While talking with my dad who is an avid computer gamer, we brought up how computer games today seem to lack any sort of innovation and focus on originality/individuality. Let me give a little background to explain my particular tastes before I go further. My dad is the one that got me into gaming in the first place, letting me play Johnny Reb (a tabletop miniatures Civil War game) when I was 11. My grandfather was a former Captain in the Navy, and I got to listen to his war stories while he was in the Pacific theatre. I also got to listen to stories from one of my Great Uncles who was at both D-day and Operation Market Garden (with the 101st Screamin Eagles). Heck, my mom was born in a foxhole while the Japanese were burning down her parents farm (I''m part filipino), and consequently my other grand dad and older uncles used to go Japanese head-hunting at night. So, what''s this got to do with the topic? Well, needless to say, I have very strong roots in military history and gaming. I have, I think, a very good grasp of military procedure, doctrine, and styles of gaming. Since my father is also a military history buff, we often talk about so-called "strategy games". We both feel that games today have two major problems. The first is that many games are too "clone-like". They basically follow the same gameplay of a succesful game from the past, and basically regurgitate the same concepts to recreate a winning "formula" The other problem is that we both realize we are in a tiny minority. We are both pretty hardcore wargamers. We both originally come from non-computer game environments. In tabletop gaming, they cn focus on very specific details and nuances that I find appealing. In the tabletop market, the manufacturers pretty much realize they are reaching a very niche audience. They also don''t have the same overheads that a game design team has to face. And while the first problem deserves it''s own thread, it''s the latter that I''d like to focus on. As an avid wargaming fan, how far should I go to recreate my hardcore niche, even though I realize that it probably won''t appeal to a large audience? At least that''s the hypothesis. I think a truly TRULY excellent game can transcend a self-limiting genre. Take for example movies like The Matrix, Braveheart, or Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Both had very specific "built-in" audiences. None of those movies were expected to have wide appeal...but they all did. So at what point do you make sacrifices or compromises to artistic vision for more mainstream appeal? OR should I just stay true to my vision and say to hell with appeasing a mainstream audience? To make it worse though, as I said previously, games nowadays require massive budgets. It''s becoming very much akin to the movie industry where Big Budget flicks are made to appeal to a certain low common denominator. It might guarantee a certain market, but it compromises what a designer REALLY wants to portray. But without the compromises, the money will never be there to back up the creation of the game. And just like the movies, unless you are a "name" director (a gaming equivalent of a Speilberg or Cameron like Wil Wright, Peter Molyneux, or Sid Meier) then good luck in trying to propose your truly original idea. I think just as in the movie industry, the only truly unique and innovative games come from the indies and garage programmers. Personally, I''d rather stay faithful to my vision of what I''d like a game to be. What does everyone else think? Compromise your ideas and visions to make it more "sellable"? I haven''t even really touched on the fact that many game design teams don''t have the gaming equivalent of a "Director" There might be a lead programmer, a lead designer, a lead artist, etc, but other than the corporate suits dictating a general direction and acting as an editor of sorts.....there''s no "Visionary" in charge of everything.

"As an avid wargaming fan, how far should I go to recreate my hardcore niche, even though I realize that it probably won''t appeal to a large audience? "

I think you basically already said it... as far as you can afford it.

And as far as i know most of the design teams have something like a lead designer (at least we always do). With smaller projects it might work, doing the design together (3-4 ppl max), but with larger projects you have to have someone in charge, or things get changed five times over, and you can never get anything done.

As far as I can afford it wouldn''t be very far

But I guess thats the price to be paid for not being a big name or having non-mainstream ideas. Unfortunately, it takes a visionary to break the mold, and then once he does, you mostly just have copy cats that try to mimic the formula (that originally no one thought of, or "people-in-the-know" thought wouldn''t fly) to be succesful again.

It''s a vicious catch-22. Be creative ane original, and people don''t want to fund your idea and development...without creativity and originality, games get stale and you lose your audience.

This is the argument that''s "raging" among the Nintendo community. You''ve seen the "new Zelda" right? All cartoon and stylized. Nevermind that Miyamoto wants to avoid making OOT over and over and over, and that the game''s animation is breathtakingly fluid and that, even, it''s MIYAMOTO, the genius game designer. What matters to a lot of people is "oh, it''s not ''mature'' anymore... what happened to OUR ZELDA?!?!?"

Great point, guys.

"So at what point do you make sacrifices or compromises to artistic vision for more mainstream appeal? OR should I just stay true to my vision and say to hell with appeasing a mainstream audience?"

Well depends on what kind of guy you are. Personally I''m uncompromising, but that''s not necessary a good trait, especially when you''re in the business for money, which I''m not at the moment I might add.

You know of Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord? Best WWII simulator I''ve ever played, and they didn''t compromise to hit the mass audience. They created the game they felt they could be proud of, and for lack of better word, it ROCKS!

Just goes to show the popular trends aren''t necessarily all that popular. Even if they were, would you really want to strive for them?



Michael Heilemann
---------------------------
Designer on Singularity - Sysop at Nerve Impulse
Let us never allow ourselves the sin of forgetting our dreams!

Wait, games aren''t art, they''re just commercial products, so this arguement isn''t relevant. I think it should be locked .

Seriously, it all depends. If you''re making a game for yourself, or making a low budget hardcore game specifically for a niche market, then go for your artistic vision. If you''re making a retail product you probably want to tone it down at least a little bit so people don''t have to super-hardcore just to use the interface. There''s nothing wrong with designing a game to be accessible.

Humm.. seeing your options here i can only thing of one suggestion.. varying levels of play. The best way, in a war game, to do this is through the use of different "difficulties" of the game. Perhaps on say, private level, you merely command small parts of things.. such as troop movement from here to there, etc. The battles and supply lines are all handled by the computer for you. Then you step up a notch, to sergent. At this level you have troop movements and battles to fight. You can opt out to have the computer do these for you, but it''s not as intelligent as the one in the private level.. meaning it doesn''t help you as much. Then you move up to admiral, where you have control over EVERYTHING. Supplies, troops, combat, intelligence.. the door is open on it all.
Of course, the best thing to do would be simply to have options as to what areas of the game you''d like to be involved in and which you''d like the computer to run. And difficulty determines more how well the opponent plays and how well your computer plays.
Now, i''ll admit i''m a history buff.. WWII especially. But I''ve never seen a game flexible enough to do what I want.. command it all Civilization is great for overall troop and supply sort of things, but lacks the actual combat level detail that a game like M1A1 offered XCOM is decent, but it''s setting isn''t history, either.
Just my 2 cents.

J

I would say go for your vision everytime. If it doesn''t work out, well at least you''ve tried. If you succeed with a lesser version you will always wonder whether you could have fulfilled your dream.

I think that game dev is a kind of art, and it may be free. For example in Russia there are a lot of entused students, who are working for free with friends, and I working with my friend now. We just making game wich is not so tipical.