Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Defining Environment Language for Video Games

80.lv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#11

Post by jfoutz »

munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

Not sure if it quite captures what you're saying, but I'd put Dwarf Fortress up as an extreme example. I guess it's not first person, so that takes a bit out of the metaphor.

I built guard squads over decades, and an elite vampire squad, all decked out in glittering steel. Watching the captain die to an animated finger of a fallen comrade was one of the most vivid video game memories i have. I still have some vitriol for that pink 'Ñ' as well. In retrospect, it's kinda odd, being ticked off at a letter. But that letter represented the forces of darkness that slowly overcame and destroyed what i'd worked for weeks to build.

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#12

Post by frou_dh »

munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

Reminds me of this tweet-video, which illustrates well the banality of a lot of """exciting""" movie-like gameplay:

https://twitter.com/robotduck/status/759529875992698880

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#13

Post by aeontech »

jfoutz wrote: post #11
munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

Not sure if it quite captures what you're saying, but I'd put Dwarf Fortress up as an extreme example. I guess it's not first person, so that takes a bit out of the metaphor. I built guard squads over decades, and an elite vampire squad, all decked out in glittering steel. Watching the captain die to an animated finger of a fallen comrade was one of the most vivid video game memories i have. I still have some vitriol…

Have you read Matul Remrit? If not, you might enjoy it: http://www.bravemule.com/in50/

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#14

Post by jdkuuuu »

__david__ wrote: post #9
munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

> In Minecraft, the art is decidedly unrealistic, bordering on abstract. But, in return for that, the world is incredibly interactive. Absolutely. But the flipside of this is that Minecraft has no story. It's sort of up to you as a player to do what you want and make your own adventure. Naughty Dog, on the other hand, is famous for their games' stories. I suspect interactivity and story are at odds. I also agree that…

“story“ only conflicts with game possibilities when you don't accept player created stories. Players will stumble through movie-like stories handed to them, but the stories they tell friends are more often about dynamic interactions within a framework (“i made my first house in minecraft over a period of weeks and then accidentally blew it up“).

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#15

Post by meheleventyone »

frou_dh wrote: post #12
munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

Reminds me of this tweet-video, which illustrates well the banality of a lot of """exciting""" movie-like gameplay: https://twitter.com/robotduck/status/759529875992698880

It's a pretty shallow read of the game design. The video and longer piece he wrote miss that there only needs to be perceived peril for the sequence to be exciting. Humans also love to buy into the idea that something is way more dangerous than it is. The actual goal of that sequence is to amp the player up before they get into the next gameplay sequence proper. It's a piece of pacing and environmental storytelling.

Further making that sequence a gameplay challenge would almost certainly make it worse. It becomes a memorization game and would require repeat attempts, each of which would lessen the impact of the experience.

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#16

Post by TeMPOraL »

munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

Personally, I treat high-budget AAA games as their own category, and appreciate them in their own way.

Consider e.g. Mass Effect trilogy. I absolutely LOVED those games, even though they were basically an interactive movie. They could've probably made ME as a visual novel, and the gist of the story would stay the same. Still, the form of the game was perfect, and was completely enjoyable as long as you didn't expect too much from it. It's not Minecraft in space.

The problem IMO is when game producers try to mix elements from other types of games into AAA movie-games. It fails, I think, because high-end AAA graphics are so hand-optimized that any attempt at giving players freedom of creation will start breaking stuff.

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#18

Post by douche »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #16
munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

Personally, I treat high-budget AAA games as their own category, and appreciate them in their own way. Consider e.g. Mass Effect trilogy. I absolutely LOVED those games, even though they were basically an interactive movie. They could've probably made ME as a visual novel, and the gist of the story would stay the same. Still, the form of the game was perfect, and was completely enjoyable as long as you didn't expect…

Mass Effect 1, at least, was most fun when you said to hell with the official objectives and just started treating it as a sandbox. I had so much fun using the sniper rifle from as far away as possible, or taking the mako places it really shouldn't have been able to go

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#19

Post by douche »

__david__ wrote: post #9
munificent wrote: post #5

Great article. I want to call out one point: > The more life-like a space appears to be, the more we begin to expect it > to allow for the affordances we have in real life. But games only enable > players the actions developers explicitly allow for and implement. > Unfortunately, that aspect of game development doesn’t scale with > computing power in the way art has. This is one of the reasons I got out of the game i…

> In Minecraft, the art is decidedly unrealistic, bordering on abstract. But, in return for that, the world is incredibly interactive. Absolutely. But the flipside of this is that Minecraft has no story. It's sort of up to you as a player to do what you want and make your own adventure. Naughty Dog, on the other hand, is famous for their games' stories. I suspect interactivity and story are at odds. I also agree that…

Sandboxy games definitely have more replayability. If I look at my steam stats, Medieval Total War 2 is in the lead, followed by Paradox grand strategy games, Mount & Blade, Skyrim, then things like Terraria, Rimworld, Stardew Valley, Prison Architect, Gamedev Tycoon, and so on. I have to go pretty far to hit something with a defined story.

Re: Defining Environment Language for Video Games

#20

Post by __david__ »

jdkuuuu wrote: post #14
__david__ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Minecraft, the art is decidedly unrealistic, bordering on abstract. But, in return for that, the world is incredibly interactive. Absolutely. But the flipside of this is that Minecraft has no story. It's sort of up to you as a player to do what you want and make your own adventure. Naughty Dog, on the other hand, is famous for their games' stories. I suspect interactivity and story are at odds. I also agree that…

“story“ only conflicts with game possibilities when you don't accept player created stories. Players will stumble through movie-like stories handed to them, but the stories they tell friends are more often about dynamic interactions within a framework (“i made my first house in minecraft over a period of weeks and then accidentally blew it up“).

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly, but I agree. I do think that player created narratives will be more personal and maybe more memorable but pre-made stories tend to be deeper and more intricate. And I don't think one is better than the other.
Post reply on HN