> There are plenty of FLOSS games with good gameplay.
>
> Do you know of any FLOSS games that have good storylines?
Well, Warzone 2100 seems to have a decent storyline... of course, it
started out as a commercial game, so that probably helped...
> Oh, yeah. It's like with Audiobooks; some companies do them well, some
> not so much.
>
> I've found, with audiobooks, that a good book read badly is just as
> bad (if not worse) than a bad book read well.
Anyone who doesn't believe this should check out Librivox.org. Some of
the readers there are really good. Others, well, let's just say the
site accepts any accent, and couple that with the fact that even native
speakers sometimes just can't read aloud well...
> > Yeah, it can add to the game. I admit that. Some games do really well
> > with the added flash. Some of the horror console games, in particular,
> > really come off creepy due to their flash.
>
> Good example! Doom has always given me the willies, and the 3-D flash
> in Doom 3 made it exponentially creepier than Doom 2.
Oh, I don't think the Doom games even come close to the Silent Hill
games. I've only played Silent Hill 2, and I didn't really get far in
that, but it is heavily atmospheric. You start off in a nearly empty
town and instead of instantly seeing all these monsters, you have to
hunt in the fog knowing that you will encounter some crazy stuff, but
not knowing when or what it will be...
I've known people who have had policies of not playing Silent Hill games
while alone, as if they do they just get too creeped out. This sort of
visceral terror is hard to do in any medium, but a creepy sound track
goes a long way. Certainly with a bad sound track, an otherwise creepy
game can just become campy.
> > My gripe is just that it would be a lot easier to focus on game play,
> > plot, and design if people stopped focusing so exclusively on the
> > pictures and audio.
>
> Perhaps the "problem" is that pictures and audio are sexier, more
> immediately gratifying, and more easily accessible than engaging
> storylines and well-balanced gameplay.
It boils down to the Barney problem. Barney the Dinosaur has/had
segments on the show where they "imagine" things. To engage the broadest
set of young minds, this is not left to the imagination. This had the
side-effect of leaving some young children believing that they were
incapable of imagining things, as it didn't work the same as it did
for Barney.
To imagine things or to play more abstract games it takes up front
effort to begin. You need to make a commitment to the process before it
can become enjoyable.
If you reach a point in a book where you "just never could really
get in to it" it is a sign that you were unable to make that initial
commitment. Even a childhood game like "the floor is lava" requires
first the commitment to put your mind in a place where you can't touch
the floor.
The use of graphics and sounds bypasses the need for that up-front
commitment. You don't need to pretend that the floor is lava, if it
actually looks like lava. You don't need to visualize and imagine
what is going on in a book, if it is spelled out for you in picture
and sound.
This also clarifies why so many games use a similar style of play.
Pretty much any FPS plays like any other FPS. This means there is no
learning curve for new games once you've played one. They've completely
bypassed any up-front commitment required to learn or get in to a game.
Compare this even to the old Atari 2600 games. While they almost all
had a joystick, and you didn't really need to read instructions (like
you do for a more complex game), the game play varied significantly, to
the point where someone would at least need to poke around for a bit
(and possibly lose their first game) before they would understand the
controls. Without a commitment to experiment and possibly lose the first
game, they could never get in to it and really enjoy it.
> So, I mean, as a teacher, I have to value that quality of the flash.
> My kids learn better if they're interested, even if what hooks the
> interest up front is *really* just window dressing.
Oh, I fully admit it. Kids like games, and the ability to make something
resembling a game is enough to draw them in.
I plan to teach my daughter Python for her first computer language.
However, one of the first areas I'll focus on will be PyGame.
The logic is fairly straight-forward. I can say "Most modern games are
made by large teams of developers -- sometimes more people than needed
to make a movie. Check out the games at PyGame.org. Those games are
frequently made by individuals. This means that you could make a game
like those games by yourself."
To enjoy a traditional roguelike game, a person needs to enjoy abstract
texture and color more than visual textures and colors. You need to
enjoy the vast number of objects and monsters more than just pretty
pictures of objects and monsters. You need to enjoy the range of
movements and commands available, more than just going places and
shooting things. Ultimately, it is a richer world, however you need to
value that sort of richness.
Assuming my daughter doesn't have cognitive disabilities, I fully expect
that eventually she will become interested in roguelike games. However,
before that time I'll point her at ways to do things with pictures and
sounds.
> For instance, I'll start each turn with a good high-level survey of my
> empire (which is sometimes so big I can't see it all for the curvature
> of the planet, thousands of land squares on the screen), as the turn
> progresses I usually find myself zooming in to inspect continents or
> regions (hundreds of land squares on the screen) and, in wartime, it's
> not unusual for me to be zoomed in on an area smaller than a
> chessboard, contemplating my next move.
You know, I never used that feature. I just didn't play it that way.
In fact, I didn't know it was possible.
No wonder I didn't understand the use of 3D. :)
--
Steven Black <blacks@indiana.edu> / KeyID: 8596FA8E
Fingerprint: 108C 089C EFA4 832C BF07 78C2 DE71 5433 8596 FA8E
No comments:
Post a Comment