next »

[Melly]

So, what do you guys think the phylosophy behind the rules should be? Extreme innovation? Emotive/artistic expression?

[increpare]

So, what do you guys think the phylosophy behind the rules should be? Extreme innovation? Emotive/artistic expression?

Mechanics-oriented asceticism.

1- The gameplay mechanic must be original.

2- You shall renounce anything (technological, graphical, input, whatever) that is not necessary to implement the gameplay mechanic.  Including: All necessary instructions for gameplay should be put in a separate instruction manual: the game should at no point try to explain itself.

3 - All elements in your game must be interactive.

[Matthew Longworth]

Including: All necessary instructions for gameplay should be put in a separate instruction manual: the game should at no point try to explain itself.

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite - there should be no manual.  The game is the only place for explaining the game.

I see a manual as similar to a non-standard input - something you force your player to have in order to fully enjoy the game.  How many players would ignore the manual completely, only reading it after they get stuck and frustrated?

I suppose this could all be neatly summed up in "The game should be completely self-contained", which would also cover hardware gimmicks.

[William Broom]

I think 'extreme innovation' shuffles games into fairly predictable styles, either a wacky Katamari sort of game or an ephemeral flOw sort of game. A better one to shoot for would be 'extracting an emotional reaction from the player' or something along those lines.
I think it's a good one because games as an artistic medium kind of lose out on an intellectual level compared to non-interactive media. But games have the potential to draw out stronger emotional reactions. Mostly they just go for violent frustration followed by 'FUCK YEAH!!' accomplishment. But there are many other options, for example SotC evokes loneliness, ICO evokes protectiveness, and... there are also games not made by Team ICO but I can't think of them right now.

You could focus on emotional impact through gameplay rather than story. MGS3, for example, has a very emotional ending but only due to good cutscene direction. It would have been just as sad were it a movie. Whereas ICO's emotions are tied to its gameplay, and the story is fairly superfluous. So there should be some kind of commandment against noninteractive scenes, but it doesn't have to be as harsh as 2001's commandment.

[mewse]

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite - there should be no manual.  The game is the only place for explaining the game.

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite of both previous opposites - there should be no explanation at all, either within or without the game. 

Why must one explain the game?  The game exists.  The player exists.  All else are happy discoveries; signposts along the journey to Enlightenment.

[William Broom]

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite - there should be no manual.  The game is the only place for explaining the game.

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite of both previous opposites - there should be no explanation at all, either within or without the game. 

Why must one explain the game?  The game exists.  The player exists.  All else are happy discoveries; signposts along the journey to Enlightenment.

I think that would be a good commandment, but phrase it like this: "The game shall not explain itself. However, the game may explain the input from the player." So basically control explanations are OK, but anything beyond that is not. I wouldn't recommend that for all games, but we should remember that this Dogma isn't intended for every game to work by.

A good example of too much explanation is on the front page with Dirk Valentine. Great game, but seriously, Monty, shut the fuck up.

[Daniel Benmergui]

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite - there should be no manual.  The game is the only place for explaining the game.

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite of both previous opposites - there should be no explanation at all, either within or without the game. 

Why must one explain the game?  The game exists.  The player exists.  All else are happy discoveries; signposts along the journey to Enlightenment.

That's a great statement... games learned through experimentation are often the most memorable.

This might make a good rule... the fact that we *need* tutorials in the first place is for 2 reasons:
1) We have to cope with the laziness of the player, which makes sense in a commercial game, which pretty much resembles TV on the "continuous stimulus" principle.
2) Games are often pretty complex, which requires quite a bit of understanding.

Restricting the instructions to *before* the game, and not ingame would leave out the option of entangling yourself in complicated controls to try to rescue the gameplay.

Might really make a good rule...

[increpare]

This might make a good rule... the fact that we *need* tutorials in the first place is for 2 reasons:
1) We have to cope with the laziness of the player, which makes sense in a commercial game, which pretty much resembles TV on the "continuous stimulus" principle.

Why does that me that we need them?  Why should a game-maker make any allowance for the player at all?  Do you think it would be wrong for someone to program a game which didn't offer any rewards to the player for the first hour or two*?  I don't think it's necessarily constructive to take this approach.

(also, because if somebody was to pepper in extra rewards before then, they most likely would be rather unoriginal)

How about this:

The game should not reward the player for anything which is not original to that game.

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite of both previous opposites - there should be no explanation at all, either within or without the game. 

I can see where you're coming from with that, and I do like the sound of it 


Now, going OOC:  Chutup, I agree with you that narrative elements are really important in games, especially given that rather low level of narrative sophistication in most games.

[Daniel Benmergui]

Why does that me that we need them?  Why should a game-maker make any allowance for the player at all?  Do you think it would be wrong for someone to program a game which didn't offer any rewards to the player for the first hour or two*?  I don't think it's necessarily constructive to take this approach.

Well... that's exactly what I'm saying: we are used to need tutorials because of 1) and 2). If you remove 1) and 2), tutorials begin to look suspect.

[FARTRON]

Dogme '95 was in many ways an attempt to codify and return to the principles of the French New Wave and Italian Neorealism. Really a bit of a crazypants attempt to make someone's retro-crush new again; those movements came out of a time and place that simply doesn't exist anymore. Regardless, there are valuable lessons to be taken from both movements, especially as reactions to the overly commercial and trite productions of hollywood.

Indie games already seem to be the incubator of the gaming new wave such as it may be, and to codify it so early would be silly. On the other hand, knowing what it is that makes the best of indie games superior to their triple-A brethren would be worthwhile.

What realms of social, political and emotional life are left ignored by mainstream titles? What impact would we want our games to have on those realms in the real world? What methods of productive style used by mainstream games seem trite, pretentious or superfluous? What alternatives exist among indie games that are more accessible, easier to produce and more reflective of our own personal and creative experience?

[increpare]

Why does that me that we need them?  Why should a game-maker make any allowance for the player at all?  Do you think it would be wrong for someone to program a game which didn't offer any rewards to the player for the first hour or two*?  I don't think it's necessarily constructive to take this approach.

Well... that's exactly what I'm saying: we are used to need tutorials because of 1) and 2). If you remove 1) and 2), tutorials begin to look suspect.

Ah, okay.  One can reject 1 for a lot of reasons.  2 is a little different, though, and needs more consideration.

[ColossusEntertainment]

I think the solution to 2 is not the tutorial, but rather making sure the game gives good, solid feedback, so the player can understand what's going on...

[increpare]

I think the solution to 2 is not the tutorial, but rather making sure the game gives good, solid feedback, so the player can understand what's going on...

[agj]

May I revive this thread? Found it by chance. I wasn't here when it took place, and I'd like to add a few ideas. I'd also love it if it were to really become a manifesto of some sort.

there should be no manual.  The game is the only place for explaining the game.

I'd be tempted to argue the exact opposite of both previous opposites - there should be no explanation at all, either within or without the game. 

games learned through experimentation are often the most memorable.

Considering all this, I think that it'd be great for a rule to simply be 'There should be no explanation, anywhere, of how to play the game.' This forces the mechanics to be as intuitive as possible, and the level design to actually help the player play the game.

Other ideas:

- Abandon any attempt at aesthetic realism. Especially when it's meant to create a 'dark, gritty atmosphere'.

- No scenes in your game can take control away from the player's avatar, unless it's a menu or inter-screen of some sort that is not part of the experience itself.

- The game must be made by a team consisting of fewer than 10? people. Any more than that means that you're just wasting resources embellishing.

I also really liked the points in Dogma 2001 about discarding trite fantasy stereotypes and overused genres, so I'd keep that.

[Shambrook]

Sorry but I really disagree with this

2- You shall renounce anything (technological, graphical, input, whatever) that is not necessary to implement the gameplay mechanic. 

Why can't we have pretty games? If we follow this and not allow any graphical objects that are not required for the gameplay then we may as well make every game featuring nothing but a square as the main charecter on a 2 tone background.

Also a lot of the stuff you guys are talking about seem to be foccusing on having games that acheive some desired intelectual asthetic. Not you know... fun?

Maybe I'm old school but I think the most important thing in a game should be if it's fun to play. Everything else should be secondary. Who cares if platformers have been done a lot, does that mean we should never play 2D platformers then?

[Zaphos]

Sorry but I really disagree with this

2- You shall renounce anything (technological, graphical, input, whatever) that is not necessary to implement the gameplay mechanic. 

Why can't we have pretty games?

I think it wasn't suggested as a rule for games in general, just as a rule that fit the dogma style and a particular philosophy ("Mechanics-oriented asceticism") that might be interesting to theme dogma rules around.  I don't think increpare would suggest people follow those rules all the time, just that they might be interesting to follow some of the time.

[Shambrook]

I get that and by all means, develop the mechanics first and develop the graphics around them. But by reducing them to the simpilest reperesntation needed for the gameplay mechanics you are going to have every game look like Pong.

It's not simplicity for the sake of game design, it's basicly an excuse to be lazy with the graphics.
I thought the whole point of these was to get people being creative and do things out of the ordinary, a rule mandating laziness won't help in that regard.

[Inane]

I haven't read much of this thread so pardon if I missed something pivotal .

I'm with Benza here. I think the graphical limitations should be based around simple technological restrictions. Like, if it's playable on what was a good computer 7 or so years ago, that's dandy!

[Zaphos]

I get that and by all means, develop the mechanics first and develop the graphics around them. But by reducing them to the simpilest reperesntation needed for the gameplay mechanics you are going to have every game look like Pong.

It's not simplicity for the sake of game design, it's basicly an excuse to be lazy with the graphics.
I thought the whole point of these was to get people being creative and do things out of the ordinary, a rule mandating laziness won't help in that regard.

I think increpare's portile is a good example of following that rule, and I liked how it looked.  If you can find a visual representation which is both minimal and compelling, I don't think it's laziness to strive for that.  And if it does save time to do it, you could use the extra time to strengthen other aspects of the game.

[Shambrook]

Are we talking about his avatar?

Cause sorry but I don't find a square verry compelling. It also isn't as minimalist as it could be to suit it's purpose.
That rule would effectivley turn say Mario into this
http://img354.imageshack.us/my.php?image=supermariobrosdxbigcopyni3.jpg
Now ok, Mario being a midget plumber fighting turtles didn't have any immediate effect on the gameplay mechanics, but would anyone care? If growing up you'd had what was on the left would it have left the same impact?

Games as art is all well and good but if by making games art we stop making them fun then we've missed the whole point.