next »

[deadeye]

Frankly, I find most of the rules in the 2001 Dogma to be total crap.  They're completely arbitrary.  They serve no purpose other than to stroke the egos of their adherents.

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.

This.  This is what really matters.  Not whether your game needs a dongle or has flaming zombies or elf-wizards or fancy graphics and explosions.  There's not a thing in the world that says a game with any of these elements can't be new, or innovative, or fun, or that any of these things are somehow anathema to gaming.  If you limit yourself to certain rules, then you limit yourself.

I dunno, most of my favorite games are exactly the opposite of what those rules state, and if everyone here is going to be completely honest, I'm sure they'll say the same thing.  And if all of your favorite games do adhere to those rules, congratulations... you're the most pretentious artsy schmuck in gaming and PIGScene should do a writeup on you.

[Gnarf]

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

Eh. Nonsense. The white squares don't suit that purpose. You can't tell breakable blocks from other ones. Being able to easily distinguish between Mario and a turtle, tell which way the turtle is facing, that stuff matters, you know, to the gameplay.

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.

In general, things in games can't be expressed with large white squares. The graphics do, in general, give a lot more feedback, crucial to the gameplay, that can't be given with white squares. You need be able to tell where someone's head is in order to headshot him. The animations in fighting games are pretty essential, and frames need to be very easy to distinguish from each other for the players to be able to make important split-second decisions. The graphics tend to be a big fucking deal, gameplay wise. If you can replace everything with white squares it doesn't just mean that doing so will make your game look like pong, it probably mean that it is pong to begin with.

That said, I agree with this bit:

Why can't we have pretty games?

[Shambrook]

Eh. Nonsense. The white squares don't suit that purpose. You can't tell breakable blocks from other ones. Being able to easily distinguish between Mario and a turtle, tell which way the turtle is facing, that stuff matters, you know, to the gameplay.

The questionmark block has a line in it, the ones that don't are breakable. And you can't tell what direction a lot of the enemies are facing in mario anyway. The goombas have the exact same sprite for walking in either direction for example. So I don't think it's really going to be that important.

It was an exageration sure, but for most games simple rectangles will be the simpilest graphics acheivable to use the gameplay mechanisims.

Fighting games you have me on though, I can't think of how they'd work with much simpiler graphics. But following the design asthetic that we can only use what is purely functional is going to lead to lots of games that look like absolute arse.

I'd prefer realisim brown to that to be honest.

[Gnarf]

I absolutely agree that it's pointless to aim for some bare minimum just for the sake of it. (For the sake of working within some restrictions, because working within restrictions often produce interesting results, I think it can be all right and make sense, but in general it's nonsense.)

Still, the turtle thing matters. I'm not saying that it's "that important", however important that might be, I'm just saying it matters. If you have the turtle sprite, one frame gives information about which way it is moving, if you have a white square you need more frames to give information. For that matter, the sprite looking like a turtle gives the player something to relate it to, some general idea of what to expect (admittedly Mario features mostly things that do bizarre, unexpected shit, but you know (and you may very well really relate things to other "game things" rather than real life ones anyway, often as not)).

Point is, when you're making graphics for a game, you're also making the game. How easily things can be distinguished from each other, how easy it is to recognize each something, in games those things matter. Graphics and gameplay aren't fully separate, not as a general thing.

[Zaphos]

Are we talking about his avatar?

Cause sorry but I don't find a square verry compelling.

What?  No. http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=2161.0

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?

I certainly didn't say every game should be 'converted' to a minimalist style, or attempted that way -- just that it might be possible to do it well for some games.  I think that obviously a lot of games have used graphical flourish, and story, and tutorials, etc, in a positive way.

I also think that if you started out designing a platformer in minimal style, ultimately that different philosophy would lead you to a rather different game, which makes the conversion of an existing game's graphics not seem very meaningful.

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.

This has nothing to do with anything?

Fighting games you have me on though, I can't think of how they'd work with much simpiler graphics. But following the design asthetic that we can only use what is purely functional is going to lead to lots of games that look like absolute arse.

But the rule you're talking about was not to be applied to all games -- the point is not that lots of games would not work well with it (which is true), but that it might be interesting to see what *does* work well with it.

[increpare]

Sorry but I really disagree with this

That's cool.  I don't take it too seriously myself as a general idea as to what all games should aspire to.  But sometimes it feels like it fits with an idea I'm having: it's a useful paradigm for me sometimes.

There are a lot of people who feel that graphics in computer games could be so much more than they currently are.  And I completely agree with them.  I think it's a good thing to look for graphical excellence in a game.

As opposed to this, at the moment I'm working on a project that really doesn't seem to work with this approach, and I do feel that it's going to need graphics and some sort of narrative to work properly.

I think the most important thing in a game should be if it's fun to play.

I think that's a personal matter I'm happy to leave up to individual developers and players.

The graphics tend to be a big fucking deal, gameplay wise. If you can replace everything with white squares it doesn't just mean that doing so will make your game look like pong, it probably mean that it is pong to begin with.

Try telling that to the interactive fiction people.

Also, 'fun-ness' isn't a deal-breaker for me at all.  I'll take what I can from what games I play.

Do I think mario looses something when the sprites are replaced with text-boxes?  Yes, sure.

[Gnarf]

Yeah. I exaggerate. In a lot of games, you actually can separate gameplay from graphics pretty easily, and there's nothing wrong with an @ (never managed to get into interactive fiction though). My point was that in a lot of other games, that's not the case. New neat things you can do graphically really do allow for new neat gameplay mechanics to be explored. It's awesome.

And I'm not really sure what people mean by "games should be fun". Games should be allowed to be frustrating and annoying, amongst other things. I've no idea if those people are using some broad meaning of fun where annoyance and frustration is dandy. Like I don't agree that "chess should be about having a laugh, really, just moving some pieces and seeing what happens, just for fun," but then that's hopefully not be what those people mean.

[Shambrook]

Games as fun means games are primaraily a form of entertainment. If you make the most introspective deep and artistic game in the world, but it's not any fun then I'm not gunna give two shits about it.

If you make a game that isn't any fun to play, why would anyone play it? Some people dig insane and frustrating stuff like Ikugara, so at the end they're having fun so that's cool. But if you focus so hard on making the game an artistic satement instead of making it fun then whats the point?

[increpare]

If you make a game that isn't any fun to play, why would anyone play it?

Because some people are able to appreciate and value experiences outside the realm of 'entertainment', perhaps?  Or can you really not understand this?

But if you focus so hard on making the game an artistic satement instead of making it fun then whats the point?

Am I to infer from this that you do not see 'the point' of any artistic statements qua artistic statements?

[Shambrook]

If they're appreciating the experience created the they're enjoying it. That's fine. If they're enjoying it then cool.

That should be the aim of games.

[increpare]

If they're appreciating the experience created the they're enjoying it. That's fine. If they're enjoying it then cool.

I can't help but think you're shifting goalposts here.  If appreciation is okay, and if obviously all these people gushing positive sentiment about art games is to be taken as a sign of appreciation (which you equate with 'enjoyment'; I don't share your definition ), then what sort of problem do you have with it?

Here is the statement I am comparing the one above to:

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.

Do I correctly infer that you have changed your point of view, or at least your interpretation of what I was initially saying?

[Lucaz]

Things these dogmas, are more on the experimental side, than on entertainment, or even on the practical. A dogma for games, would be done, not to do better games, but to get some insight on games as art and a way of expression. Then the thiings learned by developing, or playing, such a game, could be applied on other projects.

Also when I read that rule on graphics, I don't understand it at using ASCII or white blocks. I understand it as not using anything too elaborated, and to never use anything like 3d acceleration, plasma effects, etc.

[agj]

If you guys are OK with things as they are already, then evidently this thread is not for you. Personally, I don't think that every game needs to have 'fun' as its main goal; I think that games as entertainment has run its course, and its time for alternatives. I also believe that innovation is a desirable quality in any medium or art form.

The whole point of this little manifesto is to subvert the current paradigm, to force developers to think outside the box, instead of staying in their comfy little bed of sameness. Games are evolving linearly, and it's time for some divergence.

Increpare already said most of this, but I typed it before I read all of the replies. :/

[Shambrook]

See I just don't see the point of games as art.
Experimentation is fine, inovation is fine, I don't have anything against any of that. But why can't we use inovation and experimentation to make something that people will enjoy?

[Lucaz]

Why should we use innovation and experementation ONLY to make things that people will enjoy?
The point isn't to stop having entertaining games, it's do something besides entertaining games. It's to explore other directions in game development.

[Shambrook]

Why would you try and make a game that people wouldn't enjoy?

Like I said, I might be a bit oldschool, but I don't see why you would try to make a game that isn't fun? I mean I spend all day at work not having fun, why would I come home and go out of my way to not have fun?

[increpare]

If they're appreciating the experience created the they're enjoying it. That's fine. If they're enjoying it then cool.

See I just don't see the point of games as art.

Could you give me one possible, one conceivable example of an 'art game'; that would not be appreciable*?   You must have at least one, for your repeated assertions seem to rest upon the existence of such entities.

(I note you have not deigned my two earnestly proferred questions from before worthy of response)

*whether appreciable as art or as a game: you have indicated you would not begrudge us either

[Shambrook]

then what sort of problem do you have with it?

My problem is that it seems that a lot of this games as art crowed is getting dangerously elitist. Forgetting that the whole point of games is for people to have fun.

Do I correctly infer that you have changed your point of view

My point of view remains unchanged, the cheif purpose of a game should be for people to enjoy it. If they don't then it's missing the point.

Looking through these guidelines they seem to serve more as a set of rules that you can point to other developers and go "Look how arty I am!" instead of a set of guidelines for actully making a good game.

Games should be made for the player, not the designer.

[Zaphos]

dangerously elitist.

EVERYBODY GET DOWN HE HAS ELITISM!!!

we're all going to die!

[Inane]

Games should be made for the player, not the designer.

Fuck that I wanna make games I wanna play!



It just so happens that my view of a good game is pretty close to Soulja's.