pentium, IMHO).
There are lots of ways people are trying to distinguish their products to
improve sales, slightly upgraded 3d engines, improved artwork, more
video, addition of network technology, cut scenes, etc. Some of them
color the flavor of the gaming experience enough to actually increase
sales, but the game remains the same... IMHO, I'd lump the recent rash
of '3d maze shootemups' into a single family with Wolf as the parent.
I blame it on society. ( Just think how brand name oriented (MortalKombat X)
the consumer atmosphere is in the States...)
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton * EMail: Kent....@symbios.com */
/* Symbios Logic, Inc. * Phone: (303) 223-5100 X-9319 */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A * FAX: (303) 225-4829 */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 * Formerly known as NCR Microelectronics */
/**************************************************************************/
Be sure to check out the DIKtators AirWarrior Home Page:
http://www.cris.com/~kentd/diks.enh.html
Jason Zisk
>On 5 Sep 1995, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> Jason (leig...@pxsoftware.com) wrote:
>>
>> : I would like to start yet another thread on games design. This time however,
>> : I would like to discuss what actually makes a person think "Damn, that would
>> : make a great game!". It intrigues me to find out what the rest of you think about that.
>> : I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to combine the best features of
>> : each? Or do you concentrate on what you think will sell (ie. "Well, bloody games are
>> : popular now so lets make a killfest ; ROTT").
>>
>> Playing games always inspires me. I always get annoyed with the short
>> comings of games and think "I could do something better than that."
>Unfortunately, playing a game and thinking "Gee, I should have written
>this... i think I'll write my own version of it." and "wow, I have a new
>original idea that resembles nothing on the market... and I'm the *only*
>one who thought of it" are two different things. Have you ever wondered
>why many beginners write their own version of Tetris?
> Look at all the copy-cats of each major "style" of game... it's really
>too bad. Of course, the same could be said about the movie industry. =-)
I agree, I understand that new and fresh sell and just rehashing of
the old is not good business. But truthfully, a incredibly new idea
is a rare thing. Fast-action 3D POV games were new, Wolf started the
craze(Underworld started it for me, but that wasn't action <G>).
Right now, 2D Side view games are catching on, wiht Abuse and Pitfall
and such.
But "new" ideas are so rare, you have to do something. And that means
making a game in a genre that is well established. If I am playing a
game, which is pretty cool but needs work I will try something in that
genre. I may use some of it's better ideas, and add my own. The game
won't be the same thing, it will be quite different. Just some ideas
and the genre are the same.
Sorry if I made it sound like I steal games. It is tough to express
it though.
Marauder
> Jason (leig...@pxsoftware.com) wrote:
>: make a great game!". It intrigues me to find out what the rest of you think
>: about that. I mean, do you look at various games you admire and try to
>: combine the best features of each? Or do you concentrate on what you think
>: will sell (ie. "Well, bloody games are popular now so lets make a
>: killfest ; ROTT").
> Playing games always inspires me. I always get annoyed with the short
> comings of games and think "I could do something better than that."
Yes, that happens when you play something. Then you say to yourself that
you won't waste your time playing it again and instead coding something
insteresting. But you suddeny realize that you are doing a yadc .. Well,
let's plug in some more features .. but you can't keep of your mind
the other's display and screens, the engine, the play system, controls ..
Then the best solution is to play something radically different and
switch back to work. I have a very different pov by them (but it doesn't
imply that I'm going to finish the game :)
Cya
______________________________________________________________________________
| mara...@encomix.es | Eastwood: Come on, make my day | Spanish/Danish Power! |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunir Shah
Well, although there are other ways to get inspired, I just got inspired by watching the
Nintendo VirtualBoy commercial.
IOW, just look at almost anything as a new game and see if you can work with it.
Just my humble opinions.
--
Sunir Shah (ss...@intranet.on.ca)
WWW: http://intranet.on.ca/~sshah/ FidoNet: 1:241/11
BBS: The Open Fire BBS +1(613)584-1606
The Programmers' Booklist: http://intranet.on.ca/~sshah/booklist.html
Synapsis Entertainment : http://intranet.on.ca/~sshah/synapsis.html
John Maling
<<
This may be a little off topic, but it seems to me that several games
could increase their market potential by actually listening to customers
and release a "new and improved" version of what is essentially the same
game.
I've heard this if-only over and over from people who stop playing an
otherwise good game because of small bugs or irritating features. Adding
such small features might actually sell the same product to the same
people once more. Look what the manufacturers of operating systems do
(and they seem to be making money doing it).
Henrik
>>
Many games work like this in the Mac market, but not the PC market. I have
come to suspect that it's because Mac users expect more from their
software, be it productive or entertainment. When they find software that
delivers they stick to it through thick and thin, if it bombs out (like
Word 6 for Mac) they leave it if they can.
PC games are Flash in the Pan things, do a sequal if it sells enough, do a
couple of bug fixes if it's popular enough, otherwise move on. Whereas
Spaceward Ho!, Hornet or Strategic Conquest in the Mac domain have been
around for donkeys years and keep evolving.
From: jma...@ozemail.com.au
Cig? Cig? izat somthen you smoke?