Messages

I disagree [snip] monkey [snip] homo sapiens [snip] quote[snip] logic [snip]

Yeah but it was such a great quote! Gimme that, at least!

Sorry for off-topic, back to business.

Janos: Glad to get a smile out of you there or at least some exclamation marks... I just have no idea if you got me right or if you're delivering some kick-ass sarcasm there.
Blame it on the forums being text-only

I wouldn't say I value progress religiously. It's just something that happens. We live and learn. There's always a new idea, something to play around with. I guess it's just what humans do because frankly, it's the only thing we really do outstandingly WELL.

My point: Perfection is the death of creativity. Fortunately it is impossible to have something perfected*. One perfect "anything" would have to be accepted as perfect by everyone on the planet, as the best there is, as the must-have for everyone, and it would be without fault and failure.
If John Everyman would create the perfect Match-3 game, no-one ever would have to make another one. Because it would be the only Match-3 game everyone will ever want to play, and nobody would want to even try another one because the perfect one is already there. Interestingly, even people who HATE Match-3 games would have to objectively admit that it is perfect and it's really THEIR FAULT that they do not like it.
That would be terrible because no-one would ever make a new Match-3 game. And maybe everyone who hates Match-3 will be considered an outlaw.
But it's also not possible to ever get such a game. Can't be done. And that's exactly the reason who no game ever will get that 10/10 rating.

__
* Okay, there are perfect angles in math and stuff. But that's not concrete. You can't make them in real life.

In some cultures, people don't even invent stuff. They are taught new techniques by talking animals or trees, they create art inspired by spirits, and other things just fall from the sky as divine gifts.

They DID invent the talking animals, chatty trees, spirits and divine beings- I'd call that quite a lot of original thought.

I'm so glad you mentioned that! Please explain me why MORE jobs are good, in the first place. And why do you relate that with feeding families? Making games does not produces any food, it consumes food! It's a very weird concept.

I will take that word-by-word. Making games does not produce food. It creates something intended to buy food. It is a means of making a living if you are not doing it for free. It's a bit like, you know, working every day to get a paycheck at the end of the month. Quite a lot of people do that. I am sure I can provide a reliable quote.

It's only been 50,000 years since people developed the use of language and tools so when exactly did it go "wrong" in this time?

Fun fact: Our language has originally been invented to tell the other ape where the good fruits are.

__
EDIT:
I wrote "umpossuble". Ridiculous!

Far from offending. It's fun to discuss a topic with a passionate group- personally I'm getting a lot out of it.

But I don't think that 90% of everything is crap in a traditional culture, for example. All their stories have a deep meaning to them, and it is not because they are few, but because everything is sacred to these people. They create much, much less than us, but when they do, it is 100% master-piece, not only 10%.

Sturgeon's Revelation may not be universal but I disagree that creating less means an overall higher quality. Higher relevance for those who create it, yes, and more emotinal attachment of value, that too. We're not at odds here. But not generally "better".
I am also extremely sure that nothing is created perfect in the first place. Prototype first, then refinement; nothing pops into existence without any way to be improved- at least nothing human made (with the possible exception of bacon ).

This is why (to me) producing more (and more "bad stuff") is not a bad thing. It's one big test and it never really ends. Sometimes it takes a while until you realise something could be done better; and sometimes later there will be another iteration.
If I create few things I spend more time on them, so there is more chance for them to improve quickly- but also more chance to stagnate. If I have one perfectly fine axe, why should I go and invent a chainsaw?

_
edited some typos away.

Allow me to introduce you to a metaphor called "The ship of fools".

No need to do that. I know it already. And it's a nice metaphor and hard to disagree with. Personally I am more inclined to follow a different ship, though.

But here we go again: who defines what is a good game?

The only one who can define a good game is the player.  There is no universal definition because individual tastes vary.

Exactly. And this is even more visible these days where more and more people find their footing into the semiprofessional market. And games can trigger so many responses that it's just logical it will appeal to people on different levels.

Here comes Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap"). These days we just have more 100%. We see more games around; we even go and buy games that are not done yet ("early access", Kickstarters). With more games being made in public the 90% become more obvious.

And yet I still think it's better to embrace the good and shrug at the bad. Because in the end, HOW to change it? You'd need a watchman the size of a continent!

__
Edit: Spiced up everything with relevant links.

Another thing- we are in a discussion that has kept clever minds busy for a long time now. In fact, it almost always crops up as soon as some noticeable chance in trends is noticed. Could it be... that things always change?

Ooo lovely, we're back!

I suggest we take advantage of our position as KING and demand an explanation first. I mean, Rorik didn't look that much like a criminal, and the Northern laws may be different from ours. Maybe it's illegal to own a carp over there.

> ask ULRIC to explain the situation in detail

[edit]
We should also have something done about EVERYONE stumbling into our place with weapons. Seriously. That can't be healthy in the long run.

The book is "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud, if anyone doesn't know it. It is very good- solid and actually well-written theory of narrative. And since it deals with sequential art it is written as a comic, too!

Modern technology has ushered in the era where anyone can afford to make a game, so you're going to see a huge increase in the number of overall games.

That ties in nicely with the train metaphor.

Spoiler

It's not a good metaphor. It's poorly worded. I can stay neutral about many things in a riding train. The metaphor requires to be read as 'can't stay neutral about the destination of the train'. And even that is possible if I just don't care about where the train goes.

[close]

Yes. In a train I "can't stay neutral". So people just BUILD MORE TRAINS.

Kingdom of Ehcilc

!ereht did uoy tahw ees I

I was not talking about genre diversity. I was talking about the idea that more indie games means more diversity in the gaming industry. We have more indies than ever. But that's not enough to make it a good news yet. We have many indies in terms of production, but few in terms of ideals.

Ah, okay. Again, I am not at odds with that, though I think the smallest "unit" in this discussion should be "game" and neither a genre nor an industrial branch.

__
edit: Had an awfully long bit of text ready but this page from an actual book by an actual studied man says it all.


Never cheases to amaze me.

Unless you want to close game in this tiny culture of yours. Unless you want us to become more like you in order to make things that you can call games. Understand the problem?

Who are you adressing?

To pick one thing that caught me up there, technically we didn't have an increase in diversity for a while now. Quite the opposite; the labels become broader and when it was once accepted to divide even one genre into several valid groups, it's now mostly a case of maybe four to seven broad genres, plus Minecraft. Once you mix the specific terms you get broader genres.
This can be a good thing if you CARE about how your games are called. On the most basic level I personally know two kinds of games- game I enjoy and games I don't enjoy.

You had me at "campy", Gurok!

Looks really nice, and the plot sounds interesting and original. Hurry up! Ghost needs games badly!

Looks really good and, as mentioned, the palette is spot on.

The left lens of his glasses (Gates' left) seems to allow for a reflection or one tiny almost white spot (not a true lens flare, but glass catches the light like that), but that's really all I could suggest.

We don't care about graphics, WHAM! It's all about hanging out dude! Please continue!

It's always bad to lose stuff, and over one TB must have included important stuff too. But yes, come on. Make it text-only. See it as your personal flip-the-bird against the fates of hard drive wreckings and continue.
Or, alternatively, confine in someone who can continue? I know you're thorough. You have NOTES. You always have notes.

Welcome aboard, Giraffadon! Hope you enjoy your stay, and here's to many fun games!

Best of luck with the game- looks delicious!

Well, I don't have to prove you are wrong. You are the one that needs to show me a good reason to think that way.

But that would require me wanting to convince you (or anyone following the discussion). I think I did not make that clear- I was just stating a personal opinion, though in my eye some facts are clearly in my favour. That's why I really like these threads, they discuss. You come in, see points of view, maybe discover your own or take a side but ultimately you're not pushed into joining Team X.
If this were an argument I'd be hell-bent to convince you with big words and plenty of punctuation . But it isn't and I don't; your opinion is as valid as mine.

This may sound lazy- "Oh he's just tossing something in and won't defend it, boo" but that's how I roll.

Things are, of course, not "always good" and it would be silly to assume someone else will eventually solve it, but I really believe that games, being man-made, are fully governed by a few typically human modes of operation. Your average middle class first world citizen has little to worry about and that allows him to seek out entertainment. Games are a form of entertainment that's readily available: Safe environment, fun, diverse entertainment, all there. Video games even double on the safe environment. So they are consumed and become a given thing. Something that is "new" then becomes more interesting, initially, but it may or may not catch on. If it catches on, it has good chances of becoming a standard, thereby familiar, thereby making room for the next "new" thing.

I approach things from a different perspective than you and I don't have the essays to back me up ( )but in the end we're all human and humans like to play. And even rules are a form of game. The minute I set down a rule, guess what happens? The rule will be broken. Infallibly. And sometimes the broken rule is more FUN.

About the majority overgrowth thing, yes. That is noticeable. Now. Maybe it's just a trend that will collapse and make room for more diversity. Maybe my kids WILL only play Sims 4 and Ghost Of Duty because that's all there is (and Pokemon). I remain relaxed because as I see it every clone, every mainstream carbon copy of Formula X tests this formula against a huge audience, and that audience does react. Not always in the way we want and not always fast. But reacting it does.

There's a large number of games that failed to raise money or become really really popular while they still remain important and beloved to their players. System Shock never sold well. Beyond Good And Evil flopped. Anachronox had no chance to make even. People refuse to use the 3D switch on their 3DS. Curling is usually laughed at.
Doesn't matter, they were there and were played and they planted a seed.

edit
----
This all leads away from the original ludological theory maybe, but I think it remains important.

Let me try to understand your beliefs: There is a natural cycle in the big business that will go on forever. The relation between industry and costumer will always find a natural equilibrium, and there is nothing to worry about.

This is mostly my belief, yes. It's not a natural cycle though, it's a man-made cycle powered by elements that nature does not usually employ.

I know my IF inside out, Janis, and even as we have this discussion IF is very much alive, being subjected to studies, powering a couple of highly interesting approaches to software design and still being written and played by many people. In the same way that adventure games are "still alive" (though not a huge player in the commercial sense) IF can't die because it is merely one shape of the age-old desire of man to tell and experience stories. Escapism, playing with ideas, exploring stuff in a "fun environment", that's never going to disappear, no matter WHAT we call it.
THAT'S my comfort.

[edit]

Yeah, that brings a lot of comfort, if only it was truth.

That sentence sounds like you imply to know the truth, so you know what's right and I am wrong.

I read that as "Ghost, you believe something, but it is wrong. And I know what's right so I can't get the comfort you get from it."
Or: "You're wrong. I'm right."

I think we're merely at a clash of words here though. As in any discussion there are opinions and yours is different from mine (thus allowing a discussion in the first place). Is it possible to absolutely prove me wrong when I say "Games have been around for almost as long as humanity, new games are based on old games, and as long as people are around playing games, games will be played by humans?"
I think not.

I wish I could take part on that religion, but I don't have enough faith in that god.

Religion has no part in that. It's just an opinion.

Oh, i remembered. Candy. That was the idea. I need to buy some candy.

I always enjoy reading these discussions and then feel bad for not taking much part apart from reading.

But here I have something!

Who defines what people like? Game industry is like any other industry. If you think that a industry this size simply bows down to what people like, well, you are free to believe in anything.

Industry or not, games (all games, but video games especially because they are already based on real-world games) are subject to the old creativity paradox: It is impossible to create something truly new, but still we do.

Back in the golden age of video games you could come up with a video game that had not been done before, but even those were based on ideas that have been around somewhere else. Eventually genres solidified. Then genres were mixed- again, "new" games were made out of established elements. That's how it works: All the elements are there, have probably always been there, ingrained in our culture. We're just shuffling the bits around and tweak them a little, and call it "new".

And that is it- we are in fact playing the very same games for ages now. Apart from the medium there is little difference between Minecraft and a box of LEGO, The Sims or a collection of dolls to play with, an FPS game and kids pointing their fingers at each other shouting Bang bang. If nothing else any adventure game is like a little bit of escapism. "I'll be the hero wannabe pirate, okay, and you can be... yes, you are the evil LeChuck, now let's imagine what'll happen..."

The "industry" clearly is a factor. Games make money, people like money, so they make games that sell and even do their bit to steer the masses. But that can never last forever, and even without anything like the Big Video Game Crash back then repeating itself, the industry sells and thus needs customers. They can pander to the customer, they can influence the customer, but they can never be without the customer and that does give "the industry" less power than it may (or may not) like. It is absolutely possible for the customers to take an active part in what hits the shelves.
Take the "indy scene". It took away power from the mainstream industry (when it had become properly fat and greedy) by becoming another industry.
And that will happen again once the indy scene has grown fat and greedy.

"Game crazes" always start with a forerunner, an establisher, a lot of clones, then oversaturation and then evolution into something else. And since nothing new can be created, the same things will always, in a way, find their way back into the world.
I find that somewhat comforting, actually.

I woke up this morning with a billiant idea, Moving Thread, but I forgot about it when I wanted to write it down. Do you remember?

When you import a sprite, you can set the way AGS detects for transparency. No transparency will import the full rectangle, and otherwise you can choose one of the sprite corners. The colour of the pixel in that corner is the transparent colour. Just make sure the transparent colour is not used anywhere else in your sprite- an easy way to get this going is to create your sprite and fill the "empty space" with magic pink (RGB 255, 0, 255), which is rarely used anywhere else.

When you create a "pixel art" image (pen tool, no soft edges) this will work almost all of the time, so I don't see what's going wrong for you- an upload would maybe help.

As for your other question, yes of course! AGS can use all sorts of detailled characters, even hand-drawn/scanned/rendered ones- it's just that most people choose low-res,"simple" art because it is a) easier to create and b) so very charmingly retro