I've got involved in a discussion with Craig Perko of Project Perko about whether or not random level generation can create interesting levels. You can follow the conversation here.
I don't even want to go into the discussion about language and UI, which he touches on, as I've got strong opinions there as well. But the emotional content of games... well, that's something I want to write more on. Depending on how long this chat goes for, I might start doing blogged updates instead.
By the way, I think Project Perko is a great blog. Craig touches on a lot of game design issues in a thought-provoking way.
Friday, 29 February 2008
Response to 'Language, UI and Systems Design'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Hey, I really liked your series on PGC. I think your interpretation of the term "level design" is a bit narrow, mayhaps you might enjoy this article.
I would, but Internet Explorer refuses to render the page every time I go there (Running on Vista).
(Firefox works fine)
Thanks for the link, really enjoyed it. Particular with regards to Civ's tech tree being the level design.
Funnily enough, I've got an idea in the back of my head about a game involving randomised tech trees. Not so much as the Sword of the Stars 'tech is there/not there' sense, as in the random connections between different tech elements from game to game.
I take it you read my article on level design. I'm still developing as a writer in the sense that I tend to go for bombastic head lines. I need to developer a slightly subtler writing technique.
Master of Orion (the first one, at least) had a nice take on the tech tree, randomizing the available tech for each race at the start. Meaning tech might be available to someone else, but not to you, making you do without, trade at (most likely) a disadvantage, or take it by force.
(read a good intro on Tech specialities and Research/random tech
Interesting conversation. Not to be rude to Craig, but he spends most of the time talking about his own opinions. He clearly doesn't like roguelikes, and seems to think that means they are objectively uninteresting games. To quote Tolkien, "Some who read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their work, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer."
Nick: I don't mind people being rude. I'm rude, so it would be unfair to hold it against others.
I thought I would chime in, though:
The post was simply not about Roguelikes. At ALL. There's just one or two spots with vague parallels, and I certainly wasn't thinking about Roguelikes when I wrote it. I was thinking about SecondLife.
So arguing that I am demeaning Roguelikes is kind of like arguing that a travel brochure isn't respecting books on physics.
If we want to talk Roguelikes, we could... but first I would spend ten pages talking about their various aspects, so I imagine the discussion would be very boring.
Hi Craig :)
That did come out slightly harsher than I intended, and it was too good an opportunity to use my favourite Tolkien quote...
I guess my point was that you seemed dismissive of the types of game that you don't personally like - but criticising someone for expressing their own opinion in their own blog does seem a little silly in retrospect.
Post a Comment