Almos

One genuinely scary game with professional level graphics, created by a small group of independent developers on top of their own graphics engine and Newton Game Physics. A demo, actually, but still worth playing. Needs shader support to run. And brains. And dexterity. And nerves of steel. http://frictionalgames.com/?q=penumbra

Being the annoying pest that I am, I'll keep pestering you till I die. The topic for today are the games' protagonists. As you look through them it becomes apparent that most fit into one of the two cathegories, namely: a) Carte-blanche type protagonist: no job, no family, no past. He comes from virtually nowhere, performs his task (that is, saves the world), then vanishes back into the nowhere whence he came. Void of personality of any kind, he's just a puppet for the player to control. To be found in: "Elder Scrolls: Arena", "Noc" (or "The night", a deservedly forgotten polish adventure game). "Come boy and be good"-type protagonist: personification of virtue. During the training he exceeded all of his teammates, and now he's the one charged with the world-saving task. Alternately, type-b protagonist can be a fairly normal person, without any apparent predispositions for heroism, that's nevertheless leaning towards the good and, should the opportunities arise - you guessed it - saves the world. To be found in: "F.E.A.R.", "The Longest Journey". Storytelling-wise, types a) and give very little opportunities for character development. Yeah, the characters can gain experience and broaden their horizons, but that's all. Thankfully, there's the cathegory c), but it's used very seldom: it's the protagonist that walks the tightrope between the good and the bad. The only games that I know make use of this cathegory are "Silent hill" (most notably the second and the third part of the series) and "Malcom's Revenge" from the Kyrandia series. Protagonist of the game I'm trying to assemble with AGS - "Sar" - is likewise ambiguous. Far from being the "good boy who saves the world" (no, there's no saving the world whatsoever in "Sar") he's a ruthless operative of a totalitarian system in a fictional state, a guy who used to torture and kill on his superiors request. And he still does - the player himself will have an opportunity to indulge in the aforementioned activities. All in the name of the good of the state, of course. But it will last only till At Teuren's experience triggers his inner transformation - a one that will bring him downfall rather than salvation. Why do you think ambiguous characters are so rare in computer games? And what kind of characters are you leaning to - tainted heroes or good boys?

When you're playing a computer game you cease to be a human being and become A GAMER.

Don't really know... What I've written about was actually quite innocent. Ask tha staff why they censored it.

Well, it all pales in comparison to... <ALMOS, AS MUCH AS WE HATE TO CENSOR YOUR POSTS WE ARE COMPELLED TO - JUST BECAUSE IN THE U.S. THE PENALTY FOR PERFORMING ACTIVITIES THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IS DEATH. WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT IT WAS JUST A JOKE AND NOT A DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY THAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY PERFORMED AT ANY POINT IN THE PAST, OTHERWISE WE'LL HAVE TO ALERT THE AUTHORITIES. AND WE'LL CERTAINLY DO IT IF POSTS LIKE THIS WILL CONTINUE. FEEL YOURSELF WARNED.>

Despite this all indies can still bite back, and they do: consider "Infinity". The engine was done by one person, the other one did models, the other - music... I think that their team's size does not reach that of a pro team, but what they have done so far kicks ass: www.fl-tw.com/Infinity

... all the more and less intelligent jokes aside, I hope you get where my frustration comes from. Some of the games on the market today are clones. Those who strive for innovation miserably fail (e.g. "Dreamfall"). I happen to hang out at Devmaster forums (for the sole purpose of annoying the regulars) and the most despised thing over there is the idea. Most of the newbies here have idea for a game without having a clue how to make the actual game - and they're an annoying lot. The more annyoing are those, however, who are doing best job in putting them down. But, come to think of it, the idea is what most games today are lacking - hence we get to replay the same games over and over, under different titles, in different settings, and sometimes with improved graphics. That's why from all the new games announced at Gamespot or Gametrailers only a few manage to get my attention. On the other hand, I'm happily enjoying one oldie from times when the gameplay actually mattered - "Elder scrolls: Arena" from Bethesda. Once you come to terms with its ancient low-res graphistry it easily beats the shite out of most things that you need the newest hardware and processor to run. Same applies to "Lords of Midnight". And "Frontier". And few other titles as well. Why? The guys behind them had the idea. Most of designers today seem to be out of them. So they just fabricate clones. I recently read excellent interview with Alan Moore, and it seems the problem pertains to the world of cinema as well. To quote mister Moore: "It’s like, ’Let’s make a movie out of a movie from the 1980s that got good reviews at the time. Let’s make it again. Let’s make a foreign film into a dumbed-down American remake. Let’s make good television series from the ‘60s into films, let’s make bad television series from the ‘60s into films.’ Comic books, video games, PIRATES OF THE-F-CKING-CARRIBEAN -- theme park rides!" Quote comes from www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Comics&action=page&obj_id=51044 Bertalanffy mathemathically proved that systems don't like to change. The word "system" for me is synonymous with "lack of innovation". And that's the situation all over there: there's a movie industry (which is a system), there's a game industry (another example of a system), and both have but one goal - to sustain themselves. To go out of the well-established patterns would be for them to put themselves at risk of failure and - probably - extinction. That's why they do what all the systems do: try to reduce the change for the sake of stability. Nothing wrong with that. But some of us crave for change. And the only change that we see is the progressively increasing poly count. Maybe I'm just complaining - but games not always used to be like that.

BOX 1: Title:"Kill'em all" Genre: FPS Tagline: "Mayhem, mayhem, mayhem and once again mayhem!" Description: "You are John Gardener, a simple gardener whose wife gets whisked by sex-starved demons to the planet Inferno. Being the man of hard labour and instant action you grab your kitchen knife and follow your wife's captors down to their native planet! Experience photorealistic realtime 3d graphics, enjoy cinematic cutscenes that have nothing to do with storyline but look good nonetheless, relieve your frustration by blasting your enemies with all kinds of weapons ranging from kitchen knife to nuke launcher, all this while listening to excellent heavy-metal soundtrack!" BOX 2: Title: "Maddening foosball 18295 and 1/2" Genre: Sport Tagline: "If you thought that Maddening foosball 18295 had extensive set of t-shirts to choose for your players, try Maddening foosball 18295 and 1/2!" Description: ... BOX 3: Title: "A moment of boredom" Genre: Adventure Tagline: "It was said that Hawkings himself got stuck while playing this game!" Description: "You're a female police officer and a fine arts student who's nonetheless plagued by lack of inspiration and bizzare dreams. More than that, during one of your investigations you come upon hints of global conspiracy that has something to do with parallel dimensions. The clues lie hidden in your grandfather's diary..." BOX 4: Title: "Realms for the Rich" Genre: MMORPG Tagline: "Be a king... if you can afford it!" Description: ... ... ... ...

Well, I... <THE FOLLOWING POST HAD BEEN CENSORED BECAUSE OF ITS INDECENCY. OUT OF THIS FORUM, ALMOS! PERVERTS LIKE YOU SHOULD BE GIVEN MEDICAL TREATMENT >

Didn't have (mis)fortune of playing this game, but it seems that this... specific kind of ending is becoming the trademark of TLJ franchise. While the original TLJ had well-developed story, the ending felt like something rushed just before the deadline - as if all of a sudden the developers had plenty of decent ideas but didn't know how to tie them together. Or, even, as if they didn't know where the story was going to from the very beginning.

The end of the world is looming. Someone screwed something up and now the Earth is at the brink of destruction. Democracy, freedom and American Way of Life are in danger. All hopes are gone, save for one. You. Yes, the burden of saving our precious world rests on your very shoulders. Being the superman you are, you have been chosen from the grey, anonymous masses of the humankind, given the best equipment, and sent to face the danger. Alone. Should you fail, the world as we know it will no longer be. But then, I ask: how many times are we to be told the same story? Or, for that matter, do we really need stories - or can we live without them? Come on, the story is but an excuse. We don't really need any justification for blasting away those zombies/demons/aliens or whatever, save for that we just had a bad day and need to relax. The reason for which I ask this very question is manifold. First, the concept of inserting storyline into game is quite popular at the moment. It's almost as if the ludic quality of games had been abandoned in favor of their storytelling potential. "Dreamfall" is possibly the most striking example of this trend. On the other hand, there's a problem with actually integrating the two halves of the game - namely the storyline and gameplay, or, more precisely speaking, challenge. From what I know the designers of "Dreamfall" wanted to create a game where there would be no challenge. And the effect was, to say the least, ambiguous. For the challenge, at least in my opinion, is the core of the game. Without a challenge there's no game. The challenge is what makes us engaged. That's what I loved in "Wing Commander" - this game was challenging. Not overly difficult, and not overly easy. It was all about facing the challenge and proving oneself. Now, if you take away the challenge from the game, what remains? Perhaps freedom to interact with the environment the way we see fit. Perhaps engaging storyline. But then it's no longer a game, I say. It's an excellent piece of computer art, like for instance Ghuinola's "Noctis" or aforementioned "Dreamfall". But in all these examples you're no longer playing a game, you're appreciating a piece of fine art. Which is not to say that we cannot integrate story and gameplay. "Endless Nova" is an excellent example of this. The key was propagation of the save points: when fighting the enemy I felt I'm in genuine danger, and that there's no turning back. This made me feel like if I was inside the story, like I was one of the protagonists - and not the spectator. Another example: Mike Singleton's "Lords of Midnight". A game whose graphics had aged, but the core concepts behind it didn't. Here the story and the gameplay were expertly integrated: you felt like playing a part, and not just watching it unfold. The other reason for which I ask the question is that I'm making my own piece of adventure game, using point&click adventure game construction set commonly known as "Adventure Game Studio". And the game's VERY story-oriented. However, after having read some of the articles out there on Gamedev website I started to doubt if it's the right way. Same after reading THIS post on Devmaster: http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4543 Playing a game vs. telling a story. Or is it really a contradiction? I'd be happy to know your opinion. PS. (I'd also be happy NOT GETTING FLAMED because of the lenght of this post. Thank you.)