How to make a creative game in 2010: Ensure your CEO never hears of the game

june gloom on 29/6/2010 at 02:54

Quote Posted by Papy

It might surprise you, but I believe the majority of the people who participate in this forum do it because they seek an honest debate. I agree a few are only interested in a pissing contest (and the truth is I tend to believe that's your case), but that's not everyone. So yes, you will have people who will take pleasure insulting you, the same way most of your posts are only empty insults, but, if you truly believe you're right, don't you think it would be better to just ignore those comments and create an interesting debate with the people who are willing to do it honestly?

I take offense to some of this. I'm not URRRGH RAEG because I'm here for a pissing contest. And you clearly do not read my posts if they seem like "empty insults" to you, because I do have plenty of good discussion with the many sensible people here, and even when we disagree it never devolves into namecalling. I genuinely do want to have a real conversation.

And then there are people who just can't fucking do it. They're either incapable of a real discussion (Koki) or are so locked into their own biases they won't even consider another person's view. Poetic Thief is a perfect example. I asked him, as polite as I can muster for his sort, to please answer my questions, and his response? "I DON'T LIKE YOUR DEBATE STYLE HURR BRLRBLRB DETHTOOOOOOL LOLOLOL"

I don't call people idiots without having a good reason to.

Quote Posted by Papy

Ok. Let me start. Nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses are about bad memory. It is a mix of vaguely remembering an out of context feeling and of plain wishful thinking. I agree a lot of people fall for it. The problem is there are a few of us who still play those old games NOW. So the memory we have of those games is not a vague out of context feeling and there's no wishful thinking to replace what we forgot. So it's not about nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses. Your "argument" is plain false.

See? That wasn't so god damned hard, was it?

How is my argument false, when you just said you agreed with the original premise- that people are blinded by nostalgia? People who continue to play the same goddamn games over and over for 15 years because they're afraid to leave their comfort zones do not negate my nostalgia argument because it's a different, if related, issue.

Papy on 29/6/2010 at 05:14

If your argument was that SOME people have nostalgia issues, then I would agree. But the way I understood it, you explained in a very broad way that people who do view most AAA modern games as less interesting than older games, have this point of view because it's just a case of nostalgia. That is clearly not the case for me, nor for a lot of other people who are not afraid to replay those old games.

Now you seem to indirectly say that if I think most AAA modern games are boring it's because I don't want to leave my comfort zone. Here again, you're wrong. What you would probably define as my comfort zone was 20 to 30 years ago. That was the time when I got used to playing video games. You have to understand that Ultima Underworld was already out of my "comfort zone". I do still play those games form the 80s once in a while, but it is rare. The truth is I don't have a "comfort zone" (not even when it comes to music as I rarely listen to music from the 80s), and your argument is wrong.

The problem I have with modern AAA games is simply they are barely games anymore. We can't really lose, we don't have to think much to progress, we don't have to have an exceptional coordination skill (obviously I'm not talking about competitive multiplayer games)... we just play those games mostly passively. It seems to me modern AAA video games are made for the group of people who are really searching for a replacement to TV. They are mostly simple and empty pastimes. The problem is even the regular shallow Hollywood movie still has a better story than the best video game; even the regular badly written novel is still miles ahead than the best video games writing. So why should I waste my time with the average AAA video game if it offers absolutely nothing better than other forms of entertainment?

For the last 10 years, I'd say the game I played the most was Trackmania. In fact, it was probably the video game I played the most since I begun playing in the 70s. Contrarily to most modern (single player) AAA games, this one was truly a game. Getting all "nadeo time" demanded a lot of training. Most people were never able to get them and they certainly complained on Trackmania's forum that the game was too hard. But you know what? That's exactly how games should be. They must be rewarding and, in order for them to be rewarding, they must be challenging.

If you want to know why I think several very simplistic games of the 80s were more interesting than the most modern AAA games, then just download a C64 emulator and play something like The Last V8. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBi6lboO8MA) Here's a video of the gameplay. What you see in this 2 minutes video is the full game. That's it. There's nothing more. But you know what? It took me a lot of hours of perfecting my play in order to be able to finish this 2 minutes game. Bit by bit, I was going a little farther and when I finally finish the game, it felt extremely rewarding.

Compare this to what is the model of the modern AAA game to me : Oblivion. At first, I kind of liked this game. But after the first few hours where I was learning the basics of the game, no challenge remained whatsoever. I played with the difficulty slider at max and the only time I died was because I was so bored that I decided to jump into lava (after the extremely dumb AI also did it). I never cared to finish the main quest. There was absolutely no point. I knew that the only thing required to finish the game was wasting time. I didn't had to think, I didn't had to concentrate, I just had to go on. What is the point of playing a game if you are sure to win and if you get nothing out of it?

Now. Do you understand why I think most modern AAA games are utterly boring? It has nothing to do with nostalgia, it has nothing to do with some kind of "confort zone", it's only because they have no real challenge (particularly no thinking challenge). It's because they are completely empty pastimes made for the lowest common denominator.

Last week I bought Mass Effect. Tell me. What is interesting in this game? Why should I play this game rather than read a book, watch a movie, play some sports... or replay with a challenging video game from the 80s?

Koki on 29/6/2010 at 06:02

I like how dethtoll demands a rational, civil discussion while simultaneously taking a piss at just about everyone who doesn't agree with him, complete with fucks, idiots, and reactionimage.jpg.

P.S. You still haven't made an argument, love Koki xoxoxo

@Papy: If all you want is challenging games, I am led to believe there are still some on the consoles, like Ninja Gaiden, That Goddamn Demons's' Souls or even Devil May Cry.

Papy on 29/6/2010 at 06:30

It's not that all I want is challenge, but challenge is for me an essential part of any game. To me, the biggest flaw of Invisible War was that it was far too easy. Why should I care about finding a Biomod if I know don't really need anything?

Even if BioShock was dumbed down compared to SS2, it was still a challenging game (considering I never save between levels) so I was interested in what was around me. Instead of dozing though the game, I was alert. And this is because of this state of alertness that I put some attention also on the story. The relationship may seem strange, but without the challenge of the game, I simply wouldn't have cared about Little Sisters and the world around me.

DDL on 29/6/2010 at 07:10

Quote Posted by Papy

Last week I bought Mass Effect. Tell me. What is interesting in this game? Why should I play this game rather than read a book, watch a movie, play some sports... or replay with a challenging video game from the 80s?

Er..if you've bought a game from a company pretty much known for great writing, character interactions and storytelling (even if it is usually the exact same story), yet are complaining that it isn't enough like a 2 minute c64 racing game...then perhaps the fault does not lie with the game.

If you, on the other hand, want to play a game that IS like reading a book and watching a movie, only you get to call the shots (and make giant lizard tankmen fly off into space using SCIENCE)..then it's a fucking great game.

You clearly still seem to play Deus Ex, and that's easy as piss after you get the hang of it..so why not take whatever arbitrary restrictions I assume you must apply to yourself in that, and apply them to other games?

Or, get a savegame from someone with mass effect's hardcore/insane difficulties unlocked, and try that?

Papy on 29/6/2010 at 08:00

I'm not complaining that an RPG doesn't play like a "racing" game, but simply that I need challenge to be interested in a game, no matter the genre. In the case of an RPG, even action RPGs, I want to have to think about finding a solution to a problem. For example, I want to have to manage an inventory (meaning choosing what I keep and what I leave behind), I want to have to think about what skills I should upgrade to make the gameplay easier, etc...

One thing is for sure, I don't want a video game that is like reading a book or watching a movie. For me, a good video game story must not be imposed to me. I like to discover the story by myself instead of being told that story. Concretely, I must be able to miss the story if I'm not actively trying to know what is happening.

Also, as I said, the best story in a video game is extremely superficial, even compared to a mediocre book. Maybe choosing branches in a story may give a sense of being a part of the story for some people, but it doesn't work for me. I only feel like... choosing a branches among two or three others.

As for Deus Ex, I do look at it once in a while (last time I - partially - played it was probably 2 or 3 years ago), and yes it is very easy now, but it's not really to "play" it. Most of the time, it is to understand why I loved this game compared to others which I think are less good. Also, except for the no save allowed in the middle of a level (which was even true the first time I played the game), I rarely impose myself any restriction, except because of moral reason due to the story. I don't like to play with a game as I would play with a toy, I prefer to do everything I can to "win".

june gloom on 29/6/2010 at 08:58

Quote Posted by Papy

Now. Do you understand why I think most modern AAA games are utterly boring? It has nothing to do with nostalgia, it has nothing to do with some kind of "confort zone", it's only because they have no real challenge (particularly no thinking challenge). It's because they are completely empty pastimes made for the lowest common denominator.

If you want to make that argument you need to pick something other than Oblivion, which even I don't like. It's also hardly the "model of AAA gaming" you seem to think it is, particularly since there are a zillion and one mods that set out to improve just about any feature of the game you might find lacking.

Okay, granted, obviously whatever I may claim is not necessarily the case for everyone, but I really shouldn't have to clarify every goddamn thing I say. I make sweeping generalizations- you know this, I know this, the entire forum knows this, I'm certainly not alone in doing it, so just for the sake of discussion, assume what I say to mean "most" or "some" or whatever other modifier you find pleasing short of "nobody" because that would completely negate what I'm saying and we have enough examples of poor debate skills- god knows "well your argument doesn't apply to me therefore you are WRONG" is bad enough.

Look, I think most of us agree that it's pretty much down to individual taste- you like some things, I like other things, Koki doesn't like anything. I really don't care if you don't like Oblivion because you think it's piss-easy, or Batman: AA because you don't like Batman or beat-em-ups, or whatever.

What really burns me is people carry these biases around- for example, that games from before X point in time are inherently better than games from after x point in time. In a sense, that is nostalgia, even if they only just played Thief yesterday, because they're nostalgic for a bygone period of time that they may have missed. (I certainly wish I had lived through the 70s.) There's nothing wrong with nostalgia in and of itself- companies like Capcom and Konami have made a mint exploiting nostalgia for their old series, and Squaresoft is probably going to make more money re-releasing FF7 on PSN than they would if they remade the game like everyone wants them to. The problem is when people let that nostalgia (or any other bias) actively get in the way of their enjoyment of, well, anything other than the small reference pool within their bias. They may deny it, they may embrace it, they may not even realize they're doing it. At some point it stops being about individual taste and it starts being about an obnoxious elitist, who can't just say "oh, well that game isn't for me" and moves straight to "THIS GAME MADE LAST YEAR SUCKS YOU ARE CLEARLY AN IGNORANT PLEBE YOU SHOULD PLAY THIS BULLSHIT UNPLAYABLE GAME FROM 15 YEARS AGO THAT ONLY 5 PEOPLE BOUGHT" (Hi, Planescape!)

(While I'm busy insulting Planescape I'd like to say that Planescape's writing is a load of pretentious, pseudointellectual wash that dumps 700 pages worth of text on the player in the hopes the player thinks density = depth.)

While it's true that I will insult someone for liking or disliking a game, this is how arguments usually go:

[person] I like x game
[me] I don't, terrible game, blah blah blah
[person] *gasp* HOW DARE YOU YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FAG
[me] yeah how dare i, fuck off lucky star
[person, perhaps some other stellar individuals] SHUT UP TROLLLLLLLLL
[me] hahahaha what

Or...

[person] I don't like x game
[me] Okay, why?
[person] I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO YOU FAGGOT
[me] just answer the goddamn question dipshit
[person] okay fine *lists a bunch of reasons, some asinine, some legitimate*
[me] okay well you're doing x wrong, i agree with y, z is completely fucking insane
[person] SHUT UP TROLLLLLLLLL
[me] hahahaha what

Either way, after that I pretty much stop caring about being polite because what's the point?

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone. As I mentioned before, though you may have missed it/ignored it, there are plenty of people here who do not act like that, and the scenarios I have presented do not manifest. We may not all enjoy the same things, but nobody cares because we're all capable of civil discussion- and perhaps more importantly, we understand when an opinion is sound- "I don't like Oblivion because I don't like fantasy"- and when it's completely fucking insane- "I don't like Doom because it doesn't have Rainbow 6-style tactical maneuvers." I really don't have a lot of patience for the latter.

DDL on 29/6/2010 at 09:22

Quote Posted by Papy

I need challenge to be interested in a game, no matter the genre. In the case of an RPG, even action RPGs, I want to have to think about finding a solution to a problem. For example, I want to have to manage an inventory (meaning choosing what I keep and what I leave behind), I want to have to think about what skills I should upgrade to make the gameplay easier, etc...

There are degrees of this. I doubt many people like to be spoonfed everything, but I suspect your demands for 'challenge' are unrealistically high.

For example, I'm a research biochemist: if I want insanely fiddly tasks that require a high degree of skill and frequently fail for bullshit reasons, forcing constant repetition until I get it perfect, then I simply GO TO FUCKING WORK.

When I get home, if I get home, I generally tend to shy away from games that feel like that. I suspect I'm not alone in this. I get the impression that you'd prefer games to be much more of the "you fuck up, you die. Restart Y/N" variety, rather than the "you fuck up, we make it pretty clear you're fucking up, and if you continue to fuck up then you'll die very shortly" variety, which actually allow you to learn without first failing several times.

Plus, let's be honest: games where you have to make critical inventory/skill choices (take this item, succeed! Leave it? Fail!) generally tend to have less replayability than games that have less significant choices (take this item? X is easier! Leave it? Well, X is harder but still possible). I would've thought this would be right up your street, since you could then deliberately choose non-optimal paths to add 'challenge'.

You seem to be simultaneously demanding challenge, and demanding that said challenge be presented in ways that, when correctly followed, make the game less challenging. Which is confusing.

Eldron on 29/6/2010 at 09:54

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

Under normal circumstances I'd probably just accept your word on it, given that you work in the industry. The problem I have is that the same flaws in AP are present in other, similar, multiplatform UE(3) games. So it isn't just a question of accepting that Obsidian uses chimps to code and moving on, I'd also have to accept that Bioware (and to a more limited extent, Irrational) has chimps coding too, because ME has the same type of problems- arbitrary 5s opening doors, hook corridors, one way doors, the elevators, loading tunnels in the quest open areas, spawn in AI, tripwire activated AI, even its four archetype dungeons small as they are are divided further into loading sections. And large areas like the Citadel give fps dropouts on 360 despite the use of resource saving tricks like only having signpost AI. Arguably they are better at obfuscating what's happening, but it is fairly obvious that it is happening.

None of those are engine specific, you're starting to pointing out standard tricks in the industry that has to do with gamedesign, resource saving, spawn ins etc, the "signpost AI" wont help much in terms of rendering speeds either, they're simply signpost AI because they're characters that needs to stay in place, even baldurs gate had characters like that.

It's nothing engine specific in there, it's all about the fidelity they've chosen to use for those environments, and the sacrifices they've chosen in terms of how big they want them to be.

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

Haven't developed anything for it, if that's what you mean, my experiences are solely from having played games made on it. I specifically won't criticise things like the lack of AA or the texture popping because they are specific resource or other balancing issues.

This is not the biggest problem either, the problem is that you have little experience beyond the user experience you have. The funny thing is, lack of AA is actually very much due to the engine, it's a deferred renderer, which means it pretty much in the end renders out two triangles with the end result, and the AA units will have no idea how to run its thing on two triangles.
(it has some super benefits though, such as like lights are basicly free of use)

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

I dismiss it for the simple reason that a massive level, in 2010 (2007) with a level of detail that is inferior not just to contemporaries on other engines but (imo, of course) to a decade old game like Outcast written for a system with 1/16 the RAM a console has now is not a good example- a level like that in a DX like game would not be received at all well. Also, those levels were one part of Mass Effect that got a lot of criticism and not just because of the Mako's bouncy castle physics.

Yes, and in daggerfall you could walk around the entire game map without any loading zones, which outcast did have, but its beyond the point, you'll have to understand how these things work, Outcast built its terrain out of tiles, which contained heightdata for the voxel landscape, so it could potentially expand the map even further, without much cost, it was all a bunch of re-used data.
It did however have to have loadingzones between the different areas, since it had to load new content.

Quote Posted by Zygoptera

A decent level of detail is very important. One of the things AP got criticised for already was lack of environmental detail and use of fuzzy textures; again the same thing is a problem in Mass Effect, though it's largely hidden by the use of the film grain filter. That's also the reason why I'd have set AP in the near future, it allows added stylisation without affecting verisimilitude, and could potentially allow for more flexibility on sizing.

It is all memory-budget related, bioware are a bit better, irrational are also a bit better, I haven't played AP so I cant comment directly on its looks outside of screenshots and movies, but it seems like they're struggling with their own problems, and the fact that they're making a console game.

But once again, understand how these things work, even deus ex had to cut up levels in sublevels, and UE3 is fully capable of the exact same game experience, but with even more features, it still has persistancy built in. The engine is not stopping these developers, they're simply making choices in terms of how they want to solve certain budget or design scenarios.

DDL on 29/6/2010 at 10:36

Also, DX did very clever things with lighting to disguise the fact that their levels were actually pretty horrible. Wander round any given map with in full bright 'unlit' mode, and marvel at the terrible texture jumps and alignments, and how a rickety bridge is actually just a single cuboid add brush.

If you take the time to add detail (lintels for doors, raised verges to hide grass-concrete transitions, etc), you quicky run into a hardcoded engine limit of map complexity which prevents the map even loading.

But that's probably irrelevant geek trivia. Still, if you don't mind levels built from blocky, poorly aligned stuff hidden by clever lighting, I reckon modern games could easily rustle up a large level or two. :p

Personally I don't really object to frequent loading zones that much, if the benefit is much more personal, detailed, hand crafted levels. One of the particularly egregious points of Mass Effect was that there were loading zones taking you to the SAME DAMN C&P INTERIOR (with minor furniture rearrangements). ...though given they were transitions from ludicrously huge MAKO terrain world to 'interior', I guess they were unavoidable.