[gameprogrammer] Re: How to save games?
- From: Charlie Lobo <charlie.lobo@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: gameprogrammer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:30:02 -0500
Hmm I found the article interesting, and I do agree with the author, but
take things in a different point of view.
1. Ok true, don't make all men dumb, don't make all girls disproportionate.
First: I really don't think technology is in the level we can waste
resources on calculating jiggle physics, better make them cloth physics or
something more interesting. Second: offer the option, just like some men
like women with ZZZ size cup (though I'll never understand them), some
people would find attractive to play other type of females, in DoA they
could have varied more. But a whore is ok, after all the game has to sell.
2. One word: Archetypes. It's unavoidable, we humans like a certain thing
that gets repeated. Still he does have a point, the stories could vary a lot
more. An example of a story that begins in the middle is Half-Life (1), you
get to see how they come in, and you know more or less what happened since
the beggining, now you don't know how big is the spreading of the aliens
until the end, but you do get to see how they spread gradually througout the
base. I really liked that, most games I don't find out what happened unless
I read the box or get to the last 5 seconds.
So story will get repeated, but just like there is cheap reading and
Literature, a game story can be given in a unique angle. By the way, the
true evil always believes to be good (and is only made evil due to the fact
he looses, FF7). Of course certain things simply can not be given as in
Literature (such as the elaborate story behind Pac-man or the culture hit
Quake Tournament :P) because gaming is another whole style of art. So he
does have a point, in the fact that they are using cookie cutter stories,
when they could tell the story from another angle.
Another example I liked was Warcraft III, each campaing was like it's own
RPG, and all of those RPGs have been done, but it was the armies that
changed the whole way the story worked, and even though I've played the
story of the strife against an uber-powerful enemy which requires former
enemies to unite in RPGs and RTS many times before it was the joining of
these that made the whole concept fresh. Why not have the enemy be uhm, an
organization, or a race equal to humans in power (not inmortal zombies or
aliens that are unvincible due to their uber-tech) it still doesn't mean it
wouldn't be an epic struggle.
3. I do agree with it, saving the whole world kind of makes you actions
(ironically) seem less at the end. Sequels are also ruined by this, since
now that you defeated the grandest creature out there what else can there
be? (something I call the Dragon Ball Z effect, for those who have seen the
series)
Yet the games sell because of the epic feel. Wait I said epic feel, not epic
actions. If epic proportions are proportional then even the smallest action
can be turned epic (again, alluding to #2, something that is seen in
Literature and not Sub-Literature). I have friends who have gone to Africa,
South America, Asia, and more; interestingly the stories I tell about how me
and my friends went to a park sound much more exciting to many, because I
get excited about this adventures and tell them in epic proportions that
belittle my good buddies adventures (which in reality are much bigger). So
it's about making what you do seem epic, even if it isn't.
An example: in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, there is a mission where you
single handely defeat a whole factory of mustard gas. It wasn't as epic, in
my opinion, as the mission where you lay in Omaha, even if what you do isn't
really that much, since the epic actions are done by the whole of which you
are a part of (the army). Still it's the feeling, the grandness of the
scenario that makes it the most epic, in my personall taste. So don't save
the whole world, make it a single house, and make it truly grand.
4. I believe that the problem is here that sometimes they give all the
material needed to make a great game. Yet it isn't used creatively so a good
game doesn't come out. So physics and graphics are nice, still that is no
excuse to ignore the quality of the rest of the game, it still must be fun
and attractive. Thank god there are mods: at least then the work doesn't go
to waste.
5. Just as certain things of literature work with games, but there are
things games have that won't work on literature and vice versa, the same
applies to movies and games. I really like the movie-esque touches they add
to the GTA series, such as the easy to explode cars, the almost complete
lack of realism, sense, or logic, the amazing bullet dodging ability of the
hero and the lack of any real bad consequences for creating mayhem. The
story also is entretaining and really nice to see how you do it all. But I'm
also thankful for the ability to cut through cinematics. I recomend trying
to avoid cinematics cuts and using in-game dialogue and actions. Again,
being that we are viewing games as a form of art and literature is a
similiar form of art, think of H.P. Lovecraft, very famouse yes, and I do
find his story/mythology to be a very interesting one and an entretaining
world, yet his writing isn't that good. He always breaks the excitement he
builds with descriptions (who's only scare is the big words they use) that
simply drone a bit too much, if he described it in a more indirect manner,
through the story (without stopping) it would be nice. Well cinematics are
the descriptions.
Cinematics are nice, but only used little, if the player truly wants to do
the quest/mission then he'll sit down and listen, if he doesn't well good
for him, let's hope he didn't need a detail said there, but from there it
was his decision not to listen. If no player listens, then the explanation
is too long. Cinematics become especially painful with replays and when they
become too long (seriously all the cinematics in Xenosaga last longer than
Forest Gump AND Titanic together!).
Well that was quite a rant...
Other related posts:
