"Level with Me", my level design interview series at RPS

    Quote

    What distracted me was the pushing (in the comments especally) at PlanetPhil. The guy runs his personal blog where he likes to go about action mods. Giving him the Wikipedia comparison or how he has to mention mods for the archieves came across really strong. I really like the radiator mods and they're featured on a lot of sites (including the one I used to write for) but repeatetly pushing at someone for not reporting on them just looks unprofessional. It's like trying to force your indie-band into the death-metal magazine.

    e-freak: I think discussing what PlanetPhillip "should" include, if anything at all, is important to the main point that emerged from the interview -- why are games separated into "normal" and "weird art game" when both can be interesting in their own ways? Are we just so set in these divisions? Why aren't we more inclusive and understanding of both?

    I disagree with your comparison. It's more like asking a death metal magazine to cover prog metal.

    i really don't wanna go too much into this, but the division happens when you try to create a game with a message but without necessarily making that game fun or entertaining. it's very one sided when it should in fact contain both sides. i don't think people would have a problem with it, if it indeed contained both. but then this is just my opinion

    i actually agree with sentura here, "weird art games" usually aren't entertaining, they are just weird "art". there has to be a point where something is either an experience played out through user interaction and doesn't have any real gameplay mechanics, or it's an actual game with actual mechanics that are actually fun and engaging.

    i have a love hate relationship with so called indie or art games, things like Limbo or Braid which are hailed as creative masterpieces with deep storytelling and artistic gameplay. whatever, limbo is a platformer with nice atmosphere and some apalling "learn by dying" mechanics. braid is so up it's own arsehole that it forgot to have consistent mechanics and a learning curve, and opted for anything goes difficulty-wise and a learning curve more line a sine wave with a budget that would have made super mario shit his pants.

    exploring mechanics is great, but how much fun would it honestly be to make a 6 hour game out of "alternative" mechanics? surely the reason games have evolved to the state they are currently in is because it's the best way to convey a story, drive gameplay forward, and sell an experience to the player. people have done some crazy shit in the past, the japanese actually made some very interesting games, and i think the ps1 had some of the most brilliantly innovative games we've ever seen, but from an end-user experience they weren't exactly the most compelling pieces of software.

    long story short, the main problem i have with art games and alternative/weird mechanics is that the people who create them seem to think that games can somehow be as meaningful and deep as a medium such as painting or writing, but personally i don't think a whacky mechanic is the way to reach those goals. play through portal 2 and tell me you didn't come away moved, having experienced a wide range of emotions from sadness through to elation. surely in this case a video game has achieved the same thing a good book has done. it's used a series of quite unconventional but well presented and polished mechanics, and weaved in a story and characters in a very professional way.

    do we really need a whacky loading screen or a fake BSOD to make it into an art?

    Quote from Sentura

    a game with a message but without necessarily making that game fun or entertaining.

    Fun like grinding for XP? Fun like going to a bar with your friends? Fun like finger painting? I know you said "you don't want to get too much into this" but basing any value claim on an unexplained definition of fun is... lazy.

    Quote from Rick_D

    i have a love hate relationship with so called indie or art games

    indie games != art games. Peri's procedural FPS is definitely indie, but I doubt he'd call it an art game.

    And you think the mechanics in Braid are poorly designed? Are you kidding? I can't even tell when you're not trolling anymore... The puzzle design is fantastic. The last level is genius. The way he reuses level layouts is even more genius. No one defends the books or the text narrative though, I agree that aspect was lame. But generally when people talk about the narrative in Braid, they're talking about the level design, I think.

    Quote from Rick_D

    the main problem i have with art games and alternative/weird mechanics is that the people who create them seem to think that games can somehow be as meaningful and deep as a medium such as painting or writing

    So no one should even try? There is literally no space for experimentation in this direction? And be honest, when was the last time a painting moved you? I'll confess: Portal 2 entertained me, but didn't move me. The plot structure was too transparent for me. "This is Act 1. This is exposition."

    But when I played The Path? There's no gameplay, so what do I do? Okay, I'll just click on random stuff... oh crap, did I just get my character raped? My god. What the hell just happened. Was that even my fault? But the game wanted me to get raped? But that's a stupid thing for a game to want. Can a game "want" me to do something in that way? How can the game blame me for making a choice I didn't know I was making?, etc. and I find all those questions "FUN" to think about, "meaningful and deep like a painting"

    After Portal 2, I had no such questions about what games are or what games could be. Therefore, Portal 2 wasn't fun or engaging. QED.

    i was thinking about that as well - then again, the stanley parade does a lot of what you (robert) discuss in the round table. playing on player's expectations and making you think there would be "real" (action) gameplay and then leaving you with the exact opposite.

    Quote from Campaignjunkie

    Fun like grinding for XP? Fun like going to a bar with your friends? Fun like finger painting? I know you said "you don't want to get too much into this" but basing any value claim on an unexplained definition of fun is... lazy.

    fun is subjective. the point i was trying to make was that even if you do think a game is fun while having a message, the masses (i.e., me and everyone else) may not necessarily think so as well. games should be focused on the player's experience rather than the designer's intended experience, and for this, you need people from all over the bell curve to playtest.

    Quote from Sentura

    games should be focused on the player's experience rather than the designer's intended experience

    I think that's the main point, most artsy games are more about the developer than the player, and most of them are really pushy about it, and get offended when you question them.

    It's a bit like musicians who ask the listeners not to skip songs from their albums, saying that the album should be experienced the way they intended it to be, but in reality the album should be experienced the way I want it to be, if I want to skip a song that I don't appreciate (maybe it brings back bad memories, maybe it doesn't fit my current mood, or maybe I think it breaks the flow of the album, etc...), I will do it, and I don't care.

    Quote from barrakid

    I think that's the main point, most artsy games are more about the developer than the player, and most of them are really pushy about it, and get offended when you question them.

    It's a bit like musicians who ask the listeners not to skip songs from their albums, saying that the album should be experienced the way they intended it to be, but in reality the album should be experienced the way I want it to be, if I want to skip a song that I don't appreciate (maybe it brings back bad memories, maybe it doesn't fit my current mood, or maybe I think it breaks the flow of the album, etc...), I will do it, and I don't care.

    You mean that the game can get a few fans that absolutely adores the game and thinks its the best shit ever created, but most people won't understand it?

    Quote

    But when I played The Path? There's no gameplay, so what do I do? Okay, I'll just click on random stuff... oh crap, did I just get my character raped? My god. What the hell just happened. Was that even my fault? But the game wanted me to get raped? But that's a stupid thing for a game to want. Can a game "want" me to do something in that way? How can the game blame me for making a choice I didn't know I was making?, etc. and I find all those questions "FUN" to think about, "meaningful and deep like a painting"

    those sound like very pretentious questions to be honest, do you really think like that?

    Quote from Campaignjunkie

    So no one should even try? There is literally no space for experimentation in this direction? And be honest, when was the last time a painting moved you?

    try all you want, but trying does not imply sticking it into people's faces and forcing them to like it just because you do. if you really want to try something new AND at the same time make it affect people, then make it into an epic, glorious triple-a game. those games that have try something new (without the attitude) while still catering for everything else are the most successful. look at bioshock, or half-life 2, and about how many people still remember and love those games, both for their messages and their gameplay and their setting, etc. "art" games focus so intensely on just one or a few aspects of a game that they forget what a game truly comprises of. and in the end, people, no matter how stupid or smart, see through this.

    Quote from Rick_D

    those sound like very pretentious questions to be honest, do you really think like that?

    It all trickles down. So very occasionally when the CEOs let the game industry experiment with form (e.g. gunship level in MW, No Russian, etc.) are you going to say this all came out of nowhere? Of course not. Super Columbine preceded No Russian, The Path precedes what will probably be a rape level in MW4, etc. So no, I don't think it's pretentious at all, to wonder "what's okay to talk about with games, and how?"

    Six Days in Fallujah got blacklisted for reasons that had nothing to do with level design or gun balance or bad voice acting. Everyone else in society pretty clearly sees games as pieces of culture that make statements, even if the games don't intend to. Why do we insist that games can't ask questions?

    Quote from Sentura

    look at bioshock, or half-life 2, and about how many people still remember and love those games, both for their messages and their gameplay and their setting,

    They're both entertaining and pretty games, but as art, they fail. The message of Bioshock is that you should murder people with weapons and magic powers, then kill a puppy or save a puppy for the same reward, then kill a big blue guy at the end. The message of HL2 is that you should kill soldiers and monsters, and use the gravity gun to hit people with toilets. You're a violent mute sociopath in all these games -- that is the narrative because that is what you're doing for 99% of the time, and that's the only thought process required to play. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't insult art by suggesting those games function as art (or better than art) because they don't.

    Quote from Tailgunner

    new one, keep it up robert great reading

    Thanks. Brendon Chung's one of my heroes so it was fun to do. Next week is with the guy behind The Stanley Parable, so the discussions get pretty crazy.

    Art is subjective, just because you don't think its art, doesn't mean it isnt.

    Alas, I'm going to have to side with Rick (sigh ) as some of these articles/questions do come across as very pretentous. Maybe its just the way its been written up but theres also times where stuff smacks of double standards, you say you don't like/understand something and therefore its not "good" yet when the whole art mod debate comes out you dont understand why people think the way they do.

    Maybe i'm just turning into more of a bitter twisted designer though

    Quote from Campaignjunkie

    But when I played The Path? There's no gameplay, so what do I do? Okay, I'll just click on random stuff... oh crap, did I just get my character raped? My god. What the hell just happened. Was that even my fault? But the game wanted me to get raped? But that's a stupid thing for a game to want. Can a game "want" me to do something in that way? How can the game blame me for making a choice I didn't know I was making?, etc. and I find all those questions "FUN" to think about, "meaningful and deep like a painting"

    THE WORLD IS IN FLAMES

    Quote from Campaignjunkie

    They're both entertaining and pretty games, but as art, they fail. The message of Bioshock is that you should murder people with weapons and magic powers, then kill a puppy or save a puppy for the same reward, then kill a big blue guy at the end. The message of HL2 is that you should kill soldiers and monsters, and use the gravity gun to hit people with toilets. You're a violent mute sociopath in all these games -- that is the narrative because that is what you're doing for 99% of the time, and that's the only thought process required to play. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't insult art by suggesting those games function as art (or better than art) because they don't.

    You are saying that the message and narrative of a game are solely based on the game play actions of the player?

    As in, Shadow of the Colossus's message is that you should climb and murder the biggest animals you can find?

    It's like saying that the message of every book to date is that you gain knowledge by turning square paper pieces bound to a hard cover over and over again while looking at the printed ink markings. That's what you do 99% of the time.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login