🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
The Landfish Forum - Are Clichés evil?
Sorry to make this seem like a personal post: it''s not. But there seems to be a certain way of thinking evolving on this board, and not all of it is ''healthy''. Let me elaborate.
As far as I can see, Mr Landfish likes to post thought-provoking topics, sometimes deliberately mildly inflammatory, to start a discussion, to get people thinking about things that were previously taken for granted by many, to question the clichés in game design, and especially RPG game design, and to consider alternatives to the status quo.
This, I think is a good thing.
But I am concerned that some people are now doing one of two things. They are saying "Well, Landfish said it, so it must be true!" or, worse still, "Yes, that''s a cliché, never again will I have goblins or stats or levels or experience or death in my RPG!" It seems like some people are seeing these clichés for the first time, and suddenly deciding they have to rebel against them, making a game that is different in every sense, without really putting much thought into the ''why'' or ''how'' of such an endeavour.
Stop a minute.
Why do clichés happen? Are they always down to the lack of imagination of the designers? Or could they perhaps be down to the idea of giving the people what they want? Security through familiarity, perhaps. I know I tend to look twice at any new game which has a dragon on the cover, if only because I think it might be an RPG. Or perhaps a cliché occurs because it truly -is- the best way of doing things: a methodology or process which has evolved over time into a streamlined system that we see today in many forms. I asked someone once what she likes in a book: she said magic, swords, and wars. Hardly original, but it makes her happy - and no doubt many other people, too. A good writer can make a good story out of fairly simplistic and common concepts. After all, it is proposed that there are only 39 different stories in existence, and each story is fundamentally based on one of those 39 types.
So, I am saying this. Of course, go out, and challenge -every- element of game design you see. And not just the clichés. Challenge the original parts, too: how could they have made the change better? Did they go too far? Not far enough? But when you see something, don''t write it off because it is clichéd or unoriginal, and don''t assume something is wonderful because it is new or different. Look a bit deeper, look to the intrinsic values of the feature, regardless of the level of originality. Just ask, is it fun for me, is it fun for others? And that is surely what game design is about.
Sermon ends.
From what I''ve seen, I think you and Landfish are actually thinking along the same lines (though I might be wrong). The thing to make sure of is that you are thoughtful about what you incorporate into a game, to ensure that the end result has those aspects you think important, and so that it actually has a well planed out and carefully executed theme.
To those that say "but I don''t want a theme", sorry you''ll need one, and whether you think about it or not, your game will have one (even if it''s trigger-happy FPS, where you''re focusing on action and bloodshed). I''m not necessarily talking about themes in the "literature" sense, but more in the game-concept sense. The only difference about not thinking about this is that it will be poorly planned and executed.
As to cliches. ''Cliches'' can be useful under certain circumstances, and depending on what effect you''re trying to achieve. I''d say that about 80% of modern fiction is written in limited third-person, past tense. That''s because it''s what people are used to, and so it becomes ''invisible'' -- people can pay attention to the story. There''s times, of course, when an author will change this; perhaps to make the story more compelling, immediate, or whimsical -- there''s lots of reasons. But in good fiction, there IS a reason.
Apply that to RPG''s -- hit points. People who play RPG''s are thoroughly accustomed to and familiar with hit points. It''s become the standard (some would say the cliche). If you want to make a "standard-style" RPG in which the thing you''re really emphasizing is your careful characterization and plot, with the random monster-bashing on the side, then this is probably the way to go, since it isn''t what you want your players to focus on. Now you start saying "but, what if..." Well, that''s the point. What if you want to stress the reality of war and combat, perhaps simulate injuries much more realistically? Then it may be a good idea to change the damage system -- just make sure that what you decide upon, using a cliche, or coming up with something original, you do so for a reason.
random-nomad
To those that say "but I don''t want a theme", sorry you''ll need one, and whether you think about it or not, your game will have one (even if it''s trigger-happy FPS, where you''re focusing on action and bloodshed). I''m not necessarily talking about themes in the "literature" sense, but more in the game-concept sense. The only difference about not thinking about this is that it will be poorly planned and executed.
As to cliches. ''Cliches'' can be useful under certain circumstances, and depending on what effect you''re trying to achieve. I''d say that about 80% of modern fiction is written in limited third-person, past tense. That''s because it''s what people are used to, and so it becomes ''invisible'' -- people can pay attention to the story. There''s times, of course, when an author will change this; perhaps to make the story more compelling, immediate, or whimsical -- there''s lots of reasons. But in good fiction, there IS a reason.
Apply that to RPG''s -- hit points. People who play RPG''s are thoroughly accustomed to and familiar with hit points. It''s become the standard (some would say the cliche). If you want to make a "standard-style" RPG in which the thing you''re really emphasizing is your careful characterization and plot, with the random monster-bashing on the side, then this is probably the way to go, since it isn''t what you want your players to focus on. Now you start saying "but, what if..." Well, that''s the point. What if you want to stress the reality of war and combat, perhaps simulate injuries much more realistically? Then it may be a good idea to change the damage system -- just make sure that what you decide upon, using a cliche, or coming up with something original, you do so for a reason.
random-nomad
Kylotan, that's a very good point. Landfish's most prominent point was to simply make sure to realize why you're including what you're including in the game. Ironically, people tend to not question what Landfish has proposed and just follow that. The bottom line is to vigirously question all parts of the game developing process to make something that reflects exactly what one wants to say with the game. This is true about any medium. It actually probably extends to any situation in life.
Edited by - Nazrix on June 28, 2000 12:37:03 AM
Edited by - Nazrix on June 28, 2000 12:37:03 AM
When you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha.
Kylotan, you are absolutely right. I cannot argue with what you have said at all, especially since I have said it myself. I would like to see people question everything, especially what I say! That''s why I dig your posts so much.
I have always maintained that if you have carefully considered the implications, and after long deliberation decided that a murder-based, hitpoint system is what you game needs USE IT! God please don''t overintellectualize and make a bad game!
Other than agreeing whole heartedly, I have to disagree with you on the use of cliche. In literary terms, a "Cliche" is by definition a tried and true technique of manipulating the emotions of the reader/viewer, which has lost it''s effectiveness in that task by becoming overly visible to the reader/viewer. If the player is aware that you are trying to go for a particular emotion, you''ve failed in your task as a storyteller.
What you are thinking about is Archetypal Themes, not cliches.
Thank you for keeping my powers in check. I might have become an egotist! (yeah, right... "might have"...)
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
Kylotan, you are absolutely right. I cannot argue with what you have said at all, especially since I have said it myself. I would like to see people question everything, especially what I say! That''s why I dig your posts so much.
I have always maintained that if you have carefully considered the implications, and after long deliberation decided that a murder-based, hitpoint system is what you game needs USE IT! God please don''t overintellectualize and make a bad game!
Other than agreeing whole heartedly, I have to disagree with you on the use of cliche. In literary terms, a "Cliche" is by definition a tried and true technique of manipulating the emotions of the reader/viewer, which has lost it''s effectiveness in that task by becoming overly visible to the reader/viewer. If the player is aware that you are trying to go for a particular emotion, you''ve failed in your task as a storyteller.
What you are thinking about is Archetypal Themes, not cliches.
Thank you for keeping my powers in check. I might have become an egotist! (yeah, right... "might have"...)
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
Well, while I may occasionally boost Landfish''s ego, I still usually don''t use his ideas. They''re though provoking, but all my games still feature goblins which I still always kill 
.
P.S. Don''t worry anyone, my Main Character (MC) is not some amnesiac who turns out to be a prince and has to go fight the king of an evil empire.
- DarkMage139
"Real game developers don't change the rules. Real game developers don't break the rules. Real game developers make the rules!"
"Originality (in games) is the spice of life!"
. P.S. Don''t worry anyone, my Main Character (MC) is not some amnesiac who turns out to be a prince and has to go fight the king of an evil empire.
- DarkMage139
"Real game developers don't change the rules. Real game developers don't break the rules. Real game developers make the rules!"
"Originality (in games) is the spice of life!"
Clichés can be good...clichés can be bad.
Starting OUT with a cliché theme is a lot different than ENDING UP with a cliché theme.
The difference?
Starting out with a cliché is a ''little'' uninspired (but it can still be good a cliché)
Ending up with a cliché could mean that your inspiration led to the same thing that for example Tolkien''s inspiration led to. Or that the cliché you end up with is just the way it should be.
I think that for example Everquest''s Dark Elves are a good example of an uninspired cliché (but it''s still a good cliché as players have gotten to know Dark Elves as evil beings from for example the Forgotten Realms Drows)
Goblins and Orcs? Again, a little uninspired, but it works for most players (cannonfodder anyone?).
I think though that a game without clichés like this, would stand so much apart from all it''s fellow genre games WITH clichés, that the game might not get the attention it deserves. And as in this day and age the entire system on Earth seems to revolve around money...clichés will live forever.
To use one of those clichés...money makes the world go round. Well, and clichés make that money spin the world even faster.
Do I like clichés? Some I do...some I don''t.
Do I like games without clichés? I sure do! And I want more of ''m.
But then, just like the movies, where Armageddon can be the year''s topseller, the gaming industry is already such a big business that it''ll be hard to get rid of even the most uninspired clichés.
But maybe, if we question the clichés enough, we can force a tiny crack in the big cliché shell and get through the message that UNIQUENESS DOES sell...but then...maybe then the cliché would become ''to be unique''
Silvermyst
Starting OUT with a cliché theme is a lot different than ENDING UP with a cliché theme.
The difference?
Starting out with a cliché is a ''little'' uninspired (but it can still be good a cliché)
Ending up with a cliché could mean that your inspiration led to the same thing that for example Tolkien''s inspiration led to. Or that the cliché you end up with is just the way it should be.
I think that for example Everquest''s Dark Elves are a good example of an uninspired cliché (but it''s still a good cliché as players have gotten to know Dark Elves as evil beings from for example the Forgotten Realms Drows)
Goblins and Orcs? Again, a little uninspired, but it works for most players (cannonfodder anyone?).
I think though that a game without clichés like this, would stand so much apart from all it''s fellow genre games WITH clichés, that the game might not get the attention it deserves. And as in this day and age the entire system on Earth seems to revolve around money...clichés will live forever.
To use one of those clichés...money makes the world go round. Well, and clichés make that money spin the world even faster.
Do I like clichés? Some I do...some I don''t.
Do I like games without clichés? I sure do! And I want more of ''m.
But then, just like the movies, where Armageddon can be the year''s topseller, the gaming industry is already such a big business that it''ll be hard to get rid of even the most uninspired clichés.
But maybe, if we question the clichés enough, we can force a tiny crack in the big cliché shell and get through the message that UNIQUENESS DOES sell...but then...maybe then the cliché would become ''to be unique''
Silvermyst
Well Now,
In the case of RPG''s certain cliches are what
make an RPG an RPG. If Zelda didn''t always have link
and some awe inspiring sword of power Zelda just
wouldn''t be Zelda now would it. I''m not contesting
that you should just clone every RPG and sacrifice
originality just because you decide one day "Oh I
think I''ll make an RPG", as many a Newbie have said.
However certian foundations make an RPG better to work
on and develop thats all I''m saying, but in the main
part I agree with Kylotan, and you too Landfish.
STVOY
Mega Moh Mine!!
In the case of RPG''s certain cliches are what
make an RPG an RPG. If Zelda didn''t always have link
and some awe inspiring sword of power Zelda just
wouldn''t be Zelda now would it. I''m not contesting
that you should just clone every RPG and sacrifice
originality just because you decide one day "Oh I
think I''ll make an RPG", as many a Newbie have said.
However certian foundations make an RPG better to work
on and develop thats all I''m saying, but in the main
part I agree with Kylotan, and you too Landfish.
STVOY
Mega Moh Mine!!
Well Now,
In the case of RPG''s certain cliches are what
make an RPG an RPG. If Zelda didn''t always have link
and some awe inspiring sword of power Zelda just
wouldn''t be Zelda now would it. I''m not contesting
that you should just clone every RPG and sacrifice
originality just because you decide one day "Oh I
think I''ll make an RPG", as many a Newbie have said.
However certian foundations make an RPG better to work
on and develop thats all I''m saying, but in the main
part I agree with Kylotan, and you too Landfish.
STVOY
Mega Moh Mine!!
In the case of RPG''s certain cliches are what
make an RPG an RPG. If Zelda didn''t always have link
and some awe inspiring sword of power Zelda just
wouldn''t be Zelda now would it. I''m not contesting
that you should just clone every RPG and sacrifice
originality just because you decide one day "Oh I
think I''ll make an RPG", as many a Newbie have said.
However certian foundations make an RPG better to work
on and develop thats all I''m saying, but in the main
part I agree with Kylotan, and you too Landfish.
STVOY
Mega Moh Mine!!
What exactly is a cliche? Pulling out the dictionary (no matter what else a designer must be, he or she must be a writer and hence must have a dictionary), you see that it is either a printing mask (archaic) or an expression/idea that "has become trite". The line between Archetypal Themes and Cliches, then, isn''t all that finely drawn.
Why do I point this out? Well, I always thought of cliches the way that most people around do seem to - that is, as ideas which are overused in a particular context. Necessarily, ''overuse'' leads to a diminishing of the impact of the idea itself, as pointed out. But what the hell is an Archetypal theme? It''s a gelatinous pile of goop is what it is! If it''s a theme, then it''s a recurring idea, if it''s archetypal then it''s the generator for a whole set of stuff. But the boundary is too wide to dismiss! It''s not like every fundamental theme is free of cliche, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Try doing it another way: start with a so-called cliche, and if you can''t find a way to make it meaningful again, then make it misleading! Totally jar the player by killing off that main character you seemingly spent so much time building up, stun the player by making the victory over evil incredibly easy and then tear the new machine apart from the inside, make the player weep as you actually HARM the character he or she has worked so hard on. And then find the ways to make those circumstances fun to play within.
Of course, this can only complement the challenge-the-design philosophy that was discussed above. Nothing is a complete theory of design; otherwise the field would probably be completely bankrupt already. But I say DIVE IN(!) when it comes to cliches, don''t back away. Think of that one almost-good moment in Titan A.E., the intelligent doorman. Do the new and unfamiliar with the old and familiar, and you can''t help but reap the rewards.
mikey
Why do I point this out? Well, I always thought of cliches the way that most people around do seem to - that is, as ideas which are overused in a particular context. Necessarily, ''overuse'' leads to a diminishing of the impact of the idea itself, as pointed out. But what the hell is an Archetypal theme? It''s a gelatinous pile of goop is what it is! If it''s a theme, then it''s a recurring idea, if it''s archetypal then it''s the generator for a whole set of stuff. But the boundary is too wide to dismiss! It''s not like every fundamental theme is free of cliche, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Try doing it another way: start with a so-called cliche, and if you can''t find a way to make it meaningful again, then make it misleading! Totally jar the player by killing off that main character you seemingly spent so much time building up, stun the player by making the victory over evil incredibly easy and then tear the new machine apart from the inside, make the player weep as you actually HARM the character he or she has worked so hard on. And then find the ways to make those circumstances fun to play within.
Of course, this can only complement the challenge-the-design philosophy that was discussed above. Nothing is a complete theory of design; otherwise the field would probably be completely bankrupt already. But I say DIVE IN(!) when it comes to cliches, don''t back away. Think of that one almost-good moment in Titan A.E., the intelligent doorman. Do the new and unfamiliar with the old and familiar, and you can''t help but reap the rewards.
mikey
quote: Original post by Landfish
Other than agreeing whole heartedly, I have to disagree with you on the use of cliche. In literary terms, a "Cliche" is by definition a tried and true technique of manipulating the emotions of the reader/viewer, which has lost it''s effectiveness in that task by becoming overly visible to the reader/viewer.
Point conceded. ''Archetypal themes'' is a more accurate term for what I meant, but it might be a bit of a mouthful for many
I don''t think much of people who are ''normal'' because they won''t be different, but I don''t agree with being different just for the sake of it either. Look to the intrinsic quality in all that you do.
quote: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates
Exactly.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
