Return to “General”

Post

Re: Atmosphere

#16
Thanks for posting the examples, Thymine. I guess my view is that making these things meaningful - as in different enough to act as something you can use to identify an NPC from the crowd - will be really tough. And why not spend the time on faces, since they'll accomplish the same thing and be immediately recognisable for what they are. Of course, that doesn't lessen the need for faction insignia.

With respect to the uncanny valley, my avocation of faces would be that they would exist well to the left - that is, I wouldn't even attempt "realism". All you're looking for is something that can be identified - like this, perhaps. I think my obstinacy is simply because the programming effort to produce unique logos could easily end up being similar to getting basic faces, and I believe one would be a bigger win that the other, even though I'm disagreeing with the Boss. :problem:

On the topic of LT memorability: I have little doubt of it, given the technical proficiency and capability to deliver that Josh has demonstrated. In my head I keep returning to Endless Space however, because of the promise it held vs. the experience. I guess on this one we'll just have to wait and see.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#17
As much as I hate to disagree with Josh (and thank you for the comment, sir!), memorability doesn't work like that for most people.

By emphasizing everything, nothing stands out. That hurts memorability because it makes a game hard to describe to other people (or oneself, years later).

If the only way I can describe LT to someone is to mention shipbuilding AND the interface AND contracts AND NPC AI AND research AND emergent events, because every one of those things (and others) has been purposefully designed to be mind-blowingly spectacular... phew! By that time the other person has already tuned out. It's too much.

Memorability is the one thing you have time to say about a game to someone in the elevator. "Man, do you remember when that three-headed dragon thing was banging on the floor above the reactor core in Half-Life? That was awesome!"

Atmosphere can be memorable. I'd argue that that's exactly what people really remember about Portal -- the test chambers and portal gun and GLaDOS are just there to create that atmosphere of being forced to "jump through hoops" by a spiteful computer program.

And the atmosphere of LT can be memorable. I'm just not sure it gets there by emphasizing multiple individual mechanical elements. Those are important for play that's fun, but a big pile of them doesn't necessarily cohere to create a uniquely memorable effect.

Now, if there's a meta-level of design happening that we (or I, at least) aren't seeing, where all of those very cool things are being designed to make sense with each other in support of an overall deep theme -- whether that's Freelancer-like or something inspired by Freelancer but new -- then I'm happy. That will give me the words about memorability I can say to someone in the elevator who needs to play Limit Theory. :)
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#18
So what is memorable?

For me it's when the game lets you feel something, or lets you achieve something (which again is a feeling, of success).
The games I had me thinking are the most memorable for me. I love going back to minecraft and some hardcore mods because they required ingenuity and thought before doing something. Do it wrong, get your ass kicked.

Morrowind is very memorable for me as well, mostly because of the "firsts" that game gave me. The first time I stood on a cliff and watched the sunset over some toadstool trees. The first time I finished the mages' guild quest line. Stuff like that.
These events weren't so much achievements that had you thinking (though thinking made up its fair share), but it evoked a feeling from me. Finishing the mages' guild let me feel success. Seeing beautiful vista's appealed to me on other levels.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#19
Flatfingers wrote:As much as I hate to disagree with Josh (and thank you for the comment, sir!), memorability doesn't work like that for most people.

By emphasizing everything, nothing stands out. That hurts memorability because it makes a game hard to describe to other people (or oneself, years later).

If the only way I can describe LT to someone is to mention shipbuilding AND the interface AND contracts AND NPC AI AND research AND emergent events, because every one of those things (and others) has been purposefully designed to be mind-blowingly spectacular... phew! By that time the other person has already tuned out. It's too much.

Memorability is the one thing you have time to say about a game to someone in the elevator. "Man, do you remember when that three-headed dragon thing was banging on the floor above the reactor core in Half-Life? That was awesome!"

Atmosphere can be memorable. I'd argue that that's exactly what people really remember about Portal -- the test chambers and portal gun and GLaDOS are just there to create that atmosphere of being forced to "jump through hoops" by a spiteful computer program.

And the atmosphere of LT can be memorable. I'm just not sure it gets there by emphasizing multiple individual mechanical elements. Those are important for play that's fun, but a big pile of them doesn't necessarily cohere to create a uniquely memorable effect.

Now, if there's a meta-level of design happening that we (or I, at least) aren't seeing, where all of those very cool things are being designed to make sense with each other in support of an overall deep theme -- whether that's Freelancer-like or something inspired by Freelancer but new -- then I'm happy. That will give me the words about memorability I can say to someone in the elevator who needs to play Limit Theory. :)
We may just have to disagree on what makes a game memorable, or we may just have to accept that we are different breeds of gamer :) (it's probably the latter)

For me, memorability has always been about the developer giving me the tools I need to build my own experience. I do not need the developer to do it for me - in fact, it annoys me when they try to. Sadly I've never enjoyed a campaign in any game, ever. Even my favorite of all time - Morrowind, and even my second favorite of all time - Freelancer. I much prefer to simply build my own experiences with the mechanics that those games give me. Trying to create the perfect levitation potion. Destroying as many diamond freighters as I can in the outskirt systems. Building...a massive pillow fortress in central Balmora :shifty: The more mechanics they give me, the more chances that the game has to resonate with me. Sure, I never really touch enchanting in Morrowind because it doesn't resonate with me. But with some people it does, and it doesn't take anything away to know that the mechanic exists. In fact, it's comforting - even exciting - to know that if I ever did get interested in that piece of the game, there would be a whole slew of new experiences to be had!

As for Freelancer, there's a reason why it is only second to Morrowind for me - it didn't provide the same wide variety of mechanics! I love it dearly, and if it had just provided a bit more opportunity, it would probably be #1 on my list.

Again, I am totally willing to accept that this view of memorability is my own and solely my own. But...I'm trying to build a memorable game for me, so... :) LT has never been about the discrete, neatly-packaged, highly-polished experience that many games aim for. The meta-level design is this: freedom is opportunity, and opportunity is the seed of memorability (ok, that was intentionally dramatic :shifty: But it really is how I feel!!) For some people, it is the AI that will resonate. The feeling of a living universe. For others, the procedural generation will provide an endless stream of exploration, and the excitement of the unknown will build powerful experiences. Others will see the research mechanic as an endless well of opportunities to advance. So on, so forth. Limit Theory is what you make of it - no more, and no less :)

No, you're definitely right, you won't be able to describe LT in an elevator to someone in one sentence. At least, not effectively. I can never even do it when my relatives ask me about it :oops: (I usually say it's like GTA in space :wtf: ) It's not that kind of game, and I'm glad you won't be able to! I'm not sure I could describe any of my favorites (well..maybe Killing Floor or Homefront, but those are guilty pleasures :oops: ) Focus and memorability aren't the same thing (IMO)!

So, err, agree to disagree? Hopefully you will still find it memorable if I get all the strategic play right, yes? ;)
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#21
I've been giving this a lot of thought since we swapped viewpoints.

Where I've come to is this: I think what I'm saying is an accurate picture for most gamers... but Limit Theory is not being designed to appeal to most gamers.

In other words, I'm (and I can't believe I'm saying this) talking about LT from almost a Marketing perspective. I've played and observed and analyzed games for a fair number of years, and I don't think I'm incorrect in my assessment of how most people understand them: games aren't special; they're just another form of entertainment like sports or a TV sitcom. Some of those have isolated memorable moments, and so it is with games. Designing a game to focus on one or two mechanics or a deeply realized theme -- pre-packaged awesomeness -- is just helping these gamers latch onto something distinct enough that it stands out for them above the pile of general entertainment.

But why should that be the goal?

There are gamers -- I'm proudly one of them -- who think games can be special. And that's precisely because of their interactivity, their dynamic responsiveness to player choices, which allows players to create their own stories. So what in the world is wrong with designing a game that these gamers can enjoy, rather than one that cranks out Marketing-approved mechanics and focus group-tested "whoa!" moments?

Well, it'll make less money. That matters when you've taken development money from a publisher or VC or angel. They have a right to expect your product will be designed and marketed to produce a positive return on their investment. You do that by seeing what people want and trying (with some artistic license) to give it to them.

...but Josh didn't take outside investment, did he? Kickstarter doesn't count; that's not in any way a legally binding "investment" (despite the KS clause that money should be returned if a project can't be completed).

The more I think about it, the more I think I was right but my conclusion was not applicable. There's no reason why Josh shouldn't make exactly the player-centered game he imagines. That's not only right for him, it's right for the minority of gamers (which, again, I consider myself to be a part of) that prefers a game world we want to "live in" for long stretches, rather than a game we play once for one or two moments of pre-packaged, developer-crafted, over-the-top epicness. Those games are fun... but they're not the only kind of fun.

So, Josh: thank you for taking the time to consider and respond to my thoughts on memorability.

Now ignore them. :) Make your game... and then watch us as we make our own worlds with it.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#23
What's that game.. uhm.. Tiny Trek.. yeh.. there's a certain level of facial PCG happening in that game for the faces of the characters/npcs.. Maybe something along those lines, where it is still abstract enough that it doesn't look ugly because it's trying to look real but at the same time it is still face-like in appearance?

And as for memorable... I am hoping that the game world's AI is sufficiently intelligent enough to allow me to make ripples where ever I go.. if I add commodities to the market from out of the system, I want to see the effect of that.. if I suddenly buy all of the raw materials in a highly manufacturing/industrial system, I want to see the effect.. or ripple effect of that.

Until the player arrives, the universe is doing it's own thing.. it's a living environment.. then the player arrives and like a drop of dye in a glass of water, things change. Drop a morsel of food in a fish tank and the fish come from everywhere.. drop a stone in and they all scatter.

If LT can create a believable world that reacts to the player, that will be memorable to me.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#24
ThymineC wrote: Factions will have general insignias that are procedurally generated based on nodes.
I like this approach.

For consideration, the Gallifreyan translator concept that's been floating around the internet for a while.
Disregarding the aesthetic, conforming as it is to an existing art style, there's a lot of thought behind it and it gives visually distinct results with different input.
Spoiler:      SHOW
- Image Image -
With a similarly robust nodal system it'd be possible to generate an abstract personal avatar based on the NPC's name as a seed - or, even, drawing from the NPC's personality traits. Using a set of fixed parameters opens the possibility to make the avatar/insignia readable with a bit of practice.
As suggested by Thymine, more professional insignia includes a badge drawn from the faction's name, which makes it consistent across all faction members, and perhaps includes indicators of title or rank.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#25
I was reading this thread about the uncanny valley, and I keep reading about how that is the main reason for not including faces in LT. I figured that since this post is about LT rather than that particular game I'd resurrect this thread rather than pollute that one with potentially off-topic chat.

As I wrote in the OP of this thread, I do NOT believe that faces should be out of scope for LT. This puts me at odds with the boss, but hell, whatchagonnado? Let me explain.

The plot from which the uncanny valley concept arises (here) describes "familiarity" on the y-axis versus "human likeness" on the x-axis. As the x-axis value starts to approach 100% there is a sudden and serious drop in familiarity, before the familiarity shoots up again very near 100% likeness.

My contention is that LT could incorporate recgonisable, differentiable and interesting character avatars by steering well to the left of the uncanny valley. Yes, they'll be more cartoony, but does that matter? It seems to me that the key question is that you can differentiate NPCs from each other.

The clearest example of what I'm talking about is something like the personal avatars that Nintendo allow you to create for the Wii. These things are super simple and yet expressive and differentiable (up to a point, I grant you - if you had 1000 of these things you may start to struggle to find a single individual).

I look at Hyperion's excellent Pareidolic Icons thread and think that there would be as much effort put in there to create abstract icons as there could be to create cartoony or simplistic faces. And there's deffo space for both, since LT will need both character and faction images.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#26
mcsven wrote:...As I wrote in the OP of this thread, I do NOT believe that faces should be out of scope for LT. This puts me at odds with the boss....
Join the club, mcsven. ;) I'm still wondering what Josh will come up with. I enjoyed reading your post BTW. :angel:
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#27
I really liked the Pareidolic Icons which Hyperion suggested, but I feel like things in that style would work even without being specifically pareidolic. The aggressiveness/smoothness of the strokes could indicate general personality, and colour could indicate mood and attitude towards the player.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#28
mcsven wrote:My contention is that LT could incorporate recgonisable, differentiable and interesting character avatars by steering well to the left of the uncanny valley. Yes, they'll be more cartoony, but does that matter? It seems to me that the key question is that you can differentiate NPCs from each other.
I think we're within the scope of this thread to the extent that how "people" are presented will either add to or detract from the atmosphere of LT.

I also agree with targeting the left side of the valley with iconic representations of NPCs. But I'd avoid cartoony.

That's actually where the developers of System Shock 2 went. Although the rest of the game had a visually semi-realistic style, the character portraits were uniquely cartoonish. They're actually less "realistic" than the lower resolution portraits of the earlier System Shock, and it puts me off every single time I replay SS2 because it's so different from the look of the rest of the game. The cartoonish portraits break the atmosphere for me. Not completely; I still happily replay SS2. But that's despite the character portraits, not because of them.

(I'm not alone in this view, BTW. Even the SS2 developers have acknowledged that going with cartoonish portraits wasn't what they wanted to do.)

Limit Theory is different from SS2 in that space isn't the inside of a spaceship. But the semi-realistic look of space in LT might, like SS2, not be a good match for cartoonish images of people. (And we still don't know whether there will be aliens in LT.)

Iconic representations still seem like the best choice to me for both implementation speed and atmosphere. Personal opinion, of course.
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#29
I don't want cartoonish faces either, Flat. You're right about this IMO. I could relate to the highly stylised "faces" demonstrated in Hyperion's Pareidolic Icons thread but not cartoons. If "true" faces were to be used they would have to be created by a talented artist and retain the feeling of the LT game. I'd like that but I know it isn't going to happen.

I would still like to see something I can relate to. A case of, "Ah, there's my friend, Jules Verne". As I've said in the aforementioned Pareidolic Icons thread I would just like to know what Josh has in mind. I have experience with Mr Parnell's method of working. You rarely, if ever, get answers to questions concerning subjects he is still unsure about or for some reason he wishes to keep under wraps. :angel:

I just keep reminding him that I still haven't received the answer to a question I asked a long time ago on the EC forums. :P
Post

Re: Atmosphere

#30
After I resurrected this thread I discovered that I had written virtually the same post at the top of the page. Oh well, I guess a little repetition never hurt.

"Cartoony" was probably the wrong word; it was short-hand for "not attempting to be photo-realistic"... which probably needed to be spelled out.
Flatfingers wrote:Iconic representations still seem like the best choice to me for both implementation speed and atmosphere.
Can you find an example of what you mean and link to it? I'd just like to know if we're in agreement or not; right now I don't know.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron