Before I begin, the following document holds no game mechanics, etc. Instead it is the theory and purpose behind my project. After researching topics involving game development for a time, I’ve stumbled upon this site. Basically I am still in High School, looking in at this profession and from what I’ve read it is very treacherous to even gain a position to become a game’s concept designer. That one has to pay their dues, etc… Nevertheless, ever since I’ve played games I’ve been piecing together my own. This is Project Monivo, which is in short a running concept. But, before I elaborate what I am working on, I wish to understand if the ground I tread on is solid. In today’s industries producers of video games have created a linear line for game developers. Always following a close deadline, games are now designed in essence to simply make money as of now. Developers and gamers call this class of game “Mainstream.” The problem with Mainstream games is that they are designed to attract a mass audience, while the masses are the average Joe. The average Joe enjoys everything a human being can, from sound to visuals. They live to be stimulated with whatever comes their way. The problem with this main consumer is that they are typically lazy and games or events requiring to strain their minds for a solution becomes bothersome and they no longer proceed with that path. This is the average, the market for well developed games with enough financial backing to become something truly great are focused on the average Joe. This is the reality of the gaming industry and many industries today. But, there is a sub group of marketable beings. Simply put, the people above Joe, the people who enjoy thinking and plotting out immense strategies within a game, even when it is sub par. This is the limiting factor for this consumer. These will be our audience in that we are creating a world for them, a place to expand their minds and become more intuitive they themselves. This part of the industry will could not be the typical as it is not focused on money entirely, but, rather from the designer’s point of view. A game is a release into another world where repercussions are not to the degree of reality. An extension of ones imagination, the products of what books have given us. Games today have done little to expand on what MUDs, paper based and tabletop games that in reality are the true descendents from books through our backer’s imagination. Originally RPGs were meant to resume these legacies, but with the genre-becoming mainstream, this has become impossible. Produces will always have a say in a games development so that they in turn will gain the maximum profit. A producers rule in a games development is such an extreme that a company cannot get off the ground without ones help. This is a given, and it is rare and always will be rare to find someone with a reasonable amount of money to take such an extreme risk to reinvent a genre into the true imagination’s extension. The legacy of MUDs, etc, is a great one as you have unlimited freedom on what you can create, the downside is you can never bring your creations into a tangible form for others to see, or even for you to see how they would really fair in a world outside their own. The main reasons why the legacy has not been fulfilled is the lack of technology to create a simulated world of true freedom that is true to reality. True to reality in that the game performs without the help of visible stats and what you do will always have an effect on the world. For example, in today’s games you cannot dig a hole. You can say you did, and the game might allow it, but how did you dig that hole? Where did the effort to build it come from? Risk versus reward, was the hole truly worth the effort? And if someone comes by and walks over it, will they realistically fall into the hole and break a bone of which will in turn affect they specific character until treated? The answer is no, and the chances of ever seeing a mechanic such as this in today’s games is next to none. Supposedly Joe does not want to deal with repercussions of his actions and would rather use the world to vent. But, to another, keeping an immersive environment is the ultimate, keeping as much realism as possible could be the ultimate. This is the sole reason why games are linear, average Joe simply wants a release. But, low and behold there is a possibility for a different type of release. This type is one of creation; those wishing for such either stuck or are excelling within society. Those that are in a higher position, the repercussions of doing anything extreme are too much to be viable. Thusly their imaginary world is confined within. The point of Project Monivo is to develop a game of true legacy to the human mind. Reality simulated, just with a few laws of reality stripped, freedom granted and a way to perform within the games structure. This is the basic Idea behind Project Monivo, of which has not even reached, but is confined within my own imagination and the scraps of paper pilling up in my trash bin. The true goal is to say, welcome to my world, now grow and expand yours. Unfortunately, to achieve this goal to it’s fullest; one needs to be willing going to each extreme to copyright each mechanics of this project. Each extreme to keep the game itself closed behind tight doors until it is developed and ready to be shown in the light. Now the question is, am I on the right train of thought for such a project? Also, obviously I am leaving out key elements; so many that one cannot determine how the game might behave. And like many before me who posted, I seek to protect my ideas. But, after doing research on how to protect ones ideas, I’ve pretty much concluded that the only sure fire way to guard ones ideas is to hide them completely. While this may be the case, this stunts development and thusly I need to find a way to safely publish my ideas on the web without having to worry about theft. Thus, what may be the safest way to do so?

You belong to the group of people that believes "Games are arts"
Google that phrases and you'll find a lot.

But really, in reality. Producers tell designers what to do, then designers tell the rest of the team what to do. That's how it goes, and if you don't, you get fired, ruins your reputation and may never get hired again.

Quote:

Original post by lightblade You belong to the group of people that believes "Games are arts" Google that phrases and you'll find a lot. But really, in reality. Producers tell designers what to do, then designers tell the rest of the team what to do. That's how it goes, and if you don't, you get fired, ruins your reputation and may never get hired again.

I fully understand this and admit to it. Just another limiting factor while creating a game, of which proves to be subjective on how it effects games in term of quality.

Also, while I may belong to a mindset that thinks "Games are Art," perhaps this is what is what should be expected from a designer? If not, I have a lot to learn. Either way, I'm still ignorant in that can one copyright a game's mechanics so that no one else may use them, without permission? I ask this, becuase I want to talk about the project openly on the net, but in reality I don't feel like seeing my idea's getting emulated into another game lazily.

Quote:

Original post by Vergessen Also, while I may belong to a mindset that thinks "Games are Art," perhaps this is what is what should be expected from a designer? If not, I have a lot to learn.

It's one approach. I once heard that Sting approaches music as a 9-5 job. He works 9-5 and, after that, he's done. Like him or not, I hope you can at least admit he makes good music. The only thing I expect from musicians is music, I will listen to it if it's good and suits me. The only thing I expect from game designers is game designs, I will pay them if they're good, suit me, and get implemented.

I also don't like the slight condescension toward the "average Joe". You say they're lazy, they'd say you have your head in the clouds, and both think they're superior for having said that. [grin]

Quote:

Either way, I'm still ignorant in that can one copyright a game's mechanics so that no one else may use them, without permission? I ask this, becuase I want to talk about the project openly on the net, but in reality I don't feel like seeing my idea's getting emulated into another game lazily.

People who would emulate lazily are probably too lazy to actually make a game. People who wouldn't emulate lazily probably won't emulate, at least not enough to take away from your idea. In other words, they're probably already implementing their own ideas and would, at most, incorporate aspects of your idea. I highly doubt your idea is completely new in that it doesn't incorporate aspects of others work (c.f. Ecclesiastes 1:9), so they'd be stealing no more from you than you are from others.

We've recently been through the "I have a truly revolutionary idea that's so revolutionary I cannot release the slightest bit of information before it's finished" thing. Read that thread. Basically, tin foil hats aren't cool, but you could get a lawyer to draft an NDA for you if you think your idea is in such danger of being stolen. However, if your idea is as truly as unprofitable (in the monetary sense) as you say, then I think the chances of it being stolen are slim to none.

For what it's worth, I don't think I like your idea. Falling in a hole and breaking your leg in a game would probably be boring. Putting in the actually required effort to dig a hole in a game would probably be boring. I want games to only give me the interesting bits and stats are a very effective way of doing that.

Or, here's another take on it, along with a cheap shot for your view on the average Joe. [wink] It's already been done in MUDs; it's not their problem that your imagination has atrophied to the point that you need the visual. I once knew someone who was very visual. She couldn't stand to watch black and white movies because the visual was inferior to color movies. However, she loved MUDs. She said it was because you sort of created your own story, and I think imagination was a large part of that.

Quote:

I also don't like the slight condescension toward the "average Joe". You say they're lazy, they'd say you have your head in the clouds, and both think they're superior for having said that.

I think he touches on something; modern games are more often than not designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. One example springing to mind is Jade Empire. I was really looking forward to this game, always been a die-hard kungfu movie fan, but as I played through I realized the only thing I liked about it was the backdrops and maybe some of the music. The whole game design felt like it had been scavenged out of Disney's movie script junkpile and adapted to video game form. From the huge-breasted MTV babes to the monstertruck style announcer in the imperial arena everything felt very Westernized and watered out. This probably happened (just speculating mind you) because Bioware wanted to reach out to as many people as possible with their new IP. Fully understandable in this case, but a damn shame nonetheless. We need games written with more specific audiences in mind.

Quote:

Either way, I'm still ignorant in that can one copyright a game's mechanics so that no one else may use them, without permission? I ask this, becuase I want to talk about the project openly on the net, but in reality I don't feel like seeing my idea's getting emulated into another game lazily.

It's a long long way from idea to finished product so unless your game idea is of the same simple-but-genius kind as Tetris I don't think you have anything to worry about. Twenty people could steal your idea at this point and if all twenty actually took it to its bitter end you'd be staring at twenty different interpretations and products. But people won't rip the idea and invest x amount of months/years to complete it unless your concept is a proven one, which it isn't, otherwise it wouldn't be unique would it?

Quote:

Original post by lightblade You belong to the group of people that believes "Games are arts" Google that phrases and you'll find a lot. But really, in reality. Producers tell designers what to do, then designers tell the rest of the team what to do. That's how it goes, and if you don't, you get fired, ruins your reputation and may never get hired again.

Err no. In a real game production environment the producer's job is to keep everything on track, make sure time is not being wasted etc.
The designers job is to make sure that the game keeps on track from the initial design, communicating to the art and code teams what features are needed and implementing the various parts of the game as the code and art are finished and balancing/tuning the game so that it is fun.

If you are working some where, where the producer "tells the deisgner, then the designer tells the team" then
a) The "producer" has the wrong job title, he is a designer.
b) You need to resign and find a job at a better company.

Quote:

Original post by Namrah Err no. In a real game production environment the producer's job is to keep everything on track, make sure time is not being wasted etc. The designers job is to make sure that the game keeps on track from the initial design, communicating to the art and code teams what features are needed and implementing the various parts of the game as the code and art are finished and balancing/tuning the game so that it is fun. If you are working some where, where the producer "tells the deisgner, then the designer tells the team" then a) The "producer" has the wrong job title, he is a designer. b) You need to resign and find a job at a better company.

It's really more subtle than that. Sure, the producer's job isn't to design the game, but they're the one with the money and they decide which designer to give that money to.

It's like the producer/director relationship in theater and film. The director is the one with artistic control, but the producer has the director by the pocketbook. Some producers are very specific with the director in what they're looking for, some are very lenient, and others are somewhere in between. You can learn something about a film by knowing who produced it. In fact, if the director isn't a big name but the producer is, you can probably learn more about the film by knowing who produced it than who directed it.

Let's say I comission a painting. I don't want to give the painter carte blanche because it's being comissioned for a specific purpose (e.g. it's made for me so it shouldn't make political/religious statements I disagree with, it's going to hang in my living room so it should be appropriate for all ages and should fit with the decor). If a given painter says "I'll do it if you let me do whatever I like," they aren't getting my money. Even if I was planning on giving them that much freedom, then I would only pay someone who has a long track record of producing the sort of works I like.

You can say it's a question of definitions (Your point (a)), but I wouldn't say I'm the painter because I comissioned a painter to design/create a specific piece.

[Edited by - Way Walker on February 14, 2006 11:28:06 AM]

Quote:

Original post by erikt Quote: I also don't like the slight condescension toward the "average Joe". You say they're lazy, they'd say you have your head in the clouds, and both think they're superior for having said that. I think he touches on something; modern games are more often than not designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. One example springing to mind is Jade Empire. I was really looking forward to this game, always been a die-hard kungfu movie fan, but as I played through I realized the only thing I liked about it was the backdrops and maybe some of the music. The whole game design felt like it had been scavenged out of Disney's movie script junkpile and adapted to video game form. From the huge-breasted MTV babes to the monstertruck style announcer in the imperial arena everything felt very Westernized and watered out. This probably happened (just speculating mind you) because Bioware wanted to reach out to as many people as possible with their new IP. Fully understandable in this case, but a damn shame nonetheless. We need games written with more specific audiences in mind.

In my experience, the "average Joe" doesn't like watered down games very much either. In my experience, they prefer games that facilitate interaction with other people. Hence, the popularity of kart racers, FPS's, the Sims.

The Sims? Yeah. Two enjoyable parts. One, relatively realistic interactions with simulated people (as opposed to the sort of interactions/people one finds in RPG's, FPS's, RTS's, etc.). Two, fun to show what you did to others. There may be some overlap on this second point with the OP. [wink]

Quote:

Original post by Vergessen Simply put, the people above Joe, the people who enjoy thinking and plotting out immense strategies within a game, even when it is sub par. .... Supposedly Joe does not want to deal with repercussions of his actions and would rather use the world to vent.

Me Joe. Me like squish thing. Me no like when thing squish me.

Give me a break. [rolleyes]

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I also don't like the slight condescension toward the "average Joe". You say they're lazy, they'd say you have your head in the clouds, and both think they're superior for having said that. [grin] For what it's worth, I don't think I like your idea. Falling in a hole and breaking your leg in a game would probably be boring. Putting in the actually required effort to dig a hole in a game would probably be boring. I want games to only give me the interesting bits and stats are a very effective way of doing that. Or, here's another take on it, along with a cheap shot for your view on the average Joe. [wink] It's already been done in MUDs; it's not their problem that your imagination has atrophied to the point that you need the visual. I once knew someone who was very visual. She couldn't stand to watch black and white movies because the visual was inferior to color movies. However, she loved MUDs. She said it was because you sort of created your own story, and I think imagination was a large part of that.

Joe is a generalized term, there are far more levels to the different type of people in this industry. But, to elaborate on this is not worth the effort, thus I used "Joe."

And as I sited in the above write up, I am targeting a specific audience and simply you may not be one of them. The women that you spoke of though, would rather enjoy what I am designing as one of the main ideas is you are only limited to what you can create within your own imagination to the degree of reality and beyond. Basically the concepts behond Monivo are seeking to simulate the control you have in reality to the utmost limits that your keyboard and mouse can offer.

Nonetheless, most of my assumptions have proven true this far and can safely say I understand what I am doing. With that, it seems that the best way to bring such this project to light is to bring the story concepts, etc, to the table and leave out most if not all game mechanics. That will all come in due time, for I still have about five years to develop this project and who knows perhaps by the time I can develop this game, there will be a genre that much resembles it.

Quote:

Original post by Vergessen Joe is a generalized term, there are far more levels to the different type of people in this industry. But, to elaborate on this is not worth the effort, thus I used "Joe."

Just wanted to point out that looking down from an ivory tower doesn't mean you should also look down your nose.

Quote:

And as I sited in the above write up, I am targeting a specific audience and simply you may not be one of them. The women that you spoke of though, would rather enjoy what I am designing as one of the main ideas is you are only limited to what you can create within your own imagination to the degree of reality and beyond. Basically the concepts behond Monivo are seeking to simulate the control you have in reality to the utmost limits that your keyboard and mouse can offer.

Aye, and I intended my wording to reflect that I recognize I might not be the audience you're aiming for. However, there's a fine line between using "You're not in my audience" as a reason to disregard my comments and using it as a reason to disregard any comments.

I honestly think that part of the appeal to this woman (singular) was the constrained environment. She's an actress in live theater. Actors (at least in live theater) like to take on and refine a specific role. I'm not sure that a game that gave completely free reign would appeal equally well.

My question, like I always ask when someone thinks a "do anything" sandbox would make a good game, is what do you offer that I can't find outside? Especially if you're intending for it to take as much effort to dig a hole in your game as it does in real life.

Quote:

Nonetheless, most of my assumptions have proven true this far and can safely say I understand what I am doing. With that, it seems that the best way to bring such this project to light is to bring the story concepts, etc, to the table and leave out most if not all game mechanics. That will all come in due time, for I still have about five years to develop this project and who knows perhaps by the time I can develop this game, there will be a genre that much resembles it.

Can't comment, you haven't given up many assumptions, and have given really no story concepts or game mechanics 'til this point.

If what I'm envisioning from your enigmatic demeanor is anything like what you're thinking, I'll be surprised if it comes to be in five year (but some surprises are pleasant).