Actually what I usually do these days is just write that I'm using Salen & Zimmerman's terminology. I got away with that last christmas, soon we shall see if that shit will fly with my BA thesis advisor

I hope this thread gets back on topic about HDTP being released so I can stop crying myself to sleep at night.

I love topic drift.

Besides, the topic wasn't HDTP being released, it was HDTP being in a magazine article. You don't want it back on topic, you want it off topic in a way that is desirable to you.

The topic died when the magazine scan was uploaded without TNM on it. The title was misleading. Only HDTP was on it and it gave a small meantion. We came to the conclusion that Metche should consider releasing now as given the public's opinion of the project (in the way the magazine makes it out to be) people are tired of waiting and it's better to finally get the work out there so that it can be critiqued if necessary.

Anyway I'd also like to thank Jonas for doing a good job at easing the debate. The problem I'm having lately is that I do tend to debate while I'm doing work, and this is a problem because towards the end of the day my stress levels elevate and my swearing becomes greater and my tone more agressive, further more my arguments become less rational. That said though if you can filter through that you'll find my arguements to have some merit.

I honestly can't hold up a strong enough debate on the subject due to time restaints (someone has to QA these games) so I should be doing it in my own time like I am now. Unfortunately I was very heated up after reading that article which made me a bit annoyed with that whole "IMMERSHUN" thing.. The reviewer didn't understand what the term meant, he refered to it as "Freedom" if you read it.. when companies like Bethesda use it to describe thier graphics, the size of their world and the 4 voice actors they use in their games (which I should point out BREAKS that Immersion that they keep using as a selling point.. funny thing was that they didn't use that as a selling point for Morrowind.. which IMO was the superior game because its focus was on GAMEPLAY and being an RPG first.)

My ultimate argument.. or at least what I was trying to say is that game designers and gamers have forgotten that we don't make games to Immerse people.. we make games to produce quality gameplay- to involve the user in the act of a challange or puzzle.. to intrigue them and to ultimately entertain them, we do not do it to give deep meaning or emotion to anything.. these were inherited from Film and Literature. When talking Game Design your main focus SHOULD be on gameplay, it just makes more sense to be concerned about that because ultimately that's what keeps us interested in the game. (MGS4 bored the crap out of me because it choose to piss off the gameplay in persuit of "immersion" or as I've already stated, Story, Graphics and Audio- but that doesn't engage the user to play the game)

Story, Asethetics and Audio are just vehicles- we should be using it to avoid boring the user as gameplay can and usually will get stale pretty fast.. we use those then to freshen the gameplay up- this is what I mean by "piping" the gameplay to different areas. Non-linearity and freeform therefore offer us limitless opportunities to freshen up the gameplay and add more detail to the overall gameplay.. it also allows us to increase the challange of the game and the longevity of the game as well.

We use "immersion" to stop the game from getting boring- we use our characters to make it so the game will last in their memories (because surprisingly no one remembers gameplay unless they've been trained to analyse it or can see what the game is made of) so that they will think of our games and play them again (increasing the value in which this product has on the user- thus securing a sale and potential future sales due to good reputation as a developer). We also need the ability to make the user feel as comfortable in this world as possible because games are recreation and relaxation- we need that in our daily lives and we also need the escape. A good game is obviously one that provides us with enough detail as to not confuse or unease us (anticipation of an ending or anticipation of failure is stressful- so we must avoid that if we're to make our games have greater impact- hence we must avoid punishing the user for playing and completing our games- Bethesda failed to do this with Fallout 3).

I honestly don't think you can define a game as a composite.. just as you can't define Immersion as a composite either.. the "CORE" game functionality is and always will be gameplay- much in the sense that a board game exists only to play or that sport is only there for play. All the things attached to the "playing" of the game aren't important as such.. its not like Sport has to tell a story.. but it can (these are called THEMES or EVENTS).. but they don't change what the game is.

The question you really need to ask is not "What a game is" rather "how much game is required before it stops being a game and instead becomes something else entirely", this is why I have such a HUGE problem with focusing on Immersion and using it as a selling point.. We're getting too caught up in this "Games as Art" crap, that we're missing the entire FOUNDATION of what a game is! and this is why I have a problem with it- by gamers using that term as a "GOOD" thing they are in effect slowly but surely slowing the progression of the industry..

Where innovative gameplay should be the focus.. they are instead focusing on Art.. this slows our industry down.. or rather changes the focus of the industry which in a way ruins any chance of us pushing the state of the craft- that "Immersion" isn't going to evolve gaming.. its gameplay that will.. and its gameplay that will secure the industry for many decades to come.

I see it as we need to change the focus here, and we need to be more specific so that we can incorporate graphics, audio and story into games more effectively thus improving the longevity of our games.. we need to develop games with lasting appeal yes! but we still need to make sure people play them for what they are, which is a GAME, not a story, not a picture and not music. Do you play Risk because it has good artwork? no... You play it because its an amazing game to play that has amazing rules and setups and that it gives you all kinds of control over where the game is going.

We need to remember Board Games, Card Games, Dice Games and PnP RPGs.. we need to remember what made them WORK.. We need to do this first.. THEN we glorify it with Graphics, Sound and Story to interest the player- and to ultimately make them curious enough to buy our games.

Now I'll admit one thing, no one will buy your game just because it says on the box "best gameplay ever", they will most likely buy it for the imagery because it attracts their eyes or has something on the front that interests them.. This has clearly become the interest of the industry most definately (since its now mass-profit). This is I think the incentive for having that whole "immersion" thing because that can make the inital sell.. But it won't keep the player happy in the long run.

Anyway I also think the gameplay terminology makes more sense as "Gameplay" isn't a composite- rather its a grouping term, as a grouping term it basically means "A System of Rules" so we can say Deus Ex has a Non-linear System of Rules. Game design essentially is just that, its designing the System in which the game uses to progress the player. (Hence why we use DFDs, ERDs and GUI Charts sometimes when designing games. Its very similar to Systems Analysis) We're designing how the user goes from Start to Completion and the Rules it takes to avoid any problems or to keep the progression flowing. If the user fails to complete the game then we've failed as game designers. (Warren Spector said this once about Content going to waste suggesting Episodic was the key to fixing the problem- I agree now.. before I didn't because I originally thought that Episodic meant Less Game for the Same Price but now I understand what he meant. It means cheaper games, shorter games, quicker releases and more content in the long run that ends up being USED by players.)

I should at least thank everyone for allowing to vent my frustraition on this forum. I only complain or state my opinions to ensure that what I am thinking is correct.. that if I met any objection I could understand what I was doing wrong and either correct it or make my arguments stronger to persuade them the other way. My apologies if I have offended anyone and it has been very enjoyable debating this issue with you all- but I realize I probably frustraited a few people.

Also I realize I have accidentially created a Gameplay vs Immersion debate in stating those opinions. But I was expressing how Gameplay as a term makes sense.. but Immersion as a term does not.

Thread grows... yet the mod is not out yet.

...I think at this point HDTP team members are going to be rather busy with filing restraining orders against anxious fans... Until they release the mod that is.

You know what I think? I think they are holding on to the mod just for themselves. I mean I can sort of understand this logic, if they already have it, heck they already have everything a living person could want (short of TNM, The Non-existent Mod) so why share? Heck thats what I would have done in their place... Aren't we all selfish?

No such magic working version of HDTP in its current state exists, Metche has to order a build to be compiled in order to test it.
I think the demo release was the only case where all the content was featured in the same package and that was just a few textures and models- it wasn't the entire package.

Well, the first movies weren't about "immersion" either... It was all just meant to be spectacular and exciting (for that time). But the industry grew and evolved and, in the proces, got better IMO. Yes, at first games were just about gameplay, but now they are about so much more. It has grown up, and I don't think it is an option to go back again. In a FP game I think that immersion is quite important. Some shooters (Prey, CoD) you just play because of the great gameplay (I loved them (CoD2 at least)). But often that's not enough unless you have some really exciting or addictive gameplay (Tetris, MMORPGs, some shooters). You'll need a good storyline and immersion. Storyline so the player does not lose interest, immersion so the player actually cares about the storyline. And if those are really really good the game will be very exciting, even if the gameplay isn't.

Lol The Casual Gamer market disagrees with you. Pure Gameplay 0 Immersion. Actually I find the Casual market seems to be innovating way more than what the AAA Hardcore market is, because there are just so many Casual games and they are so easy to make.. you have to innovate.. No one is going to buy Bejewled for the 10000th time, This is why Puzzle Quest exists, an RPG/Puzzle hybrid, never seen something like it before, not in casual games anyway.. I rarely see Hardcore games change the genres, all they do now is go "its an FPS..", Deus Ex was innovative for its time..

Try Mount and Blade, its the first Hardcore game I've played that was hugely different compared to other RPGs like Oblivion.. It has 0 Immersion. You play it like a board game and you love it.. its addictive. You have so much control over it, and it hooks you in. It brings RPG and Strategy together.. its essentially and RPG version of Total War. It doesn't need Immersion. (hence why its graphics are 10 years ago, its sound isn't the best and the story is "Hello.. Go here k thx bye!")

Mount and Blade.. even Sid Meire's Pirates or Civilization are PROOF that the parts of Immersion are NOT needed to make a good game. You don't even need millions of dollars. All 3 of those games were released last year. (Pirates on XBL, Civ4 as Colonization and M+B as an Indie game)

Honestly.. Why are you playing games? tell me. Because as far as I'm concerned you should go and watch a movie.. of course you could argue I should go play a board game I would agree.. Hence why my game designs play more like Board Games. I find myself a gameplay centric developer.

I keep arguing Storyline isn't important.. its only important if you want to make a lasting impression on your gamers.. but that's not the priority. The priority is providing them with a system that works and works well. Can you make a game without gameplay NO can you make a game without Immersion YES. It's not necessary to have it.

What are you doing on a Deus Ex board?

lol.. I said Deus Ex was innovative.. Why? because it uses the storyline as a gameplay mechanic.. this is Non-linearity.. but its not just the story that is apart of that system but also your actions in game- so shooting Anna will result in the story changing to identify a change in conditions, therefore the gameplay circumstances change.. not by much (just means Anna doesn't re-apear later to stop you before leaving UNATCO) but it still plays a part in the gameplay.

This is realistically HOW story should be implemented with games- you shouldn't just be playing for the progression of the story rather the progression of the game
I'll explain a game design I've been thinking of lately where you have multiple storylines versing each other.. The key to winning the game is stopping the other stories from finishing before you.. but also getting in the way of you finishing your story. The game play in an essence IS the story- its about trying to stop the other players from winning the game by telling your character's story first and ruining everyone else's . I'm going to be developing that game design further- as I said though Story is only there to compliment the gameplay- so we can remove the story and see the system running bare bones.. the story just masks what the game is doing.

This is basically what people are confusing as Immersion.. Its just a mask that goes over the top of the game mechanic, its there to stop you from seeing the GAME element- tricking you into thinking (this is real, this is a world and I am in it) when rather you are playing a game. My entire point of this argument is that focusing on this Illusion will fuck your games up. At the end of the day you are playing a VIDEO GAME- you're not in a simulated reality.. you're not reading a book and you're not watching a film- the game still has gameplay and that's what makes it a game.

I love games like Deus Ex and Mass Effect where the story controls the gameplay flow. Mass Effect for instance controls what kinds of character interactions you'll be given based on your choices.. At the start of the game what ever you pick for your characters backstory will come back later in the game to provide you with a quest relative to that choice of story- you use the story as a way of playing through the game rather than a way of "Immersing".

We need to realize the purpose Story has in a game. It is in itself a gameplay device- assuming you use it as a gameplay device.. not as an Immersion device. The same goes with Graphics, Audio and Technology. You need to implement them effectively into your gameplay- if you don't then you've failed to do anything except build a disjointed game where a story plays itself and you just push buttons to make it move. This is what I HATE about Fallout 3, Fable 2 and Oblivion- despite their Non-linearity it just feels like I'm pushing buttons and watching the words move on and on. Mass Effect kinda does this too as does Deus Ex (but not as much.. I see that as more a limitation on the game design- See the final discussion with paul before you're captured in NYC- it gets jammed if you go too far- then Paul repeats the same thing over and over- you've got no say in the discussion and it does nothing to the gameplay. But its one of the events in the game where the non-linearity gets limited and chokes the gameplay.)

We need to enforce the story to have an impact on the gameplay, and we need the gameplay to impact on the story IF its going to work as a game- rather than an immersive world. We don't need a story though to make a good game- but we won't make a game that is remembered- who really remembers Bejeweled anyway? they more likely remember Deus Ex over it- because they remember the story- not because it was immersive but because it accompanied the gameplay perfectly- this should always be a priority when making stories for games.

Remember that ALWAYS games are developed with Gameplay and Graphics and Audio and Story all seperate so they all at some stage won't rely on one another- the important bit is the Gameplay- this is always the CORE of the game.

Six decks of cards, unclear rules, penalties for breaking the rules (especially the ones you don't know about), and an inability to ask questions outside of a point of order?

It's been too long since I've played Mao.


Can I make a house without a heating system? Yes. Will I freeze to death if I try to use it? Yes.

Heating systems, like Storyline, Immersion (however you choose to define it) and various other things should be looked at on a case by case basis.

You talk about what the priority should be, but you're missing something. Games are not movies or books, this is true. (Though choose your own adventure books are functionally the same as a text adventure game. Still, we need not get into that.) But movies and books aren't about storyline either.

A film isn't about a story, it isn't about characters, it has nothing to do with any of that. Can you have a film or a book without storyline? Yes. Of course. It isn't necessary to them.

Gameplay is what makes a game a game, bound paper is what makes a book a book. Video and usually audio is what makes a movie a movie.

Your argument, if applied, would tell us that if we want Storyline we shouldn't read a book, play a game, or watch a movie. We're more or less screwed. (Well, we could go to the local storyteller, but that job is mostly gone, we certainly don't have one around here.)

It would tell us that when someone wants to put out a new book they should concentrate on the bound paper. I much prefer books where the producer had concentrated on the thing that isn't necessary, that being content.

Necessity is not an indication of where priority must lie.

Can I have a life without food, water and air? NO. Can I have a life without joy, contentment, love, meaning or anything of that nature? Yes. Does that mean my priority is food water and air? Hell no. Necessities are what you need to get out of the way so you can get to you priorities.

Don't get me wrong though, someone's priority should be providing a system that works and works well. Who that someone is depends on the game.

In closing:

Who doesn't remember Tetris?

I'm playing games because they are more immersive than movies, because I can participate more actively in them, because they can be way more detailed and deep than movies, and more visual than books. That's the difference: books: most detail possible, movies: least detail possible. But: movies: most visual, books: least visual. Games are quite good at both. But not as good.

Anyway, why do game need innovation? For isntance, Rome: Total War was one of the best RTS games I have ever played, but did it differ so much from its pedecessors? (I am actuallt not sure, but I don't believe so). Did Panzers, my second favourite RTS, innovate? No, nothing. It doesn't need to. As long as it does everyting really well. Did Morrowind innovate? Did GTA:SA? Did Super Mario Bros? Did Gothic 2?

If innovation was necesarry, every game would get boring after just a few hours. As long as a concept works really well and doesn't get boring after some time (examples: Deus Ex, R:TW, Morrowind), why change it? They should just try to improve what didn't work (well) and leave the rest alone.

In Principle, you're correct; They shouldn't mess too much with the basic underlying premises of long-established gaming franchises like Deus Ex, and Morrowind. However...the sad, unfortunate reality of the gaming industry is that "casual gamers" are becoming more and more prevalent in America (And all over the world), and they're where the real money is at in the industry today. Casual gamers are ridiculously easy to please; just give them shiny, high-polygon graphics and big guns, and they'll buy pretty much any game on the store shelf, no matter how bad it is.

Hardcore gamers, on the other hand, are much more difficult to entertain...we have much higher standards than the casual crowd, and thus, we won't give the publishers as much money. If the gaming companies didn't make SOME concessions for casual gamers, then chances are they wouldn't be in business for very long, since casual gamers DO make up most of the PC and home console markets. And unfortunately, I don't really see that trend changing anytime soon.

I believe if I have to read one more post whining about casual gamers, I will shoot myself. I don't even have a gun, but I'll find a way. Perhaps I shall construct an elaborate ballista out of whatever materials I happen to find in my garage.

I wasn't whining, Jonas. I was simply stating a fact.