Hacktivism Intent- JaysonV
Power of Game Developers
The power of gaming, over the years has increased greatly. From its humble beginnings in the late seventies to the present day where now anyone who knows computer code can create a game. Nintendo was, iconically, the first gaming giant to ever come into existence with the classic arcade game Donkey Kong in 1984. Shortly after they launched a home console, the Nintendo Entertainment System or NES. They pushed far past the Atari in which many games could be played with more controls and possibilities. Now as we come towards modern day, Sega had joined in and gone, Sony and Microsoft followed in the trail and have caught up along with many other independent developers who are still following this trail, blazed by Nintendo. This has happened to the point of the qualities of games being fairly matched, though there are much fewer quality games. Why is this? It is my belief that technology has advanced to the point where it is easier to make games. The Unity 3D engine for example. It allows anyone who has the knowledge of basic programming to be able to learn more and make games in an organized environment. This has also lead to many other advancements in how large industry games are made, being made with less and less effort. Not only advancing in developers technologies, but also consumer tech as well such as television, computers, consoles, and other such progressions in gaming. This gives the consumer a want for something that looks sleeker, nicer, and all round amazing. These technological leaps put the focus on looks rather than feel. This is where I feel, no pun intended, gaming has dropped. So a good way to possibly pick this back up would be to make a game based around game development. Not like Game Dev Tycoon though.
To accomplish this I would use the Unity engine and follow a distinct formula that is essentially a musical triangle. In my opinion game design follows this route:
- Function, without it there is really no game to be had. It is the foundation that any games stays on and can be as simplistic as just walking around, or as complicated as a combat centric horde game where many controls are needed to survive.
- Game Play, a major factor that allows the game to have a certain feel to it. Here in lies the story, the levels, puzzles, or any other mechanics that are there. This essentially gives the player a direction in which to go. If done correctly it can be as small as just giving the player one thing, but should not be telling the player flat out what they have to do and how to do it.
- Aesthetic. This one is the least important but important all the same. There has to be a minimal quality that is a no greater proportion to the function and in game mechanics. Essentially meaning that the aesthetic should compliment these two things and not stand alone.
You can have a game that has very little graphical appeal, but can be amazing nonetheless. You cannot, however, have a game that has no direction or mechanics, nor can you have a game that barely functions as it is. Equally the instrument of the triangle has three parts. The function, being the small mallet used to chime the triangle. The game play, how the triangle sounds when it is struck. Then the Aesthetic, the shape and size of the triangle and its sides. Like I said before, the Aesthetic compliments the Gameplay, the shape and sides change the sound of the instrument. So using this formula, I will create the same exact game in the unity engine three times over, each one being less intensive on one specific aspect and then one copy being in the balance of the three.
This to me will help those who are fellow gamers, discern the difference between a good game and one that is mainly just flashy and showy. For example, a difficulty setting. This would normally mean making things more inclined for the enemy but in a fair way such as making them a bit stronger, or taking something away from the player. In the case of CoD:Black Ops, they only shrink the enemy hit boxes making it harder to hit them AND they do more damage. That is a poor mechanic as it makes the game unfair.
In short: I will attempt to make a game in four different ways using the previously mentioned formula to shed light on the lines between good and poor quality games.
The budget for this will not be of any issue as the Unity engine is a free to use asset. This would be easily accomplishable in a week just to make a simple game.
4 thoughts on “Hacktivism Intent- JaysonV”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Concept
I like this particular idea because I’m a gamer myself and wonder how this idea would change the concept of gaming. It would give gamers a whole way to play their favorite games.
Design
A game design of this caliber takes time to make but the idea of it is very sound and could lead to whole new games that have everything done right.
Technical
I believe the video games that this idea could be applied to work out well because there are some with very impressive graphics but low quality gameplay that need to be changed. It would invite many people try these new game themselves and see the improvement they have over the old ones.
Audience
The intended audience would people who enjoy video games and can really get into the new gameplay experiences with different ways to play each game.
Creativity
I believe that this idea does come from this persons passion because he really values video games and wants them to be improved by making sure they have all part they need to make a perfect game for someone to enjoy.
I really like this idea. As an end product, it would be incredible to compare seeing a single game utilizing different aspects in each versions. The problem I see is the difficulty in completing the games to the extent you are imagining as well as have comparison that would be obvious to the average consumer. The time commitment would be incredible, especially when given a limited time frame. However, with unlimited time and resources it would be an interesting project to see. Considering the importance of graphics is not longer the sole basis for “good” games, narrowing the general publics preferences with each game would be something anyone who plays video games would be interested in. This could massively help game makers who rely on consumer interest and ultimately general success of the game itself.
As a gamer i can really appreciate what you are trying to do here. Your concept is solid but I would like to see more about how the program will gather information from the game to give it a rating. One idea might be gathering information about GPU for the games graphics capabilities but for the game mechanics and narrative those concepts are opinion based. An idea for this would be to gather ratings from gaming websites and other places that rate games. Combining all of that information plus your own opinion you can create a program that many gamers would use. Also I would like to see what the UI would look like for this game.
This idea has some real potential to be a learning experience for gamers and game designers alike. It reminds me of Evoland except instead of traveling “through the ages” of gaming, you’re shifting through the different aspects of gaming, albeit reduced to three core concepts. I think the best way to go about that would be shifting genres in-turn. The gameplay intensive version would be a platformer, the narrative intensive version would play like an average RPG, and the aesthetically focused version could be a kind of exploration game. If I can make another recommendation on its execution, I would create these three distinct “games” as three distinct levels within one proper game. In this way it could function fully as a finished product and better serve its purpose (to exemplify each of the three tenants of game design you propose one at a time but as a whole), otherwise the connecting thread is somewhat lost as the player is literally stopping and starting different games, at which point you might as well compare any three.
The first two tenants you describe, though, Function and Gameplay, sound like they blur together in a big way. The Function of a game by this definition is the methodology by which the player plays it, the core mechanic(s) that define gameplay. But in addition you also bundle together what seems like everything else besides Aesthetics under the umbrella of Gameplay. As this kind of categorical definition is the focus of the project, it bears clarification. To suggest something with my own understanding of GD and games as a player:
1. Mechanics/Gameplay – often (but not always) the most important part of any game, this is the functionality of the game as you described. What/who does the player control? How does this control interact with and translate to the game world? Do they move side to side? Up and down? All around? Do they run? Jump? Shoot? Drive? Fly? Select options from menus/a UI? Advance text? All of that? In its broadest sense, this can be thought of as the game’s genre.
2. Narrative/Progression – the conflict and challenges of the game. Not necessarily a plot; just the logic flow of how the gameplay is validated (like why am I running to the right of the screen). Think of the player as a car driver, and the car is the gameplay/mechanics, so the roads on which the player is driving are the structured progression. There doesn’t always have to be a destination, but you at least direction.
3. Aesthetics – as you described, the visualization of the above two. The game world in total, really. Still very important in that this is what initially grabs an audience’s attention prior to playing the product. It can help to retain attention afterwards, but it can’t be the only thing doing so. Reminds me of a quote that goes something like “a special effect without a story is a very boring thing.” To add to the player-driver metaphor: this is the world surrounding the roads the driver travels along. If you’re driving a crappy jalopy along a scenic cliffside at sunset, your enjoyment of the view is going to be somewhat marred by your struggle with handling the car. But the opposite is also true: you could be driving the smoothest, fastest, best-feeling car in the world, but if you can only drive it around a dump, you’re not going to feel too good about that either. When you have loads of time and money to give people to work on it, you can get the best of both worlds, but on smaller scales and budgets, it’s best to find the right balance of the two for the specific game in question and manage work on both accordingly.
I would take care to steer clear of making any single one of these a deliberately bad experience in your project. Give them each their due effort and create something that really is a good example of the tenant it’s designed around.
That brings to mind one last concern I’m feeling about this: it sounds to me like you think of “quality” gameplay and “quality” graphics as being two ends of the same spectrum, where you can’t focus on one without moving away from the other. In concept, this is a very dated and detrimental mindset to have, but in reality it’s too subjective to say. “Good graphics” doesn’t inherently mean photorealistic modeling, lighting, animation, etc. And “good gameplay” is about as subjective as “good music”. There are standards and trends that are safe to follow in both formats in order to best turn a profit, but that doesn’t make them easy to do. The streamlining of this development process isn’t the same as it taking less and effort to develop these things. Majority of developers big and small would take offense to that notion. Rather, as games have gotten more complex, so too have the tools to make them, but simultaneously more accessible. It’s safe to bet that any individual developer at a larger game company will sympathize just as much with indie guy in his apartment as the indie guy would with him.