[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] "The Next Big Thing" (Was: Who to design for?)

[Sean Howard]

"Peter Keeler" <scion at divineright.org> wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that it's not only about having a solution.
> It's also about being the right person in the right place at the right
> time, with the right resources. Give me a talented team, a sizeable
> budget, and a few years to work and I'll give you a world-changing
> procedurally generated game.

That is not strictly true. The Next Big Thing comes from a vision. Even
if you implement something similar, without that vision, it will be
ignored until someone applies one to it. It's like the Apple. Wozniak
created a great computer, but that's all it was until Jobs added his
vision of a computer in every home to it. Wozniak would've made a
machine that was great to tinker with - a real engineer's dream, but
nothing more.

For instance, I don't think Spore is going to make really big waves. I
hope I'm proven wrong here, but I don't think the manner in which
procedural generation is used by it will amount to much more than
customization. And unless they release the core concepts behind the
technology they are inventing, nobody will be able to easily replicate
it or apply it to other subjects. No one is going to look at Spore and
think, oh my gosh, I can totally use this in medicine.

>  I've got plenty of ideas. Unfortunately I
> don't have a resume that says I'm the one to do it, I'm not best buddies
> with any angel investors, and I don't work in the game industry. I've
> just been doing it as a hobby since I was in high school. So, chances
> are it's not going to be me either, because I can't afford to quit my
> job and make a game.

I used to believe that the only thing that kept me from greatness was
the fact that I lived in Florida instead of Seattle or LA. Then I moved
to LA and realized that being in the right place at the right time is a
requirement for minor victories. Sure it makes things easier, but major
victories can happen from anywhere at any time if you are persistent and
have something worth sharing.

> I suppose my real point is that the disruptive technology (procedural
> games or some other NBT) may not come from within the industry. It's
> just as likely to be from some other source. Maybe some other field
> entirely (architecture?). That seems to be the nature of disruptive
> technologies.

Perhaps the greatest advancements made in the art of procedural
generation have come from architecture - Christopher Alexander's
theories of form and design patterns. The reason its going to come from
videogames, however, is for two reasons. The first is iteration.
Procedural generation is going to be refined over millions of different
processes, so it's going to involve a computer MAKING something.

The second is that game content provides a particularly powerful
incentive to make procedural content. Games represent a very complex
system, but a fun one. There is already a significant subgenre of games
that deal exclusively with random content (though admittedly, roguelikes
have done little to further the form - but I think something like Dwarf
Fortress will help greatly).

Once that "Eureka!" barrier is broken by some enterprising game, there
will be a gold rush of procedural content. Mark my words. But I don't
think Spore is going to be it. The vision isn't there. It's got a
vision, but it's the wrong one for PGC. I really think the breakthrough
is going to be a roguelike with a philosophy.

-- 
Sean Howard