next »

[Mizumon]

On some level, there can only be so much expansion into 'life' as we know it into games, anyway.  It's true that, if we begin taking ideas from other games rather than life itself (where ideas begin from, as you stated), we begin to generalize a lot of the source material into more compact, less flexible ideas.  It's true that this limits our ability to create more expansive and idealistic games in the modern market. 

However, again, it goes back to the whole idea of how games in the consumer's market is to make money, and so game companies take from each other to maximize profit due to familiarity with product placing.  Even from an indie standpoint, many of us who are starting out copy from other games because, when you think about it, that's how a lot of us begin as game designers and developers: we play games, and those games go on to inspire us to make more of such similar games.  It's not that we've limited ourselves to start with, but rather, we begin from a common ground from a common interest, which takes time to diversify.

To be honest, I don't find games that we consider more 'cohesive' or 'innovative' which draw from life to be any more engaging, challenging, or even more evoking than the games I used to play.  flOw and Everyday Shooter are games that I love, but, like Johnathan said, "when you boil it down, Everyday Shooter is just your run-of-the-mill shoot-'em-up."  Drawing from life, although expanding the playing field, will only take us so far in terms of game play mechanics - and even with that expansion, how we perceive those mechanics may be ultimately limited as well. 

[Paul Eres]

I see what you mean, but it's possible those two games drew a lot from life, we don't really know. Maybe Everyday Shooter's author plays the guitar, and maybe he got the idea for making the sound effects as harmonious guitar chords from that. And flOw could possibly be inspired by evolution and all the different organisms that exist in water (although it could also be inspired by Spore's earliest stage where you play as a growing organism). It's hard to know in individual cases like this unless you ask them.

But there are plenty of great games that don't seem like they add anything new but are still nice re-mixes of previous games, yes.

[Michaël Samyn]

It's not because Everyday shooter is just a shoot-em-up, and both Flow and Spore are variations on Feeding Frenzy, that they don't draw from life. There's more in a game than its interaction mechanic and rules. Where would Everyday shooter be without the music? Or Flow with a hardcore punitive score system? Or Spore without the ability to create your own little character?

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether the input comes from life, does it? The important thing is that the output goes towards life. That's the goal, no? That games talk about life? Drawing from life is a means to that end.

[Paul Eres]

I agree with that. I've never heard of Feeding Frenzy though, I'll have to look that up.

[Michaël Samyn]

I agree with that. I've never heard of Feeding Frenzy though, I'll have to look that up.

Are you kidding? It's my favourite game!  :D

Will Wright completely ripped them off! And so did Flow. 

And the funny thing is, the way casual gammes work, Feeding Frenzy is probably a copy of another master piece to begin with.

[Al King]

(What was once known as) Animal Leader comes to mind

[Alec]

I was down in the states for a bit ... and I saw an arcade machine version of Feeding Frenzy of all things.

The horror.

[Michaël Samyn]

(What was once known as) Animal Leader comes to mind

Cubivore looks great!  :D
I had never heard of it. One for our collection!

[Eden]

Have you played this, Michael?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doshin_the_Giant
It draws comparisons to your favourite-game-evar, Black and White.

[Zaphos]

And the funny thing is, the way casual gammes work, Feeding Frenzy is probably a copy of another master piece to begin with.

It looks like a more complex version of an old game I used to play on the Mac as a kid, which had you eat fish smaller than you, and you'd become a bigger fish as you ate (or a smaller fish as you didn't eat enough) ... I had the shareware version, so in the end I think it sent out a shark or a fishing net so you had to die, and then said "don't get caught in the net!" and asked you to buy the full thing.  But I can't remember the name of it ...

[Paul Eres]

There's also EVO for the SNES, where you ate other animals and gradually evolved new parts (although it only had a limited selection and they fell somewhat into the RPG idea of each part being a bit stronger or faster than the part before). It was a great game though, one of my favorites on the SNES.

[Alec]

A good reminder, I have yet to try that... the screenshots looked awesome.

[Inane]

The linearity of the parts in EVO always kind of bugged me.
For every form (Fish, amphibian, dinosaur, marmot, etc), there was always a maximum of 2 (out of categories for upgrades which did not go in an almost linear order of suck to awesome, and that kinda ruined the customization for me, since the only fun I had with the evolution system was trying out all the head fins, which would immensely change your stats (I ended up using the one that lets you jump about 12 feet into the air, I think).

[Keops]

Hmmm...

After reviewing this thread and thinking a bit more on the subject on whether games should "emulate" or borrow from life or from other games, I think I got a good answer: Games should borrow from both, taking what they need from any source. Inspiration or ideas can get to you from any source, at any moment. I have an analogy to try to explain my point better: Why have science and technology evolved over time? Due to the invention of writing? I suppose that the fact we can keep records of things we discover is what has gotten us as a civilization to where we stand now. Many of our inventions or ideas were inspired by nature (like aircrafts or any sort of flying machine, after studying and looking at birds and other flying creatures for a long time). Why do we need to re-invent the wheel? Just borrow it...

For example, what if I'm working on a game, lets say, an RPG. Lots of RPGs have been created so far, right? Let's say I want to make combat there as life-like as possible, so that means, no turn-based stuff, let's go real time. It's been done already, so why not borrow from games who've done it before and done it good? Maybe this whole "Games from Games or Games from Life" is about concept or underlying theme more than a simple gameplay mechanic, so excuse me in the case I strayed from topic.

Anyways, good thread, good food for thought! Thanks for sharing. (I hope that made sense)

[Alec]

I think Life should borrow more from Games TBH.