Interesting article. Like all works, however, there are parts that I must object to.
Many game-movie crossovers, such as Wing Commander or Mario Brothers, failed and so did movie-games, such as Atari’s E.T.[9] or Braveheart. Their lesson: satisfy an audience for a movie, a player for a game.
I agree about that
the 4 mentioned titles are failures. That said, I hardly consider
the posted reason
the factor for it.
Wing Commander (
the movie) was an exercise in "Sci fi that made no sense at all". Mario brothers tried to decide which aspect
of the game it should be faithful to, and which it should change for making a movie's sake, and it failed on both counts. ET failed due to
the game being HORRIBLE, even by
the standards
of the Atari2600. As for Braveheart,
the game is bug-riddled and bland.
The distinction I wish to make here is that, all 4
of the above "failures", their failure wasn't related to their movie/video game relationship. In fact, thinking back to it,
the Mario Brothers movie seemed more like a title that was key-marketed to a crowd
of stoners, rather than video game players young enough to be playing
the "cartoony" Mario at
the time that movie came out.
Mortal Kombat anyone? Movies and video games can, in fact, live happily together, and succeed side by side (well, at least if you don't try to make a sequel
).
Now,
the "overabundance"
of one aspect invading another can put people off. For example, a game with 90% cutscenes (say, Xenosaga) isn't going to turn into a smash hit with people who actually want to *play*
the game, rather than watch it. But that's a different example; one deals with proportions, one with pseudo-absolutes.
A game designer can borrow inspiration from another medium but not techniques or values. For example, being inspired by the pace in a movie is far from learning how to pace a game from studying pace in a movie.
.
Pure false.
A) Movies are fast-paces; even long-trilogies (say, Lord
of the Rings) are going to total in length
of less than 10 hours (maybe
the expanded DVD trilogy with all
the deleted scenes and whatnot will be longer, but you get
the idea).
B) Video games need to draw gamers in for periods much longer than 10 hours for them to be commercially successful.
However, A) does not mutually exclude B). You can make a very-fast-paced video game, and have it be good. You just have to know
when to do it.
A fast paced RPG will be a disaster... classic-RPGs are
the prototype
of "slow". But, say... an FPS? If my game
of Doom ISN'T paced at an alarming rate, then
the game developers screwed up (or I've already cleared
the area and am just exploring it). And,
of course, I'm leaving out a game like FZero... a racing game is kind
of an unfair example here, not that corollaries between it and
The Fast and
the Furious cannot be drawn.
Another example would be
the new Left 4 Dead. In any mode above "easy",
the way to "survive" this horror-movie-esque game is to keep moving as fast as possible. It's replay-ability comes from it's multiplayer. But it's pacing is certainly identical to that
of any horror movie with guns.
[G]ame development is turning into a circus, costs are skyrocketing, users get bored faster than ever before, and the development of truly new games — new ways of having fun — has all but stopped." Mr. Yamauchi, President of Nintendo
I agree with this quote, but sadly, I don't think it applies to this document. I postulate this instead: users aren't getting bored faster; instead,
the base
of users that actually *play* video games has expanded well beyond just
the "nerd subculture"
of the 90s. But
the new base has a much lower ability / attention span average than it used to be... so to actually tap into
the "largest part"
of the current video game market, games have to be suitably simple in their execution.
Nintendo, to their credit, did come up with a new method
of "fun", mind you.
The touchpad, 2 screen Nintendo DS and
the motion-sensitive Wii are sweet additions to
the Video Game industry. Props to them for that.
What fine movie resembles ChuChu Rocket?... Chess, Kungfu Chess, ChuChu Rocket, Bust-a-Grove, Bomberman, Pacman...
Not exactly a fair list. All these games are fun (to
the right target audience), but none
of them have
the substance to try and make a movie out
of. I can't make much
of a Video Game out
of the movie "Looking for Bobby Fischer" either
.
Now let me hit this quote, which I feel is quite possibly
the biggest problem with
the bulk
of this read:
"They were unanimous in preferring the games to television. They were also unanimous about the reason: active control." ... In a fine game, the player alters the outcome with every move.
Within
the span
of 2 paragraphs, he made a quote that shines light on
the state
of the industry, and then states that one
of the main reasons for such a state is actually a good thing.
For any game to have a non-linear (AKA player-driven) storyline, you need to devote a large number
of writers to develop (at
the very least
the framework for) multiple story paths, and
the other resources necessary to make
the game world for said number
of possible states. This rivals that
of Graphics development and
the hiring
of big name actors for
the reason why video game costs are going nuts.
So which is it? Should games strive to be as player-malleable as possible, or should they take less than 5 years and 50 million dollars to create?
I also find it ironic that he touts
the virtues
ofChess, Kungfu Chess, ChuChu Rocket, Bust-a-Grove, Bomberman, Pacman
just before this, when said games are hardly ones where a varying storyline is their primary source
of fun
.
Also note: I'm sure someone is thinking right now "having an impact on
the outcome can just mean whether
the hero succeeds or fails". This is also false in any game that has a save feature. Unless your skill is so low as to never win; eventually, you will. And
the storyline will be there to show you your win.
The Hero will succeed.
Don't misunderstand my reaming in
the above comments; games with player-driven storylines are a good idea. In fact, FPS-RPG Morrowind is one
of my favorite games
of all time (along with
the TBS-
RTS Lords
of Magic title you guys have been seeing me repeatedly mention in this thread, and
the classic-RPG Fallout1 & 2... 3, not so much). But I know (some
of) what it took to make that(those) game(s). That type
of development process will not become an industry norm do to simple economics: using that design, games will start becoming very few, and very far between. Other people will then just make similar-but-lower-tier stuff to sell in
the interim, and it WILL sell, due to lack
of alternatives. And it will turn a higher profit-per-unit due to it's development. That's how a capitalist society operates, after all... I wish it weren't, but it is
.
Anyway, I think I'm lambasting this one point enough for now, so... on with
the rest
of the post.
...
Actually, it is unfortunately getting late here, so I'll give a few more examples, but will shorten my responses down considerably.
The more I study the smarter Aristotle gets." In a fine game, the more the player studies the deeper the game gets... When the game ceases to teach the player a new lesson, the game stops being fun.
I think he is overestimating the "average game buyer" these days. The people with the money in their pockets want instant gratification, not a cerebral experience. They can, will, and do, run to the nearest strat guide or cheat sheet at the first opportunity, just to "win at the game".
He learns that self-evaluation and teamwork trump individual excellence.
See above. Some people will form "guilds" in an MMO to maximize their "in-game" potential, but most (I.E.
the market developers target) just pick
the guy with
the biggest damage, read a guide on what to put on him, and go stomp stuff. If they can't, they cancel their subscription. WoW is terribly easy compared to any other MMO, and it's subscriber base is huge compared to all other MMOs
combined. I don't think that coincidence.
Or, how about Diablo2 vs. Dungeon siege 2. DS2 has more story, better voice acting, longer play times, and is just as simple to actually play. Why is D2 so much more popular today? Because people can get bots that PLAY
THE GAME FOR THEM, giving them maxed-out characters that they can use to... well, trivialize it's actual content. Again, maximum gratification, minimum playing.
A fine game gives insight into the human condition, if you believe: The world resembles a game, and all of us are players—our moves finite, our consequences irreversible.
The majority
of game buyers don't want this. They want to have it all their way. Go to ANY developer-sponsored forum board and search for
the phrase "we don't want work/life, we want a game". Even if
the underlying premises
of games and life (and for that matter,
the rest
of the universe) all have some conjoining equation, you have to understand: today's target demographic doesn't consider anything besides continuous winning "fun".
Any crack dealer will tell you: addiciton beats quality.
Sorry if this whole post sounds bile-filled. But I'm not a big fan
of rosy-eyed dissertations who assume that just because they put a lot
of emotion behind their arguments, that makes them more valid that ones based on statistics. Wippersnapper's posts are actually going for definitions and explanations, so he's all good (even if I disagree with some
of his links); but Kennerly's post is just an academic exercise in "they way it
should be", which stops having any real effect once you leave a college philosophy class. We
should live in a pure communism as well, as it is
the most equitable and fair. But we know how those turn out.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
A post was made before I posted this one, so I will address it as well.
Yes, generally speaking, there are as many nuances of "Fun" as there are human beings on the planet Earth. Still Whipper's contention is that there is a subset of humanity that has a love for RTS gaming and that based on the 25 year history of RTS (the first RTS was released in 1983) all the RTS's have commonality as do the folks who find them fun. What I was pointing out was that at every stage of creating an RTS, even before you write your first line of code, you have to ask yourself "Is this gonna be fun to play within the context of everything else concieved so far and also with what is yet to be created ?" The ideal outcome is that most of the game play mechanics that you create-code will be fun for a majority of RTS gamers and that your mechnics are so clever that "fun replay value" will assure longevity and a robust mod community that are inspired to
add to the cannon new twists of fun not even thought of by the original developers.
I agree with 90%
of this (
the part about letting a fan base add to canon is a sure-fire way to turn a work into insanity... leave
the canon to
the devs, if they like a fan idea, they'll throw it in themselves
). But that's not
the majority
of what
the linked article is saying.
The linked article
claims to be saying what I've quoted from you, but it's just being used as a thin rationale for him to then put forth his personal opinions as to just how cerebral a game has to be for it to be "fun", which i disagree with heartily enough to make a long post about.
I can be moronic but sometimes i can make sense too 
