Again, this seems to come back to what I've said time and time again (everywhere and about everything!). It's better to do a few things and do them really well, than do a lot of stuff and do a half-ass job.
That is so true.
I am really glad Michael pointed out Mirror's Edge. I don't really like FPSes anymore. Seeing a first person platformer type of game in Mirror's Edge was really exciting. I must have played the demo many many times before picking up the game on its release date (with cool backpack).
Unfortunately, it wasn't executed properly. It broke out of the mindless rip-off mold of video games only to fall off the desk. I wanted to say "that was a great try guys - keep working on it!" I felt encouraged by the *idea* of the genre more so than I did let down by the play control during disarms.
---
It seems like nowadays you have a bit of innovation and then everyone improves upon it or copies it in some way. "You have GOT to have a few FPSes in your arsenal. Buy this." "Every game should have multiplayer! Here - try this one!"
What if this mentality was in full force in the early 80s? "What? Centipede has a trackball? We have GOT to put a trackball in the next Pac-Man!" Hey it's great that there is a trackball in Centipede, but it fit with the gameplay. It wasn't ABOUT the trackball. It was about the game Centipede that also happened to use this nifty trackball. Arkanoid had a spinner. Xybots had multiplayer from two different camera angles and a twisty joystick. Xenophobe had a triple layer, pancake style screen for three players.
I think formulas are followed too closely these days in order to make a game.
"What traits of games make money? Okay. Do those."
I don't see making a game as a scientific exercise designed around making money. I see it as a form of artistic expression that can just so happen to make money. "Taking huge financial risks is not the way to go, but taking a step back and trying to distinguish what works and what is unnecessary in a game would help cut out a lot of the filler." That's the next critical point. I wasn't trying to say that a company should just toss money to the wind, let developers do their thing and then pray for income. All I ask is they do a bit more self examination and historical examination.
Maybe Vintage Games should be a required reading for development companies. Haha!
Again, this seems to come back to what I've said time and time again (everywhere and about everything!). It's better to do a few things and do them really well, than do a lot of stuff and do a half-ass job.
That is so true.
I am really glad Michael pointed out Mirror's Edge. I don't really like FPSes anymore. Seeing a first person platformer type of game in Mirror's Edge was really exciting. I must have played the demo many many times before picking up the game on its release date (with cool backpack).
Unfortunately, it wasn't executed properly. It broke out of the mindless rip-off mold of video games only to fall off the desk. I wanted to say "that was a great try guys - keep working on it!" I felt encouraged by the *idea* of the genre more so than I did let down by the play control during disarms.
---
It seems like nowadays you have a bit of innovation and then everyone improves upon it or copies it in some way. "You have GOT to have a few FPSes in your arsenal. Buy this." "Every game should have multiplayer! Here - try this one!"
What if this mentality was in full force in the early 80s? "What? Centipede has a trackball? We have GOT to put a trackball in the next Pac-Man!" Hey it's great that there is a trackball in Centipede, but it fit with the gameplay. It wasn't ABOUT the trackball. It was about the game Centipede that also happened to use this nifty trackball. Arkanoid had a spinner. Xybots had multiplayer from two different camera angles and a twisty joystick. Xenophobe had a triple layer, pancake style screen for three players.
I think formulas are followed too closely these days in order to make a game.
"What traits of games make money? Okay. Do those."
I don't see making a game as a scientific exercise designed around making money. I see it as a form of artistic expression that can just so happen to make money. "Taking huge financial risks is not the way to go, but taking a step back and trying to distinguish what works and what is unnecessary in a game would help cut out a lot of the filler." That's the next critical point. I wasn't trying to say that a company should just toss money to the wind, let developers do their thing and then pray for income. All I ask is they do a bit more self examination and historical examination.
Maybe Vintage Games should be a required reading for development companies. Haha!
Chris Kennedy, Editor
Location: Houston, Texas, USA
Email: chris@armchairarcade.com