Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Strange Attractor - On High Concepts For Games 55

Posted by simoniker from the duke-of-earl dept.
Thanks to Scott Miller's Game Matters weblog for its article discussing how to design a game from the start with a 'winning concept'. Miller argues: "Too many games are sunk from day one because they lack a compelling concept. And even though these games may get made with the highest production values and polish, they will find only a small audience." He goes on to identify specific factors to follow, including uniqueness ("You should be able to say:'"Wow, why has anyone else thought of this?!'"), an easily conveyed premise ("e.g. Tomb Raider = female Indiana Jones"), and lack of obvious ancestry ("The concept is so distinctive that if anyone else does it after you, it'll be obvious where they got the idea from.")
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Strange Attractor - On High Concepts For Games More

Strange Attractor - On High Concepts For Games

Comments Filter:

  • Its all the same (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Schwing84 ( 782710 ) on Monday August 16, 2004 @11:22PM (#9987992)
    How many times do you buy a game and get bored with it like after a week. Doom3 and manhunt are both examples of this. They are more worried about special effects rather than the backbone of the game i.e. the storyline. I find myself drawn to games i have played to death rather then new games that I buy. Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice city are both games I can play over and over while others such as Doom3 i get bored with. I guess the same can be said about the movie industry and lack of quality movies with poor storylines. I say if they spent less time on graphics and more on storyline then the problem will be less severe.

    • Re:Its all the same (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DeadboltX ( 751907 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:30AM (#9988319)
      so you're saying gta has an awsome storyline and that is why you play it over and over again? I have a feeling it is more because it is open ended and you can run around doing whatever you want to kill time I played doom1 and doom2 over and over again relentlessly as many people did, and it wasn't because it had an awesome storyline, it was because the gameplay was fun I think storyline actually kills replay value. Take a look at max payne 1 and 2, sure they were fun games and were packed full of story, but The last thing I want to do is play the game over again when I beat it. It may take a year or longer before I feel like playing the game again.
      • I think ideally you want open-ended gameplay with a good story line no matter how you're playing through the game. Perhaps like Deus Ex {I don't know, I just started playing through it, it's just what I've heard}.

        Your point with DOOM/Max Payne is good, but if someone likes that game play, as you liked DOOM's, then maybe they would play it over and over.

        And now for a personal example: Playing GTA3, I got tired of the missions, they got too hard and too repetitive. While the story line was decent, I want
      • Story can be a real selling point for a game: How many times over have people played the Wing Commander games? I spent many an hour replaying Wing Commander 2. Or what about Descent: Freespace? Good heavens, do I even want to try counting how many times I've replayed certain RPGs (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 4 (or 2 for you non-Japanese)?

        I don't think story kills replay value: Story gets you to tolerate game's deficiencies until you've finished playing the story through.

        Imho, the real factor is (duh)

  • Obviously, game companies don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Monday August 16, 2004 @11:27PM (#9988023)
    ...nor do game players. Why else would they release game after game that are basically the same (i.e. sports, racing, even FPS shooters)? And we, the customer, support this by buying crap, time and time again. The last decent PC game I bought was the two-pack Fallout/Fallout 2; that's not to say that everything after it has been completely worthless, but Fallout brought two distinct tropes (the RPG and post-apocalyptic fiction) together in such a way that it completely overshadowed earlier such games (i.e. Wasteland).

    What baffles me is why there aren't more games out there that use traditional literary modes as bases for plot. I'm dying to play a good Raymond Chandler-esque game; imagine a game based on something by Kafka. A game based on Snow Crash would be killer, too. But what do they stick on the shelf? Deer Hunter XXIII and GenericFPS 12. Bah.

    • sorry, missed some. ...that it completely overshadowed earlier such games (i.e. Wasteland) and made for not only a unique gaming experience, but one that is memorable. I find myself comparing every RPG now to Fallout - NWN, Baldur's Gate, none of it lives up. I'm not saying that Fallout is the be all and end all of gaming nirvana, but the simple fact remains that they took a good idea and did it *well*; because of this, I'll never forget the game.

    • No, you don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hamled ( 742266 ) on Monday August 16, 2004 @11:54PM (#9988171)
      The game players buy those same old (or atleast very similar) games again and again because they enjoy it. People who bought Doom 1 and enjoyed it will buy Doom 2 because they liked the first one, and want something a little new, perhaps some new weapons, monsters, and levels.

      Not every game has to be extremely original and revolutionary. Many games do very well simply by being what the customers enjoy playing, even if they shamelessly copy a previous successful game.

      Obviously in those cases, the games need to be built well (of course there were dozens of Doom 1 clones, but not many of them were created well enough to be as enjoyable as the Doom series).

      Yes, it's a shame that very few publishing companies will go out on a limb for a new game concept, but it's not a terrible shame that game players are getting what they want from the same old games with new titles.
    • Google defines "game" as "an amusement or pastime; "they played word games"; "he thought of his painting as a game that filled his empty time"; "his life was all fun and games"" (Well thats the first suiting definition) If the players enjoy playing Deer Hunter XXIII and GenericFPS 12 then who are you to say they dont get it? They're playing a game for fun, and just because you (rightly or wrongly) want more uniqueness in your game does not mean that it isn't fun to them (as fun is a completly relative term

    • And we, the customer, support this by buying crap, time and time again.

      Woah. I just realized that I haven't bought a new game since, oh, 1989 or so. iirc, I think it was the Magic Candle, or something like that, for the apple ][. Well, I guess it can be said that I don't support any of this newfangled crap!

    • Re:Obviously, game companies don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:47AM (#9988399) Homepage
      It's definitely the game players that "don't get it". Although saying that your target audience "doesn't get it" because they want something you view as inferior is a tough argument to support.

      In any case, it's certainly true: People (and as a subset of people, gamers) have a marked affinity for rehashes, sequels, and clones. For the most part, they display aversion to anything new or innovative. We humans are strange that way, we find comfort in familiarity. I'm very much guilty of this myself. Rather than an innovative new game I'd much rather play a remake of one of my old favourites, whether that be X-COM, Master of Magic/Orion, Doom, Diablo, whatever, it doesn't matter.

      And, regarding your last question, literary devices rarely translate well to a game, just as movie devices rarely translate well to a game. It can be done, but it's a delicate process, and will require changes to be made the literary devices to make it work.
      • In any case, it's certainly true: People (and as a subset of people, gamers) have a marked affinity for rehashes, sequels, and clones. For the most part, they display aversion to anything new or innovative. We humans are strange that way, we find comfort in familiarity. I'm very much guilty of this myself. Rather than an innovative new game I'd much rather play a remake of one of my old favourites, whether that be X-COM, Master of Magic/Orion, Doom, Diablo, whatever, it doesn't matter.

        I know I am, God for

      • It's definitely the game players that "don't get it". Although saying that your target audience "doesn't get it" because they want something you view as inferior is a tough argument to support.

        I was in a gamestop the other day and was looking at some bargain games when a group of teens walked up next to me and started looking at them also. One spotted BMX XXX (the leader of the group, as he was explaining the games to his lesser friends). He described it as "strippers on motocross bikes" to which all

    • They sell what you want to buy. New ideas do appear from time to time. Usually they get ignored in favour of Deer Hunter or Doom 3.

      Very occasionally a new game appears that captures people's imaginations, but by and large - what people want is sports sims and FPS.

      You'er very vague, by the way - what _kind_ of game based on Kafka? What game mechanics are we talking about? What viewpoint?

  • Seig Heil, Grammar Nazis. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Wow, why has anyone else thought of this"

    I believe this can be attributed to a conglomerate assault on intelligence by game publishers. We don't need another mind-numbingly crappy FPS or one more turd of a platformer with assorted effeminate woodland-creature antiheroes and wise-cracking marsupial side-kicks. Show innovation, please. Or offer a free lobotomy with the game.

  • Compelling concept? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Everleet ( 785889 )
    uniqueness...Tomb Raider = female Indiana Jones...lack of obvious ancestry

    One of these things is not like the others.

  • Polish is good to... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MagicDude ( 727944 ) on Monday August 16, 2004 @11:51PM (#9988154)
    I think that there are also a lot of games out there which have good concepts but could become great games with more polishing. Example - Prince of Persia : The sands of time. It was a style of game that had seemingly been beaten to death, espically with the failure of Prince of Persia 3D, but the latest iteration was absolutely phenominal. Novel doesn't necessarily equal good, but because of all the crap that comes out that when something is different, that's considered good because it's not something that's disapointed us before.

  • me = devil's advocate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheAdventurer ( 779556 ) on Monday August 16, 2004 @11:57PM (#9988188)
    I sort of disagree with Scott Miller.

    If some gaming company came out with an X-Wing clone in which the gameplay mechanics were exactly the same as the original X-wing, with no gameplay enhancements or innovations, and yet the graphics and sound were out of this world, and there was a new and compelling plot, I would buy the shit out of it. ;)

    I don't think a game has to be innovative. Just really damn fun. I don't think Zelda: A Link To The Past was innovative. It was basically The Legend of Zelda with some graphical bells and whistles and a more cartoony/fun world. But damn if it wasn't fun.
    • Yeah, so would I. X-wing was freaken awesome. That was the first game I actually felt like I was doing something useful out in space. I can still remember the first mission. Standard patrol around a new star base. You are some newb pilot and are stuck patroling cargo containers and the like. This introduces you to identifying targets and inspecting, as well as balancing guns and engine speed.

      Eventually you find some rebel scum hiding on a container! You get to watch as 3 gunships are dispatched to take car

  • Concept gaming (Score:5, Informative)

    by oskillator ( 670034 ) on Monday August 16, 2004 @11:59PM (#9988196)
    From the article:
    If you think about the best selling games in recent years, practically all of them have a compelling, unique concept.

    Huh? All the truly original games that I've played recently have completely tanked, sales-wise. Ico, Rez, Noone Lives Forever, you name it.

    For comparison's sake, let's take a look at some data on successful games. Top sellers of 2003 [npdfunworld.com], according to NPD.

    1. Madden 2004
    2. Pokemon Ruby
    3. Pokemon Sapphire
    4. Need for Speed Underground
    5. Wind Waker
    6. Vice City
    7. Mario Kart: Double Dash
    8. Tony Hawk's Underground
    9. Enter The Matrix
    10. Medal of Honor

    Of these, I know that 7 are sequels -- some to strikingly original games, I must admit -- and 1 is a (bad) movie adaptation. Anyone want to weigh in on Medal of Honor and Need for Speed? As far as I know, they're respectively Just Another WWII shooter and Just Another Racing Title.

    The 2002 Top Sellers [npdfunworld.com]:

    1. Vice City
    2. Metroid Prime
    3. WWE: Shut Your Mouth
    4. Tony Hawk 4
    5. Yu-Gi-Oh! Eternal
    6. Madden 2003
    7. Splinter Cell
    8. Lord of the Rings
    9. Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance
    10. Metroid Fusion

    Six sequels, one movie adaptation, one original game (Splinter Cell) and again, two I'm unsure of, Yu-Gi-Oh and "Shut Your Mouth."

    I'm not seeing a compelling case here for practically every top-selling game having a compelling and unique concept; I'm seeing the opposite.

    ... Madden 2004, Christ.

    • Re:Concept gaming (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:59AM (#9988435) Journal
      Medal of Honor is, from a technological standpoint, nothing that new. It's just quite polished, has high production values, and tons and tons of scripting.

      Need For Speed Underground is another game in a long series (at least four titles, now).

      To be fair, you are skipping over a few points -- just because something is a sequel does not mean that it is not original. Metroid Prime, at least, while it is just another first person shooter, did some reasonably unusual things for the genre. It's no Rez, but it's got more than the typical degree of evolution in a game (that being said, I think that it was a lousy game, but still more unique than the average game).

      A lot of games that people play *years* after their release didn't necessarily sell well. This guy is giving a recipe for cult classics, and for the sort of thing that a game reviewer, weary of the "same game" over and over, would like. You're right that this is probably not the ideal thing to do for financial success. Among other things:

      * A game reviewer probably views a franchise tie-in (such as a movie) as a bad thing, as it limits content, plot, development time, and has had a bad history. Traditionally, franchise games have sold well.

      * A game reviewer puts more emphasis on new and unique gameplay. He's played all of the dozen FPSes released in the last twelve months. If I buy two games a year, however, I'm quite happy getting vanilla examples of a game, because all the new things are interesting.

      * A game reviewer gets more out of homage to other games than a light gamer.

      * A game reviewer is going to generally be more willing to learn rules (especially since he may already know the rules of a genre) than a light gamer. Things like tutorials, unless very clever and unusual, are unlikely to interest a game reviewer much, but may matter very much to someone who is not familiar with the latest-and-greatest in the genre.

      * A game reviewer is generally going to be more tolerant of high hardware demands than a light gamer. Most people out there do not have high-end machines. This is generally not an issue for a game reviewer.

      * A game reviewer is generally going to be more tolerant of patches than a light gamer. Most people out there do not want to screw around with seeing whether patches are coming out and running patches, if they even know what to do and how to do it.
    • From 2003:
      1-8 are all sequels. Need for speed has had quite a few games under its name, and not much variety I don't believe.
      9 is a horrible movie adaptation
      10 is another WW2 shooter, but one of the better ones, and one of the firs successful ones

      From 2002:
      1,3-4,6,9-10 are sequels (Metroid Fusion to the original Metroid game and Super Metroid, Shut Your Mouth is Just Another Wrestling Game)
      2 is a semi sequel, based on older games but with a whole new style of gameplay
      5 is possibly a sequel, or it could be
      • 10 is another WW2 shooter, but one of the better ones, and one of the firs successful ones

        Bzzt! The first successful WW2 shooter was published twelve years ago.

    • Re:Concept gaming (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dachannien ( 617929 )
      I wouldn't expect creativity from console games. So let's take a look at PC games, 2003: [avault.com]

      1. Sims Superstar from EA
      2. Sims Deluxe from EA
      3. Command & Conquer Generals from EA
      4. Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne from VU Games
      5. Sims Makin' Magic from EA
      6. Sims Unleashed from EA
      7. Sim City 4 from EA
      8. Call of Duty from Activision
      9. Age of Mythology from Microsoft
      10. Battlefield 1942 from Microsoft

      Unfortunately, the list is cluttered up by expansions to The Sims, maki
      • I wouldn't expect creativity from console games.

        I wouldn't expect creativity from big-name PC games, either. Actually I wouldn't expect creativity from any big-name game or publisher (with the possible exception of Nintendo, but even they are playing it save due to strong competition ATM).
    • From 2002: You lump Metroid Prime as a sequel. True, there have been many Metroid games, but Metroid Prime (MP) was unique compared to the rest of the Metroid series. It was a 3D First Person Adventure, opposed to the rest which were side scolling adventure games. It's not a First Person Shooter as there is no skill needed to aim and shoot. I would consider it to be an innovative game.

  • It's the inspirado (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:08AM (#9988234)
    Speaking as a content creator myself...

    Simple and cool is the toughest thing to do in movies, music and video games. Hell, make that the toughest thing to find in *all* software, laws or even women. That's why if you succeed in finding that core concept of simple and cool, the rest is just getting out the games' way and not messing it up.

    Everything is tied to everything else, so it's usually only with hindsight that you can see that, for example, GTA III is really very unlike any of the first person shooters, adventure games, or racers that it borrowed its' core concepts from.

    This kind of transcendance isn't anything you can plan or control, either. They key, as with anything supposedly creative, is inspiration. An truly inspired effort will either produce a new kind of game like GTA 3 or Wolfenstein 3D, or games like Halo or Warcraft 3, old concepts but still a blast to play.

    Ultimatley what shovelware [gamespot.com], movie licenses [gamespot.com] and sequels [gamespot.com] tend to lack is a distinct sense of inspiration.

    Occasionally though, an ambitious developer's reach [gamespot.com] exceeds their grasp. [gamespot.com] I've seen many underserving developers get alot of flak thrown their way, I wish that more gamers were aware of the big picture.

    Yes, we all love seeing the paradigm shift, but let's face it, that's really rare. I'll take a great old game [gamespot.com] anyday.

  • It's other way around (Score:3, Insightful)

    by S3D ( 745318 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:49AM (#9988411)
    The practice of successful innovative games show that it is other way around. Most of successful innovative games weren't designed with winning concept form start, but went through a lot of iterations during which the central concept changed a lot. IIRC first iteration of the Civilization design was a real-time game.
  • The article draws an apt parallel with the movies. Unfortunately, if movie design is like game design, coming up with a unique concept is a surefire way to have troubles getting funding. Remember the opening scene of "The Player", where Tim Robbins' character, a movie producer, gets pitched many ideas? They all start with statements like "It's like Die Hard meets Pretty Woman". Publishers like what they know works. Publishers hate new concepts. True, a new concept might bring lots of money, but chances are

  • Best concept for a game ever (Score:3, Funny)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @09:56AM (#9991259)
    was the M*A*S*H game for the 2600, you had to go around rescuing falling patients from helicopters at first. Then after you were done with that, you had to go into the "operating room" and operate on terrified patients(well, that was the look in his mono-color body anyway) and remove a little pink thing. If you were successful, you went outside again. Good times....good times....
  • Does originality really sell games? Look at some killer apps, games that were a reason to buy the requisite system. Super Metroid for the SNES, Zelda and Mario for the N64, Final Fantasy VII for the PSX, Final Fantasy X and Gran Turismo A-Spec for the PS2, and Halo for the XBox. Is any one of these games original? No! They were, however, huge steps forward in the evolution of their genres. I would argue that what gamers want isn't originality; we want the application of a familiar concept in the ideal way,
  • I loved this game and the simulated MMORPG feel to it, plus i didn't have to worry about network stuttering.

  • Has anyone attempted a female James Bond, yet?
    Yes
    The Operative in No one lives forever [noonelivesforever.com] fits the bill. An great game with a compelling story that for some reason is overlooked a lot. Its sort of a tribute/spoof of the old 60 spy movies/TV shows with a female protaganist. The in-jokes are worth the price of the game alone. (especially the used PS2 games)
    • My god I loved that game, and the spectacular sequel. Fighting ninjas in a trailer park while a tornado carries your trailer into the sky? Exploding robot kitten anti-personnel mines? Schoolgirl-aged assasins talking about going shopping before they try to chop your head off? A getaway sequence on a tricycle shooting evil mimes? Man-cubes as furniture? It goes on and on. I have never laughed so hard in my life. I cannot recommend NOLF and NOLF 2 enough.

  • There are two ways to go... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by C0rinthian ( 770164 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:18PM (#9993518)
    If you really want to make a lasting impression, you have two paths to choose.

    1) Innovate, and develop a new genre of game. (Example: GTA series)

    2) Bring an existing genre to a level of maturity previously unattained. (Example: Half-Life)

    That being said, there is nothing wrong with doing "another FPS" as long as it brings something worthwile to the table. Half-Life is an excellent example of this. It pushed the FPS genre to a higher level of maturity without fundamentally changing the genre.

  • Miller is brand focused (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And he has a right to be. Apogee was built by carefully branding solid action games with memorable characters, and then marketing them through shareware. By being non-generic Apogee's titles always stood out in the marketplace.

    I think his grasp of gameplay, on the other hand, can be kind of shaky...
  • As the title says, I bought my psx just to play Silent Hill, and have not played any other games for a year or so. Never played a Final Fantasy, not the kind of games I like.
  • There've been numerous post about declining PC game sales and companies going out of business. It seems clear that in many cases game companies aren't giving us stuff that we want to buy. The reasons that people are gravitating towards sequals is in part because many of the games out there are just ripoffs of a popular game. In the field of less well known games we have a large number of crappy copy-cat games and a few fun original games. After getting riped off for a few $100s trying to find a decent gam

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close