FX vs.
Game Content:
When is Great Technology Not Enough?
Every session started off
with short introductory remarks on how this roundtable came about. To
help break the ice, each participant was asked who they were and why
they were there. In the first two sessions, the people attending were
evenly divided between publishers, programmers, and designers. The final
session was heavily slanted towards the designers.
In all of the sessions, a surprising consensus came about that Marketing
can be a key ally to get more and better game content. Everyone thought
that it was best to get Marketing into the project early so that they
buy into the product. In all of the sessions, most everyone felt that
great special effects, whether video and/or audio, just weren't enough.
Finally everyone agreed that a major reason so much more attention is
paid to FX when compared to game content is that FX is easy to sell.
Another overall consensus was that there will never be enough 'horsepower'.
There will continue to be a difference between 2D graphics and 3D graphics,
but that the difference will get smaller.
A set of questions was posted to initiate discussion. Additional questions
were added to the list as they were brought up.
Are the game players getting sated with great visuals (or FX)?
This got little response and the participants seemed to be very undecided.
Some thought yes and other no, and still other hadn't thought about
it.
How do you keep the Techno-Junkies from killing your Great Design?
To my amazement this issue was soundly ignored.
Does Game Content Sell?
This was an issue brought up in the opening of the first session. It
was agreed that it can be, and Talonsoft given as an example. But it
is much easier to market when there are visuals on the back of the game
box. It was also pointed out that it is much easier to write a review
on a game that is mostly great FX than one that is mostly game content.
What is Game Content?
This generated a lively debate with no clear cut consensus about what
game content is. Most felt that it does exist and that some games have
a lot and some a little. Some games have complex game content and some
have very simple game content. Both Mist and Deer Hunter were
used as examples of games with very little or simple game content.
One brave soul offered a definition of game content. He proposed that
game content comes in three forms: fiction, problem solving, and human
interactions. Fiction includes all of the aspics of games that are similar
to movies, including the visuals. Role playing was also considered to
be an important part of both fiction and human interaction. Most everyone
had no problems with what problem solving was in game content. There
was a short but lively discussion on what was meant by human interaction.
Some felt that it was just the user interface while other felt it was
a part of the game content. Finally every thought that 'fun', or entertainment,
was a vital part of game content.
Can FX and Game Content Coexist?
This question kicked off a discussion of complexity of our user interface,
including the keyboard, joysticks, etc. Every agreed that it is getting
to the point of sensory overload. Every one liked the principle of KISS:
Keep It Simple Stupid!
Is the FX Technology going to stabilize & let us do game design?
No consensus was reached on this point. Most everyone hoped that this
would happen but did not think it would. It did spark off an interesting
exchange on game design tools and how they might be used to stabilize
the hardware environment as seen from the designs view. It did come
out that creating a game that ages well is something that the game designers
need to keep in mind when design a game and they need to work with the
techno-junkies to do this.
How can we leverage the Great FX technology we have to enhance our
Game Design?
This generate a very lively debate but came to no consensus. It also
overlapped with the previous issue a lot. Most people held that they
are very closely related subjects.
