Re: Is Innovative Gameplay a Dead End?

"Particle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I wrote a blog post about this subject recently: (See
> particleblog.blogspot.com)

http://particleblog.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_particleblog_archive.html

There is such a thing as THE story of Chess.  Most chess games can be
analyzed in terms of Three Act Structure, same as most Hollywood films.
There can be aberrations of structure, but most chess games aren't
"interesting" in this regard.  They follow predictable lines of action, if
not necessarily pace.

Act One is the beginning.  Act One is always short.  It always starts the
same way.  People throw their pieces onto the board and you see various
opening gambits.  The nature of these gambits determines what will occur in
Act Two.  Occasionally a game can end abruptly in Act One, but it's unusual.
Usually it only happens between poor chess players.  Good chess players know
the Fool's Mate and some other quick traps like that, and don't fall into
them.

Act Two is long, just as in a movie.  In the beginning of Act Two, the board
is very crowded and knights are important.  Someone might go on an offensive
steamroller and crush an inadequate defender.  Or, someone might try to
rashly offend, be met by excellent defense, and then get crushed when the
momentum of his offensive abates.  Or, both opponents may just pick at each
other, making walls and trying to maneuver for weaknesses.

Usually the Queens are held in reserve and when they come out, you are at
the Midpoint of Act Two.  Lotsa things can reverse when these power pieces
are put into play.  Also, chess players make mistakes and those are
Reversals in the cinematic sense.  Queens and other pieces usually duel it
out until a lot of pieces are destroyed.  It could end more suddenly than
that, but especially between good, evenly matched players, it doesn't
usually end quickly.

Act Three is the Endgame.  You're down to kings and pawns.  Pawns
dramatically crawl to the end of the board and become Queens.  Someone is
eventually checkmated.  Act Three doesn't take that long, just as in the
movies.

Chess games do in fact have a Beginning, a Middle, and an End, same as films
or stories.  Plot and pace differ, but the structure of a chess game between
good, evenly matched players is typically comparable to cinematic Three Act
Structure.  Of course it should be remembered that Three Act Structure is
merely a storytelling convention that works and is widely used by the film
industry.  Not everyone has chosen to tell their stories in this way.  For
instance, the Greeks generally started their stories in the middle, then
went back to the beginning, then forwads to the end.  Also if you look at
very early films of the 1920s, you'll probably find them quick, jumpy, and
hard to follow as compared to modern setup-payoff films.  Probably the 1920s
audience had to be quicker on the uptake!  And if they were used to those
films, probably they were better at it than we are today.

The bumper sticker slogan "Games aren't films!" is facile, annoying, and
uttered by people who have never so much as picked up a book on
screenwriting to understand the proper bases of comparison.  Someday, an
area course on film will be required of Game Designers in university
curriculums.  Not because games are films, but because games *overlap* with
the problems of film.  Both deal with time, pace, plot, audience
expectations, setups and payoffs.  Not to mention cameras, movement, and
visuals.  An intelligent Game Designer can look at the various conventions
of film, note the industrial practices of the film industry, and abstract
what's useful to Game Design and game production.  A sloganeering Game
Designer gets back to twitching his gamepad.

> As a designer, I cannot help get the feeling that most videogame designers
> are massively wasting their time by focussing on the wrong end of the
stick,
> as it were. I'd be interested to hear some opinions on the matter. Thanks.

Filmmakers *do* invent new cameras.  Look at George Lucas' first ever
all-digital process for "Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones."  But it's worth
noting that most filmmakers are not so concerned, nor so budgeted.  If you
looked at early film history, I bet you'd find much more experimentation in
equipment and methods.

Lewis Carroll and E. E. Cummings created new words.  Most authors have not
been so concerned, but it's an error to say it doesn't happen.

In the 20th century, musicians *did* invent new notes.  Atonality is part
and parcel of modern musical composition.  Also, Ethnomusicology recognizes
that different cultures do not use the same notes.  The general term for an
arrangement of notes is a "Tuning System," not a Scale.  A Scale is a
Western notion of evenly spaced notes, and not all cultures use that.  Not
all cultures are fixated on exact reproduction of notes on different
instruments either.  Just about every Gamelan (Indonesian metallophonic
orchestra) out there has a slightly different set of absolute notes,
although the relative layouts of the notes are always similar.

None of these things were, or are, clear wastes of time.  You have a very
twisted view of Art, Music, and Literary history if you think so.  What's
important to observe, is the game industry is in an early phase of its
industrial cycles.  It isn't mature yet.

As for Game Design innovation, risk, and "thinking like a businessman," to
each their own.  Most companies spending big bucks have pretty clear
priorities: they are conservative.  All that remains is to find out what
kind of Game Designer *you* want to be.  And to take responsibility
accordingly.  You want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.