|
A while ago I came across a very interesting article about categorizing video games. It's written by Mark Overmars (the guy responsible for the GameMaker program I'm currently using) and it's got some neat insight:
http://glog.yoyogames.com/?p=181
Here's the tl;dr version:
Games can be categorized based on their focus using the following diagram:
![[image loading]](http://glog.yoyogames.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/diamond.jpg)
Simulation opposes Gameplay, Story opposes Social aspects.
Different people obviously have different tastes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After reading this article, I keep thinking about it every time I play a game. It's one of those things that seemed kind of stupid and obvious to me when I read it, but then the more I thought about it the more I realized how useful of a system it is.
Thinking about some popular games with this diamond diagram in mind is very fun for me. For example, the Super Smash Bros. trilogy. The first game had NO story. "Here's some famous Nintendo dudes; go beat the shit out of each other. Oh, also something about a hand. Yeah." It was a purely gameplay/social construct with its sole marketing point being its combat system and its addictive multiplayer mode. Super Smash Bros. Melee, for its part, pretended to half-ass a story competent (lol adventure mode) but it was really focused on the multiplayer as well. Brawl had the most fleshed-out story mode of all three games... and arguably the chilliest reception from the competitive community out of all three games. Thinking about it, I can see why the competitive Smash community was so ambivalent about Brawl- less effort spent on perfecting the gameplay and the multiplayer aspect for a shitty story mode. While this is kind of a shallow interpretation (i.e. there's lots of other things Brawl has going against it, and I'm very aware that there is a huge competitive Brawl scene regardless) it's still fun to think about in terms of this Focus Diamond.
This article also FINALLY gave me a way to explain how "simulation" games like Roller Coaster Tycoon can be so popular. It's a really vexing question tying to explain to, say, my parents, how a game that simulates running a business (which they do for a job and frequently hate) can possibly be a leisure activity for me. But of course, these "sim" games are not simulations at all, they are mostly gameplay elements that have a nice veneer of simulation around them. I mean really, even the most modern of the Roller Coaster Tycoon games have pretty much nothing to do with the realities of owning a theme park- it's a game, first and foremost, despite the fact that you find it in the "simulation" category of your game store.
So yeah, I could rant on and on, but I hope to get a discussion going in this blog. What corner(s) of the diamond has the games that appeal to you the most? When you are buying a new game, do you consciously go out thinking, "I want a good story", or are you just drawn to that type of game?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh btw, I like music. So I'm going to post a music with each blog, because I can. Currently this song is stuck in my head like you wouldn't believe... at least it's a good song ^_^
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Canada8031 Posts
I think most people's tastes are largely genre dependent. For example,
RPG = story
FPS = play
MMO = social
and so on. Of course, these aren't the only things we look for in each genre, but I daresay it's what most people consider the most important.
I don't really agree with your conclusion regarding how gameplay conflicts with story. It's definitely possible for a game to be satisfying in both respects. In fact, a lot of the best games out there combine the two - Deus Ex, for instance is a masterpiece in terms of story and gameplay. Your Smash Bros example seems flawed considering how the development of Melee into a competitive game was pretty fluky (I don't think anyone foresaw the discovery of wavedashing and other glitches). In addition, Brawl was developed to cater to the casual player more than anything else.
What the heck does "play" refer to anyways? When you're playing a simulation game you're not actually playing? It's kind of a vague term.
|
I usually dont enjoy games that try to copy real life activities (sports, sims, etc), and starcraft seems to have a strong combination of all the other 3, so maybe thats why i like it so much  interesting writup though
|
So does this mean that the games that are in the middle of the diamond - more balanced, tend to be worse as the designers have to split their focus? Are there any good games that can do both story and social (mulitplayer) very well. I don't think gameplay and simulation is possible? I personally tend to like the gameplay / social games, but there are a few good single player games I can think of.
Spazer- I think that he came to the conclusion (or should have) that the story interfered with the social aspect - multiplayer, and the balance of the multiplayer, not necessarily the game play. That would fit in with the diamond 'theory'.
|
Of course I enjoy all 4 corners (albeit not equally). My mood determines what I'm into playing.
Sometimes a sim game is nice to get away from overly fantastic worlds, but I would love to revisit those fantasy stories to let my mind escape again. Sometimes I want to play with my friends, online and off, and just have some good friendly competition (although friendly can get easily thrown out the window online). Then I just want a wacky or interesting game, such as Mario, to put my skills to the test or just mess around with.
It's all relative to what I'm in the mood for. However, I do gear more in favor of story and gameplay, because I like the fiction it usually brings.
I do like the idea behind this diamond. I'd have to really agree with it for the most part.
|
Canada8031 Posts
On April 21 2010 14:42 DCLXVI wrote:
So does this mean that the games that are in the middle of the diamond - more balanced, tend to be worse as the designers have to split their focus? Are there any good games that can do both story and social (mulitplayer) very well. I don't think gameplay and simulation is possible? I personally tend to like the gameplay / social games, but there are a few good single player games I can think of.
Spazer- I think that he came to the conclusion (or should have) that the story interfered with the social aspect - multiplayer, and the balance of the multiplayer, not necessarily the game play. That would fit in with the diamond 'theory'.
...less effort spent on perfecting the gameplay and the multiplayer aspect for a shitty story mode
Anyway, the development of the story shouldn't have interfered with multiplayer in Smash Bros. After all, development teams are split into different sections for a reason. It's not like lessening the story writing personnel and increasing the number of gameplay testers would've helped that much. Besides, no Smash Bros game has been balanced - that's why people obsess over the tier lists. As I said, Melee turned out to be competitively good by chance, and Brawl was meant for casual gamers.
|
Perhaps the Smash example wasn't the best... It's a good illustration of the concept in theory, but yeah in practice the single-player mode development and the multiplayer are separate teams.
The thing is though, you say "oh but Brawl was meant for casual gamers"
That's the whole point-> inclusion of an in-depth story mode is not something that the hardcore multiplayer enthusiast want, and it was a disappointment for them because it was a focus that they were not looking for. Because catering to "casual gamers" involves slowing down the game compared to melee (i.e. less emphasis on the fast gameplay the competitive players liked), it was moving the focus to a sector of the diamond that was not suitable for what the competitive community expected.
IT MAKES SENSE IN MY HEAD, I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it well in words >_<
On April 21 2010 14:40 Spazer wrote:
What the heck does "play" refer to anyways? When you're playing a simulation game you're not actually playing? It's kind of a vague term.
"Gameplay" is refferring to decidedly artificial constructs that help the user enjoy the game but do not necessarily follow the rules of reality.
e.g. infinite ammo, because the developers think that collecting and monitoring ammo is not something they want the player to have to focus on. a middle of the road approach would be, say, limited ammo, but also having ammo pickups everywhere. A more simulation-style approach would be like some of the modern tactical shooters, where every bullet really counts and you don't just find bullets lying around for no reason. that kind of thing
|
Simulation can be more playful though. For example, if you put realistic physics simulation into a game, it can make it fun to play around with ragdolls, knocking blocks around, etc.
|
MMORPGs are big in the social department, but most of them are also heavily wrapped in story and lore as well.
Still, I think it's an interesting viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
