| Author |
Message |
|
| alpha |
 Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:48 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
I would like to see a game in which the graphical interface, musical score, game play, interaction possibilities... well; basically every aspect of the game itself is contingent upon the end result of an equation. The variables of this equation would be derived from user’s interactions and decisions with this "virtual imagination". This will be a game with no ending and almost no possibility of accurate explanation or a linear plot. The motivation to play would be a desire to waste time without being bored.(this is why I play video games)
I’ve played games in which the storyline changes based on the user’s decisions, but that’s not enough for me. I like things that evolve and change constantly. I buy new games all the time and never play them to completion. I feel as if I wasted money. Bleh… |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Michael |
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:36 am |
|
|
Site Administrator
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 8065
Location: Gent, Belgium
|
Well, I personally think that most games are just too long. I often enjoy the first one or two hours only to find that the rest of the game is a) more of the same and b) not as well designed. Adding more variation seems like a good solution for the first problem. But ending the game right there is equally valid to me (and solves both). Most people are like you: they never finish the game. So why bother with those extra 10 hours? Just for those few hardcore gamers (journalists) who start crying when a game is less than 4 hours long?
Anyway, I'm not sure if I like the idea of creating a game based on a certain structure if this structure does not also express the content of the game. In other words, a continuously changing game should be about something that the idea of continuous change is pertinent to, in my opinion.
That being said, your idea does not come without technical complications, of course. So I'd say: prototype it as soon as you get the change!  |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| alpha |
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:54 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
I see what you mean. I was thinking that the so said "content" of the game wouldn't be as easily expressed as the simple telling of a story. The true content is the experience. If someone would need an explanation, we could tell them that the game is a tangible representation of what existence would be like after you die and slip into a "never ending dream-like state"; or the life of a man who is slowly going insane from taking too much LSD when he was young. It really doesn't matter. What the game is about is supposed to be relative to whomever is playing. It's all about perception. Through different eyes I see a different world.
I also like the idea of human interaction. An mmo of sorts where you can interact with the same people, but in a different way each time you meet. Without any limitations, the interactions would encompass every human emotion from sex to violence and the choices are yours to make, even though the outcome may not always be clear. That way, you can never make a mistake, and you can never win. You can just... see what happens. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael |
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Site Administrator
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 8065
Location: Gent, Belgium
|
You will need to find a way to stylize this for practical reasons.
One way is to make it text only (this is the path that Chris Crawford has chosen).
I personally don't think it's so important that you can do everything you could possible want in a virtual world. But I think that the choices of what you can and cannot do need to be very conscious choices made by the author. The choice itself should help the appreciation and understanding of the piece. Much like poetry and prose and even painting are as much about what can be read or seen as what is absent.
It's funny that you mention dreams and drugs. As long as Auriea and I have been working together, there's always been people who associate our work with such things. Because this is apparently the only way that they can explain the "strangeness" of our work. But we are perfectly clearheaded about what we do and drugs are not part of our method.
Anyway, I personally would like to see more "normal" things in games rather than all the crazy fantasies that we are confronted with all the time. I hope to one day make a game that just says something about life (without resorting to human-faced deer  ). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| alpha |
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
I can understand how others might view your work as random or drug induced even though those same people are running around hopped up on caffeine and cigarettes "high" on self-importance and emotion; more so the work I saw from Hell.com . I can see how that might be a little frustrating if you had a specific idea that you were trying to convey. But I was thinking that this game would encompass many themes and ideas, and not necessarily by the same author.
Also, I'm not saying that it should be a crazy fantasy. I was thinking that most of the game play would seem rather normal. Of course, there would be a few things that are unexplainable; such is life. And such are the human-faced deer . But you have to agree that some things need no explanation.
I will check out that link once I return from the day's activities. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael |
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Site Administrator
Joined: 07 Jun 2002
Posts: 8065
Location: Gent, Belgium
|
In fact I would say that the less explanation art requires, the better it is. Art, to me, is a form of communication. A form of communication that allows us to convey things that we can't talk about in any other way. As such, any explanation can only attempt to convey part of the message.
This is not to say that explaining art cannot be helpful. Art can be difficult to interpret sometimes, and a explanation can put us on the right track. As long as we don't think that the explanation covers or can replace the complete experience. Art is not the same as riddles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| alpha |
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:12 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Lafayette, LA
|
If someone were to create a work of art without trying to communicate anything at all, could we still call it art? If you miss the point entirely and come to your own conclusions about the underlying meaning behind a piece, are you missing out on the true experience?
Art can be a form of communication. A talented artist can use his/her chosen medium to portray beautiful or horrifying things which defy explanation by any other means. My cat running across the piano keys can inspire me to create a song. My song might evoke many emotions and thoughts; it could paint an ethereal world across the canvas of the mind. Is this lesser art which should be kept separate? I guess it depends on your definition of art. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
