[MUD-Dev] DGN: Reasons for play [was: Emergent Behaviors spawned from...]

[Sean Howard]

"Michael Hartman" <mlist at thresholdrpg.com>
> Sean Howard wrote:

>> Which was my point - to contradict a statement by somebody who
>> said that the best way to make the Sims Online was to get
>> somebody who liked the Sims, liked MMORPGs, and had a whole bunch
>> of luck.

> That is a mischaracterization. "Luck" is your addition to the
> equation.

Take two things you like to eat and eat them together. You like
pickles and ice cream. Doesn't go together. You like tacos and
barbeque. Also doesn't go togehter. Chocolate and peanut butter? Now
you're on to something. The successfulness of this appraoch is based
more on luck than skill. I don't think it is a mischaracterization
at all.

>> He was passionate about designing; I doubt very much that it
>> mattered what.

> I think it matters a great deal. If you do not have a personal
> interest in what you are designing, it will be (as Damien already
> pointed out) soulless.

I didn't say he did not have a personal interest in what he was
designing.  I said that whatever he would be designing, he'd have a
personal interest in. The design's the thing. Believe it or not,
some people work at such an abstract level that the subject matter
has no intrinsic value. It's only "soulless" if you are lost and
can't find your way (or don't care to).

> That is the domain of movie-themed schlock that is churned out for
> a cross marketing purpose rather than to try and make a game that
> is fun.

A good game is a good game, Rugrats or not. The reason why people
are always so surpised when something like Tony Hawk or Goldeneye
are good is because these types of things very often involve
soulless designs by lost "designers" - but it doesn't have to be
that way. It just is because the game industry doesn't have a damn
clue about how to design jack, but every once in a while, they get
lucky. Chocolate and peanut butter.

> I am not sure how much of a serious discussion is even possible if
> you so casually blow off the importance of experience in making
> good games.

I'm not sure what criteria you are using, but I don't think a
requirement for a serious discussion is that the participants agree.

> I have been making games for 10 years. Any game I make from this
> point forward will be immensely superior to games I made 10 years
> prior, largely because of invaluable experience. In my current
> work, I frequently notice how much better something I have
> designed turns out specifically because of lessons I learned in
> the past.

Experience is worth something for personal growth, but not a whole
lot to anybody else. You see a guy with 10 years of industry
experience a a guy with 6 months - which one designs better games?
I'll give you a hint - there's not enough information to answer that
question, despite whatever misguided beliefs the game industry
has. Also, what takes you 10 years to learn, someone else could
learn from a book in a weekend. Experience is personal, it is
subjective, and it doesn't tell you a damn thing about the ableness
of a person. Maniac Mansion was created by a couple teenagers - what
experience did they have?

> No, people with experience have seen things that work and don't
> work. They have, hopefully, also figured out why.

I've never done heroine, nor want to. I don't need to have train
spotting to be able to speak at some certainty as to why heroine is
bad for you.  People have this absurdly stupid idea that the only
way to understand something is to have experienced it. Experience
only has value in absence of real knowledge. It does little to
contribute to or replace it.

> Frank Lloyd Wright was not creating consumer entertainment.

Entertainment is no different than architecture, and if you think it
is, then I don't want you designing my house or my video games.

> The two types of design [architecture and game design] are really
> not very comparable whatsoever.

To quote Yoda: "No! No different. Only different in your mind. You
must unlearn what you have learned."

You know, when I used to program, I read this book called "Design
Patterns". If you're a programmer, you are probably familiar with
it.  Revolutionizes software design and all. It was based on two
books called "A Timeless Way of Building" and "A Pattern Language"
by the architect Christopher Alexander - and to this day, there has
yet to be a better treatise on design anywhere. Design is design,
whether it be buildings, software, or gameplay.

> A great game does not need to inspire other creatores with "new
> ideas and courage" in order to be great.

If it is truly great, the inspiring will be a side effect more than
an intent.

> Also, I daresay that the world would not be "worse off" without
> even the best games ever made. That is a pretty severe
> overstatement. One of my favorite games, as a player, was Diablo
> 2. The world would not be "worse off" without Diablo 2.

It would be worse of without Super Mario Bros. Diablo 2 is a good
game, but hardly a great one.

>> He doesn't have to be a model employee, and I dare say that if he
>> truly wanted to create something unique, there's no way he COULD
>> BE.

> This sounds to me like the theory of an anti-social, non-team
> player trying to justify their behavior by saying "only a jerk
> like me could ever make something great." I am not saying that
> about YOU, I am saying that the above words sound like the
> argument such an individual would make.

In order to make something great, you must neccessarily do something
that has never been done before. The first Tomb Raider may have been
great, but Tomb Raider 4 was not, despite being essentially the same
game. Doing something that has never been done before requires risk,
and risk is something that most large companies like Activision
can't or won't take.  By virtue of doing something new and untested
(intentionally), you are going against the best interests of the
company you work for. Just about every inspirational story of game
design I've ever heard involved a Sisyphean task against
insurmountable odds - nobody ever says... yeah,
hey. Half-Life. Crapped that out in a weekend. Then we got drunk.

For the record, I am an asocial, non-team player and proud of it. I
get really sick of the social, team player people thinking that only
their approach could possibly be right because, hey, they're social
and team players right? It's really oppressive and it pisses me
off. It's like, there's no such thing as a good idea unless
everybody is in on it.  Committees everywhere, and a clear hierachy
of command that is based on everything except talent (can't have
that, because it offends those who have none).

History is full of asocial people that made the biggest individual
differences, and yet, somehow, being asocial makes me retarded in
most people's eyes.

> Being anti-social and disagreeable are not requirements for
> greatness or creativity. It is, quite frankly, insulting to say
> so.

There's a difference between not preferring social gatherings and
gaining self esteem from within to being anti-social and
disagreeable - and, quite frankly, your characterization is
insulting.

- Sean
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev