next »

[LemonBulb]

i mean, i guess i don't see how you can get the color of 'visual pleasure' by mixing the colors of 'world simulation, game play, and story' -- i don't think it's a mix of those, but a distinct thing

"A picture is worth a thousand words" or in terms of game design visuals aren't really gameplay (If you base something soley on the images than it's going to suck). How ever if you think of the visual style/elements helping to capture the essence of the story so in an abstract sense visuals would fall under the 'Story' primary colour.

Story doesn't necciserly have to mean the plot of the game but could be extended to the world of the game and art styles generally reflect the mood/atmosphere and other aesthetics that help to bring out that world.

That's just my two cents how ever.

[Paul Eres]

sure, i think that of those supposed "primary things" that games have, story is probably the closest to visuals, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't a very different thing to enjoy a game's visuals and to enjoy its characters, or its dialogue

and again, i'm not saying that you can't somehow interpret or mentally organize every aspect of a game so that it fits under those specific four categories, because obviously you can (though some are more of a stretch than others), i just mean that he was claiming that he's "solved it!" and identified the four primary colors of games, said it was backed up by research (which he didn't provide), etc., but anyone could just as easily come up with some other categorization scheme which seems to organize everything about games into a few categories

[JoeHonkie]

I constantly see the argument that visuals aren't important to game, and I strongly disagree.  They are as important to the package as story, sometimes more, sometimes less depending on the game.  They are certainly one of the fundamental categories of game design.

[LemonBulb]

sure, i think that of those ... -snipped as my post is pretty long-

Well like RobF said "They pretty much were written for children or at least, kids" which is how I feel about them as I've always had the impression Game Maker is more for teaching how to make a game rather than as a game development system like it's used for more often these days. While it's perfectly fine to use it for actually making a game I think in keeping with the spirit of game maker that teaching some simple idea's of game design through simplified/dumbed down explanations is what's wanted rather than some full blown in depth article.

I do agree though that Mark Overmars does have a certain tone of arrogance to himself but I guess if you do what he does for a living/having the experiences he's had that you'd feel some what entitled to thinking of your self as having a better understanding than some one else who hasn't. Still the dude does need to open himself up more releasize there's always room for learning even if you think you've learnt it.

I constantly see the argument ... -snipped as my post is pretty long-

This should probably be in another post. But I don't see how visuals == game design? They generally aren't the focus of the gameplay, Adding specular highlights or bump mapping or what ever nifty visual effect doesn't change the core gameplay in any way. Like I said before visuals can be used for re-iterating the story/feeling of a game but if a fundemental aspect of your game is some fancy/stylish graphics than why not just paint a picture instead? As a picture generally relies on visual information to portray it's message or lack of (or just for general pleasurable viewing) but a game isn't a still image it's interactive.

Immersion could possibly be one of the fundemental categories which visuals/art would definitely fall into but on its' own visuals don't make a game (Excluding AAA junk) but you could than simplfy immersion down to story actually come to think it story should proberly be simplified down into immersion.

Also my aplogies for any spelling mistakes I've just realised having formated my computer yesterday that I'm lacking firefox's spell checker I'll go see to fixing that.

[JoeHonkie]

If your game is so focused on story why don't you write a book instead?  Because a game is made up of several elements, even if it focuses on one of them.  Interactivity can be mixed with a variety of sources and inspirations.

Really, just because visuals can't exist in a vacuum for a game doesn't make them any less important than other aspects of a game.  People like to pretend that games will somehow have some magical perfect gameplay that everyone will love even though the game looks terrible, but this is rarely the case.  This has nothing to do with bump-mapping or technical chicanery alone: you need to make a solid attempt to make your game look presentable within the confines of your game, but more importantly a game CAN be primarily based on visuals and gameplay, and not even have a "story" at all (see many shmups and puzzle games).

EDIT: Yeah this is getting away from the technical side of things.  Feel free to start another thread for it.  I'm game for such a discussion.

[Μarkham]

There is the fact that a massive section of GM users actually are children/kids/teenagers who have never made games, let alone learn any kind of programming, wanting to make games.  I'm pretty sure the tutorials are written with them in mind.

[Paul Eres]

i think there's a really old thread i started back in '07 about how graphics are important, especially for indie games -- i mean, think of all the most popular indie games you know of, and the thing that sticks out for 90% of them is great or at least very competent graphics, although there are some exceptions like dwarf fortress -- so if we can find that old thread we can just continue that rather than starting a new one

and sure, it was written for kids, but overmars flatly denied that anything besides those four things is important to a game, which is not a good lesson to impart on kids

[JoeHonkie]

Yeah, I get (and love) the "teaching kids to program in a fun way" thing, but his responses in that article are frankly somewhat nutty.

Still, more power to anyone teaching kids how the computer actually does what it does, rather than just that you click on things on facebook and magic happens.

[LemonBulb]

Still, more power to anyone teaching kids how the computer actually does what it does, rather than just that you click on things on facebook and magic happens.

Wait are you trying to tell me that it isn't magic inside my magic box that causes all this internet magic?

A bit on topic and I can't remember seeing this mentioned but does anyone who's already using GM7 or below plan to make the switch? If so what would be your main reason for or for those who don't want to, why not?

Personally I probably won't be upgrading mainly because I'm focusing on Java stuff more these days and very sehr slightly because the beta crashed when I tried to run a room with an object and i'm too lazy to go see if it's a repeating occruance.

[Paul Eres]

i'd like to perform some performance tests before deciding; hopefully they give us an option to remove the pop-up in the code editor, because it's quite distracting to code when something constantly pops up telling you what the function prototype is whether you know it or not

it'll also be a long and tedious process to convert my game graphics from 'use top corner as the transparent color' format to 'use alpha channels' format. i mean, we're talking thousands of image files, each of which has to manually be converted through a laborous process in gimp. that's not easy

[RobF]

sure, i think that of those supposed "primary things" that games have, story is probably the closest to visuals, but that doesn't mean that it still isn't a very different thing to enjoy a game's visuals and to enjoy its characters, or its dialogue

and again, i'm not saying that you can't somehow interpret or mentally organize every aspect of a game so that it fits under those specific four categories, because obviously you can (though some are more of a stretch than others), i just mean that he was claiming that he's "solved it!" and identified the four primary colors of games, said it was backed up by research (which he didn't provide), etc., but anyone could just as easily come up with some other categorization scheme which seems to organize everything about games into a few categories

I'm not entirely sure it is a stretch unless you really want it to be, man. You're pretty much confusing bare bones fundamentals with higher concept stuff and the two don't mix without causing major brain asplode.

The references I made to your examples weren't based on wot I/you/peoplefolk/moocows like games for, but more on stripping out the layers of bullshit that get added on during the game design process. Whichever way you look at things, you -can- boil every single game down to fit into one of those categories and they're perfectly sensible and usable categories at that, especially for beginners. Regardless, it's wise not to forget the simple things no matter how experienced one is.

You might prefer to play Another World or Ico for the visuals, the atmosphere, or whatever - but at the heart of their design -as games- they're story based, with an element of game and a certain simulation of an imaginary virtual world. The fact that they look purdy is neither here nor there. That's stuff on stuff on stuff that's part of the process.

That's not to understate the importance of visuals, of course. I likes me some pretties.

and sure, it was written for kids, but overmars flatly denied that anything besides those four things is important to a game, which is not a good lesson to impart on kids

But he didn't do that! He said that the fundamentals were a solved issue. They are. Unless you've got some points you can add to the shape that make some coherent sense as absolute bare bones basic running around in the nuddy first day on Earth stuff, in which case I'm sure lots of teachers and designers would seriously love to hear about it.

Random aside. The most valuable game design advice I've ever been given? In a rando chat with Jeff Minter. "Power downs are cunt". He's right y'know. Don't do it, kids!

Still, more power to anyone teaching kids how the computer actually does what it does, rather than just that you click on things on facebook and magic happens.

Wait are you trying to tell me that it isn't magic inside my magic box that causes all this internet magic?

A bit on topic and I can't remember seeing this mentioned but does anyone who's already using GM7 or below plan to make the switch? If so what would be your main reason for or for those who don't want to, why not?

Personally I probably won't be upgrading mainly because I'm focusing on Java stuff more these days and very sehr slightly because the beta crashed when I tried to run a room with an object and i'm too lazy to go see if it's a repeating occruance.

Yup! I will be. The less I have to faff with code, the happier bunny I am.

Proper .png support is worth the upgrade for me on its tod and I'm already squirreling resources like nobodies business in anticipation. The world is doomed, I tells thee. Doomed!

Also, Joe! Whut? No magic? You tell me this now

[Paul Eres]

"Unless you've got some points you can add to the shape that make some coherent sense as absolute bare bones basic running around in the nuddy first day on Earth stuff, in which case I'm sure lots of teachers and designers would seriously love to hear about it."

it's more that there are several alternative theories on this, his isn't exactly the most widely accepted

but sure, here are a few more internally consistent categorization schemes about why people play games

alternative (1): people play games for these reasons: habit, curiosity, and escapism -- all reasons people play games can be boiled down to one or more of those base motives, and games as well usually focus on one of these three (MMO's for habit, weird/experimental games for curiosity, long fantasy world games for escapism)

alternative (2): people play games to fulfill various instincts or wishes that they wish they could do in real life but can't, so instead they can do virtually: everyone playing games does it because they desire to do those things in real life, but can't as easily do them in real life -- all reasons people play games can be reduced to this (and games can be organized by which instinct or wish they virtually satisfy)

alternative (3): people play games because games themselves evolved as mind-parasites, they evolve by means of using people as hosts, and like toxoplasmosis the influence of games on the mind causes people to behave differently, including wanting to make and play more games, so games are in a symbiotic relationship with people, much like the worms in our intestines used to be

etc.

[RobF]

It's not about -why- people play games, it's a starting point for actually creating a game. You're going waaaay to high concept on this for what it's meant to achieve.

[Paul Eres]

hmm, possible. but i got the feeling (perhaps erroneous) that it was presented as 'these four reasons are why people play games', i wouldn't have found it objectionable if it were 'these are some things developers try to achieve in their games, this may be useful to you as a starting point in creating games'; it was more the authoritarian / orthodoxy tone that i disliked than the actual content

[Lord Ash]

personally, I am not happy with where GM is going, and I haven't since sandy duncan/yoyogames entered the picture.

the tone from mark is most likely due to dealing with teenagers and the accompanying attitude. I think he should've finalized GM a long time ago and gone back to teaching. I would not buy a product from someone who spoke to me, the way he is responding to people.

I am moving on to unity, it is 10 times the price, but I think it has 10 times the potential. i am leaving GM to hobbyist children and students, and continuing my work in a professional environment.

I do hope that many young people and those new to game design learn a lot from GM, I did.