If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 10 JUL 2008 at 1:38pm |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Okay, it should feel ashamed that I have started playing Gabriel Knight2 just now, after acquiring it on Ebay for 10 US or so. I have played at least a hundred AG's but never got around to GK2. There it is.
What surprises me the most, that it is evidently possible, even back then (1996) to get everything just right. Atmosphere, difficulty, logic, navigation, buttons, sound, music, the lot. This is an awesome game with a great story, that is just like a great book: you cannot wait to turn the next page.
And what surprises me even more, that the gaming industry still produces a plethora of games every year, untill this very day, that get things horribly, horribly wrong. How on earth can that be? Is there no learning curve for game producers? A knowledge base? Do they ever play these classics to see what has been achieved in the (distant) past? Do they ever look at the stories that have been translated into games, look at the game design and navigation? Do they ever care to look at comments from players on fora? GK is, even by today's standards, a game that does almost everything right. More than a decade old!
So stop flooding the market with mediocre, badly designed games! Take the effort to look at the classics first, and then start over! Would save me at least a dozen or so dissapointments, every year.
|
| 10 JUL 2008 at 3:15pm |
SuperEdyPrivate Detective
Posts : 772
Joined: 30 MAR 2007
Status : Online | First it's not the producers fault, if you mean the people who put the money out (usually the distributors), they shouldn't even decide how the game will be (after all what's the purpose of the director's cut?).
If you mean the executive producers, they just check the budget and assure that the game is done at the deadline, again no creative decisions.
The game designers decide everything about playability, they usually were game testers or magazine reviewers, so yes, they played old games, but unfortunately they often prefer to explore new interfaces, probably because they need to catch the interest of younger people (many will find old GUIs just outdated)
Second the best writers prefer to write books, not games.
Third just playing good old games is not enough to be a good designer or a good writer, I watched many classic movies and that doesn't turn me into a great director Unfortunately you need talent, it's what Jane Jensen has in abundance.
[b]Currently Playing[/b]: None of your business
|
| 10 JUL 2008 at 4:03pm |
CulturaJourneyman
Posts : 1337
Joined: 1 SEP 2004
Location: NL, Amersfoort
Status : Offline | Obviously, I mean the people who actually produce the game itself, i.e. the programmers, gamestudio, designers, makers, creators or whatever the name they give themselves....
Playing old games would help if they took the lead from the interfaces that have been developed and tried (worked or faulted) already. Puzzles that have captivated the audience, or bored them, stories that have caught the imagination, or left the players bored to death. As you would from any process. Like in filmmaking, you do not expect a director to make mistakes that have been made decades ago bur other director, such as continuity faults, color changes, badly audible sound, fogged cams, whatever. But in te gameworld, it seems almost the rule.
|
| 10 JUL 2008 at 6:02pm |
Steve VSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 265
Joined: 16 MAR 2008
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Cultura (10 JUL 2008 4:03pm)
Obviously, I mean the people who actually produce the game itself, i.e. the programmers, gamestudio, designers, makers, creators or whatever the name they give themselves....
Playing old games would help if they took the lead from the interfaces that have been developed and tried (worked or faulted) already. Puzzles that have captivated the audience, or bored them, stories that have caught the imagination, or left the players bored to death. As you would from any process. Like in filmmaking, you do not expect a director to make mistakes that have been made decades ago bur other director, such as continuity faults, color changes, badly audible sound, fogged cams, whatever. But in te gameworld, it seems almost the rule.
The thing is, these are all creative people, artists even, some of them. They don't want to just blindly copy something that has been done before..who wants to be told their game is great because its exactly the same as GK2 or The Longest Journey or Myst or even the polarising Syberia?. They want to be told their work is ground breaking, original, unique..possibly even more than being told their game is enjoyable. I'm sure a lot of developers produce games that they want to impress their peers with, rather than for the delectation of the gaming masses.
|
| 10 JUL 2008 at 11:16pm |
ShanyGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 19 JUN 2003
Status : Online | There are several reasons I can think of for why some developers don't learn (this is all in my opinion and I have no proof of this):
- Not enough time and money - They simply can't hire the best actors/artists/composers for the game, and have to settle for mediocrity. And they rarely have the means to polish the game to perfection, or even give them a proper ending.
- They're new - Like SuperEdy said, it's not enough to play good games to be able to make good games, you need talent and experience. Some developers are just new and probably need to learn on their own.
- They want to be innovative - Like everyone says. So while trying to be innovative with one thing, they stick to the old cliches with everything else. Look at Kheops for example - innovative inventory system and puzzles, but everything else is pretty boring. Which brings me to the opposite example-
- Playing it safe - Some things work, like stories about templars, or inventory puzzles involving locked doors and pieces of paper. Since enough people will buy a mediocre game, why work hard on something new and exciting?
|
| 11 JUL 2008 at 1:19am |
Joe_MolotovSpace Cadet
Posts : 153
Joined: 4 OCT 2003
Status : Online | Not everybody can be as good as Jane Jensen.
|
| 11 JUL 2008 at 2:16am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Cultura (10 JUL 2008 1:38pm)
So stop flooding the market with mediocre, badly designed games! Take the effort to look at the classics first, and then start over! Would save me at least a dozen or so dissapointments, every year.
Interesting, I've been expressing similar sentiments over at Game Boomers. (Without having read this). To those who argue that this isn't enough, true, it isn't a substitute for talent or creativity. But it still should be a big asset to a developer, studying what classic adventure games have done right, and applying that knowledge to make their own game better and avoid basic mistakes.
|
| 11 JUL 2008 at 6:47am |
IviniaGuild Master
Posts : 4459
Joined: 7 JUN 2003
Location: US
Status : Offline | I think part of the reason depends on who the developer is. If it's a small one, odds are they are getting much of their feedback from friends who want to show encouragement and not necessarily from those who actually enjoy the genre. :-/
|
