View Full Version : Ten Years Of Great Games
dislekcia
27-11-2007, 02:20 PM
Ernest Adams' latest column: The Designer's Notebook: Ten Years Of Great Games (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2377/the_designers_notebook_ten_years_.php?page=1) covers what he believes to be the most important innovations over the last 10 years of games.
Agree? Disagree? What can we learn from what he talks about as developers?
One thing I find interesting is that it seems that the best way to get noticed by the industry is to make something innovating and interesting, rock the boat a little bit. But that's not the best way to make a living: You need to be less alienating to players for that. How much notice do industry types pay to casual games that sell amazingly well? Is that now a way to "break in"?
-D
Tr00jg
27-11-2007, 03:23 PM
Great list!
It does indeed seem so that the industry notices innovation but to make a living you need to be less alienating and do something of the norm and polish/refine it (ie Starcraft and WoW).
Why can't you combine both? Make something innovative and refine and build on that IP for a long-ish time?
Etienne
27-11-2007, 03:59 PM
He forgot the greatest game of all time.
1998: Fallout 2.
Wow, now that I come to think about it, 1998 was probably the best year for PC gaming, ever.
Tr00jg
27-11-2007, 08:41 PM
He forgot the greatest game of all time.
1998: Fallout 2.
Wow, now that I come to think about it, 1998 was probably the best year for PC gaming, ever.
Indeed, I think it is safe to say that 2007 is also one of the best years for gaming ever.
BattleMoose
28-11-2007, 12:17 AM
Neither,
Total Anhilation
Supreme Commander
or Forged Alliance
were mentioned.
An epic genre of large scale rts. But perhaps I am just too obsessed with this series. :/
dislekcia
28-11-2007, 01:27 AM
He forgot the greatest game of all time.
1998: Fallout 2.
Wow, now that I come to think about it, 1998 was probably the best year for PC gaming, ever.
He purposefully stated that he wouldn't be talking about sequels. Fallout 2 extended Fallout from a design perspective.
Neither,
Total Anhilation
Supreme Commander
or Forged Alliance
were mentioned.
An epic genre of large scale rts. But perhaps I am just too obsessed with this series. :/
Sequels? Yes, I do think you're obsessed with the series. Note how only the largest RTS phenomenon so far was mentioned: Starcraft. No War3 for it's heroes, no Perimeter for it's nifty resourcing and terrain management, no Moonbase Commander, no Cossacks...
1) I believe that Ernest Adams isn't into RTS all that much.
2) I think that RTS as a genre is very rarely innovated in. The tropes of what makes an RTS are well known and reasonably well understood. TA might have focused more on unit counts, but it didn't really add anything new, just changed the flavour slightly. The main differentiator these days is balance philosophy... Personally I didn't enjoy TA's take on the genre and SupCom puts me to sleep. That doesn't mean that I haven't considered them objectively though, I know enough about both RTS and game design not to do that.
-D
Gazza_N
28-11-2007, 08:05 AM
Meh, I can't really comment on his choice of games other than to say that there are many in that list that I enjoyed. Their significance to me is obvious, but to gaming as a whole? No informed comment possible.
As for "breaking in" via casual games, I would agree that they probably are an excellent way to get noticed (hell, look at PopCap 0_o). However, I really think that it depends on what you want to be noticed for. If you create a few kickawesome casual games, you'll get exposure and a rep (which is the whole point), but I think you're also constraining yourself through that very act. For instance, if PopCap decided that they wanted to slap together an RTS, chances are that they'd be met with scorn, derision and suspicion despite their reputation as excellent developers (but of casual games). Kinda like if iD were to develop an RPG.
Personally, I want to make different types of games, and I really like making wierdo hybrid games that experiment with merging established game mechanics in interesting ways. If I want to break into the industry, I think it would have to be via that route, rather than creating simple, fun casual games (not that there's anything remotely wrong with casual games) and abruptly changing stance once I had my foot in the door.
d-_-b
28-11-2007, 09:05 AM
Well I could only read the first page and then I got the following error *cry*
Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/tmp/mysql.sock' (2) in /usr/www/users/gamaboy/view/lib/DB.class.php on line 13
Unable to connect to database
I think they missed the best and almost the first MMORPG Ulitma Online(I know they did mention it when they talked about Everquest), but what makes the game great for me it predates 1998 and I think it would be hard to find another game with the same amount of interaction with the world and things to do.
Even compared to todays games you will still have a hard time to find games that allows you the same options/customization.
I also believe if Lord British was given more freedom by EA, Ultima Online 2 would have rocked our world. But sadly EA is in it for the money like any other business.
Regards,
Coolhand
28-11-2007, 10:53 AM
I think they missed the best and almost the first MMORPG Ulitma Online(I know they did mention it when they talked about Everquest), but what makes the game
The article only talked about games from 1998 and onwards (hence the title of "Ten Years of Great Games"), and as UO was released in 1997, it wasn't eligible for the list :)
dislekcia
28-11-2007, 03:46 PM
As for "breaking in" via casual games, I would agree that they probably are an excellent way to get noticed (hell, look at PopCap 0_o). However, I really think that it depends on what you want to be noticed for. If you create a few kickawesome casual games, you'll get exposure and a rep (which is the whole point), but I think you're also constraining yourself through that very act. For instance, if PopCap decided that they wanted to slap together an RTS, chances are that they'd be met with scorn, derision and suspicion despite their reputation as excellent developers (but of casual games). Kinda like if iD were to develop an RPG.
Personally, I want to make different types of games, and I really like making wierdo hybrid games that experiment with merging established game mechanics in interesting ways. If I want to break into the industry, I think it would have to be via that route, rather than creating simple, fun casual games (not that there's anything remotely wrong with casual games) and abruptly changing stance once I had my foot in the door.
Excellent reasoning. I've been following similar lines of thought, that's why I asked the question.
I agree that it seems that you either need to build a rep as being someone that makes X-core games with developers and suffer the financial stresses of only being critically acclaimed, or if you decide to go the populist route it can be easy to get stuck simply doing that type of game for ages.
I wonder how similar this is to typecasting in Hollywood? Possibly all you'd need to do to end the feeling of being stuck in a particular development genre or mode would be to devote the time to making what you really want to make, only releasing it when it's good and ready? Sort of going indie again within a successful career...
-D
Gazza_N
28-11-2007, 09:19 PM
I wonder how similar this is to typecasting in Hollywood? Possibly all you'd need to do to end the feeling of being stuck in a particular development genre or mode would be to devote the time to making what you really want to make, only releasing it when it's good and ready? Sort of going indie again within a successful career...
Thing is, depending on how successful you are, you could use your star power to push ideas that publishers and gamers wouldn't even look at otherwise. Look at Molyneux, Wright, and even the infamous Romero. Otherwise, your "undercover indie" idea seems to be the only real solution. Other than miraculously warping the gaming market in your favour, of course.
Thaumaturge
29-11-2007, 03:12 AM
Hmm... what about striking a balance between creating innovative games and games that are likely to sell well? One might create something familiar and highly-polished that, with perhaps some budgeting at home, help to support a more innovative title? Might that work?
I'm guessing, however, that the length of the development cycle might make this rather difficult to succeed at - it should, at least, be more easily sustainable than going for the purely innovative route.
(I find myself for some reason uncomfortable with the above suggestion, almost as if it seems somehow dishonest - but I find my mind annoyingly clouded tonight, and am having trouble determining exactly why that is...)
On the other hand, I do think that there's a lot of wisdom in what you and Gazza say, Dislekcia, about earning a reputation for the games that you love to make.
But how does one break into the industry if one's preference is not for one of the more popular genres?
Perhaps in some such cases the "underground indie" route may well be the best route (if, I would imagine, one of the more draining routes).
One way or the other, especially in the light of the "meaningful games" thread and article, it may be important to find a way to foster creativity and innovation in games, to expand our scope of lesson...
He purposefully stated that he wouldn't be talking about sequels. Fallout 2 extended Fallout from a design perspective.
On the other hand, he did mention a number of sequels, as I recall - Silent Hill 3, for example.
It's interesting to me, by the way, to note the comparison between this article's mention of Bioshock and that of the "meaningful games" article. Not having played the game, I don't feel in much of a position to comment, but the contrast is interesting to me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.