In fact I'm not saying what is more important (and I am more or less sidestepping giving a definition of immersion.)

I think order of importance depends on the nature of the game being made. In that case it is always wrong to say what is most important in general. My point is that gameplay is not necessarily most important. It is always necessary, but it is not always most important.

Sometimes it will be the priority, my point is that sometimes isn’t always. There will be times when it is not. Does that mean immersion will be? That depends as much on how you happen to be defining it as anything else.

-

Also, DDL is better at saying what I mean than I am.


I've been using TNM as the primary example of a "metric fuckton of awesome," as part of an attempt to provide a rigorous definition of that term. (Ok, no I haven't, but I did decide that if anyone were ever to ask me what that meant I would say, "See, TNM," or something to that effect.)

I experience that a lot


Always nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks TNM is great

I established that exact point SEVERAL posts before he did several times. Maybe you should go back and read that.

Anyway I'm sick of this discussion and possibly everyone else is too.. Its time to make some games, it's all talk till I put it into practice.. so allow me to do so.

You're points are making me think that no game you guys ever come up with is going to be economically feasible and thus isn't going to ever happen.. Allow me to prove my point.. allow me to actually make it economically feasible do develop a non-immersive game initially.

I'll prove my theory.. mind proving yours too? I mean hell at least then that way people will have something decent to play when we're both done

I'm going to start drafting the design documents for something huge this weekend.. It could take me a while but I have an excelent feeling about this, Like I know I can pull this off.

Games where stories are put before gameplay aren't economically feasible? Then explain why there are still so many goddamn terrible adventure games on the market. Tell me why Telltale is still in business and tell me why BioWare is always talking about their story rather than their gameplay. Tell me why Quantum Dreams are developing yet another quicktime-event-based "interactive movie" for the Playstation 3.

Or do you think the old LucasArts games had great gameplay? Inventory puzzles are so gratifying, right?


I don't think anybody has at any point said it's not economically feasible to make a non-immersive game (in any sense of the word immersion). Unless you think Bejewelled is really fucking immersive.


This smells like "it's not like you can do it better".

Well perhaps maybe that's because immersion is over rated and people are buying adventure games for the wrong reason. I didn't get into Day of the Tentacle or Monkey Island because they were Immersive no.. Its because the flow of gameplay was fast paced and fun (Monkey Island's had an awesome combat system where you matched up the words.. kept me occupied for hours on end). I'll agree though that Inventory Puzzles suck but I've found the better adventure games were the ones that actually had more than just the occasional puzzle- Monkey Island was very much that. I'll admit that Day of the Tentacle was very limited but for a game that can be played in 20 mins the amount of interaction you have with your characters is what made the game amazing.. without that it'd just be Manic Mansion which IMO sucked.

Frankly the Adventure Game market of today is a joke simply because they don't want to try anything new gameplay wise. Anyway I've given you plenty of examples where adventure games have had exceptional gameplay. (Xfiles and Tex Murphy).. Those games are no longer Economically Feasible. (hence why none are made anymore).

You try pulling "Immershun" when your budget is only like 10k.. It's not going to happen. This is the reality I have to live with.



More like, If you honestly had all of this knowledge you'd had done it by now.. I sorta have but nothing really releasable- very buggy.. very premature. I mean this is what Prototyping is right? Game Design Testing.. Tech Demos.. ect. Anyway I'm being serious, I have had ever intention of doing this, I already told you that in another thread so please seriously give me that at least. Don't think I magically poped it out of my ass. I've wanted to do this for like hell long.



*facepalm* how many times have we gone through this. Bejewelled is a POS of a game. The only game that actually improved on that was Puzzle Quest- not immersive in the slightest.. very addictive gameplay.

Can't say I agree, but there's no accounting for taste.


So it's economically feasible, just not for you.

Incidentally we have some post-TNM plans that can be said to place a very high emphasis on story. Gameplay clearly also plays an important role, but to me, it serves as a vessel for creating a good story, the same way good camera work and lighting serve as a vessel for telling a great story in film.


I'm not saying you haven't tried to put these things into practice, I'm saying it's perfectly viable to know a lot of this in theory without having the technical skills to pull it off. And as you say, immersive games with story focus tend to take a lot of money to develop, so asking DDL or Chris to go and make a game... that's like telling Roger Ebert everything he knows about movies is worthless because he hasn't ever made a film himself (let's ignore his opinions on games).

Although DDL is making a mod for Deus Ex and seems to be a reasonably proficient programmer, so he might in fact be able to pull it off if he didn't have that mod to worry about already. But that's beside the point. The point is that you can't dismiss people's arguments just because they aren't game developers.


Bejewelled is a piece of shit? I'm sure PopCap are crying all over their towering piles of money because you think so. The question was whether games with emphasis squarely on gameplay are economically feasible, and my point is that it's really not a question at all. Obviously they're economically feasible - they're casual games, and they're making a killing by selling to my mom*.

* My mom is currently playing Bejewelled Twist when she's not playing Planescape: Torment. She's... different.

The reason they buy them isn't germane to the discussion at hand. What matters is that they bought them. That is what makes something economically feasible. Whether or not something is a joke or a piece of shit or anything else also doesn't have an effect on economic feasibility.

In that same vein, if you bought a game for the gameplay that in now way implies that the people who made it had gameplay as a priority.

I think Jonas' point was that the adventure games are economically feasible, as evidenced by their continued market share, and all indications are that their creators did not have gameplay as their priority.


True though that may be, it does not help to further your argument in the least.


Crazy talk.

Seriously, that is crazy talk.

First off, one can have knowledge that is never used. I know how to work with complex numbers, yet I almost never do. My sister is a fully trained bartender, that doesn't mean she's ever actually tended a bar. Having knowledge does not imply it is put into practice.

A statement, if true, implies its contrapositive, not its converse. Remember that and it will serve you well.

Second, often times the reason that people haven't done something yet is because they haven't gotten to it yet. If someone had already done everything they could do that would mean they were out of ideas, a sad state of affairs that reflects poorly on the person in question.

For an example that has nothing to do with gaming, I haven't made a dodecahedral puzzle yet. Does that mean I lack the knowledge to do so? No. It just means that this is all I've done so far. The knowledge for a few different dodecahedral puzzles is there, as are the files to be 3d printed, I just haven't gotten to it yet.

I haven't gotten to a lot of things yet. I've got a serious backlog of things to do.

Third, that doesn't really make any sense. The knowledge claimed in this thread is abstract enough that, "You'd have done it by now," is a non sequitur.

-

Also, creating a gameplay first/gameplay only game will not prove that gameplay must be the priority, only that it can be. You offer no proof for your argument, ask that we wait to get the lack of proof you offer, and then ask for proof from the other side.



Smelled sort of Cid-like to me.

[Added:]Now Jonas says what I say, but says it better. And faster too.

I'll give you that Chris. I'm not being hostile to you at all and you're evidence is there. I'll admit you're right.. I'm just trying to evoke you guys to put this into practice.. maybe its because we could ultimately use some more proof in the subject, as ultimately that's the only way to win this argument.. Now we can keep going until the world explodes.. OR we can get on with our lives and get back to doing what we do best.. Make Games-- that's all my point was.. I'm positive we're at the end of this discussion. Besides this talk has inspired me to do prove my points - merely what my point was with my statement. Thankyou however for sharing your work and honestly I can relate to what you've said definitely.

Now honestly I'm backing down from this discussion because you guys are getting way to hostile and I feel its diluting my ability to have a rational discussion because I'm posting too quickly and again I'm stressed out. (huge deadline ect)


Oh and Jonas I do respect your abilities most definately and I found we were agreeing on a lot of things.

Bejeweled was great the first time.. then EA got their hands on it is basically what I was trying to say. Having actually worked with them on something LIKE Bejeweled I can honestly say Bejeweled ain't going anywhere its stuck in a rut- whereas Puzzle Quest can keep evolving. Hence my point.. Bejeweled isn't going to keep selling if EA keeps over doing it.


Wasn't saying that at all.. I was saying that I'd love to see it done someday if you can prove it to me. though I could have been less agressive I'll admit.



Well you sorta got what I meant with this whole argument, this is in some cases what I was meaning with the gameplay to story thing- I just prioritized it differently to you though. Anyway I hope to show you my story as gameplay design someday jonas.

Wow, that's awesome! Is something like that marketable, or is it too close to a Rubix type patents?

The market is out there and no patent covers that puzzle. That said, at the moment I plan to make only three, one for myself, one to sell on ebay, and one to trade. The first two I've made already.

I certainly would like to see it (or any other puzzle I make) in mass production one day but there is a sort of moral dilemma I'm faced with. When I sell it on ebay I hope to make enough to pay for materials. The value of the puzzle will be partially in its rarity, if they were then brought to market the value would be much lower (as it should be) which devalues the puzzle sold on ebay (assuming it sells on ebay.) It would also devalue the puzzle I traded.

That said, puzzles have made the jump from custom to mass production before:
Bump cube/Mirror Blocks
Void Cube
Brillic/Mega Crystal/Pyraminx Crystal
And coming soon:
The Golden Cube (They missed their production goal, but if the pictures I've seen are any indication when they do come out they'll look a lot better than the one pictured there.)

If I ever do try to market that particular puzzle it will be a while down the road (so as not to stab a current buyer in the back) and probably redesigned a bit. I've got other puzzles to be made, maybe one of those will be brought to market.

-

Also, the spelling is Rubik. It is called a Rubik's cube because it was invented by a man named Erno Rubik.

I dunno, isn't that the trick the art industry uses to up the prices on things? like to 100s of thousands of dollars lol.
I get what you are saying though- personally I'd rather you get it mass marketed because that way everyone can enjoy what you've produced. Well that's how I feel. You could however get away with being a niche product, nothing wrong with that.

Anyway for what its worth guys when I do post in debates and sound a bit like an idiot or an asshole its really because I'm struggling with my thinking.. I need to know what is right to everyone else and what is wrong to everyone else so that I can understand better what the hell is wrong with my own thinking.. I'm not being arrogant rather I'm hearing what you're saying, it makes sense to me and everything.. but its not exactly how I envision handling my own game development.. of course everyone's going to clash.. we're all different.

I just want to clear the air further and thank everyone for discussing this topic- its given me heaps to think about and made me a bit happier knowing where I guess gaming society stands on the whole Immersion Gameplay thing- as well as terminology- I'll admit the issue was never resolved but I doubt a couple of guys on a forum are going to be able to fix it rather this seems more like the sorta discussion that should be going on at GDC. But I'm glad we had it.

Also another reason why I might be acting like a dick is because it was 42degrees (which btw is a heat wave) and our AirCon blew.. fortunately we just got it back up.. Thank god. (and if you think I'm bsing to cover my ass, http://www.weather.com.au/sa/adelaide - See the MAX for Tuesday 41. I feel like shit honestly and we've got a deadline at work *sigh*)

Heh, it's MINUS 42 here!

I'm not sure about that one. I think that the very FIRST (or second, or third) largely hand crafted (well, pretty much, anyway) Chris Cube would be much more valuable if the mass market actually knew what the toy was. Of course, maybe it's something collectors already desire?

One of the problems is that there isn't a lot to go on. No one has tried to sell the originals of the ones I linked to.

Certainly if Rubik sold the wooden prototype cube he first made that would go for a hell of a lot.

Another thing is that when there is a limited amount collectors are competing with people who simply want to play with them. If you have two different supplies, the originals on one hand and the cheaper mass produced ones on the other hand, the people who want if for play will buy the mass produced ones, thus lessening competition for the originals, less competition equates to lower price, it is better for everyone except for the one who paid the high price originally. Whether or not it is bad for that person probably depends as much on the person as anything else.

[Added:] And really I have no idea, I'm not an economist.

-

Of course none of this matters. Right now I'm just hoping to make enough of a return to move on to my next project.

The problem with mass production is that it costs so damn much. It is on my list of things to do, but not just yet.