Re: Is Innovative Gameplay a Dead End?

"Brandon J. Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "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.

-- snipped --

That's the emergent structure of Chess, but not the story. Every time a
different Chess move is played, another possible direction for that story
emerges. What you are doing is the equivalent of taking a stereotypical
romcom plot and saying "That is the story of the Romantic movie", when of
course it is merely a structure.

> 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.

I would have thought it more likely that future game design courses will
require a study of boardgames, cardgames etc, much as many film courses
involve at least one class in theatre. As for games courses involving film
studies, I would doubt it, unless it were part of a general 'media studies'
or 'project management' brief or something similar. Not many screenwriting
courses involve in-depth studies of cinematography, for example.

There may be some apparent similarities, but there's an awful lot about
videogames that is very different. To try and overly adopt the conventions
of a completely different form would cause more problems than it solves.

> 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.

Indeed, go back to Orson Welles and all of his revolutionary inventions for
Citizen Kane. But we're sort of beating around the same bush here. Neither
Orson nor George wanted to reinvent the cinematic experience so completely
that it wasn't cinema any more. They wanted (and managed) to innovate within
the elements of the cinematic artform to produce astounding works. I'd use a
similar analogy about your music examples.

> 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.

I didn't say it doesn't happen. What I said was that if any of the
aforementioned industries were like the games industry, this all that their
creators would want to do. Imagine if most literary debate were only about
reinventing letters. That's the level that gaming is at.

> 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.

Yes, maturity and confidence are the root of most of the problems. This is
weird. We are mostly furiously agreeing with each other.

> 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.

This I am discovering.
I have a question, by the way. What is indiegamedesign.com going to be?