Finally the good stuff!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay
This is completely useless. It basically says it exists but doesn’t even attempt a reasonable explanation as to what game play is.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11137
This highlights some of the riskier endeavours of Lionhead’s new game. Fable 2 took a lot of risks with removing the GUI and adding things such the human emotive response hook, otherwise know as the HERH or for those of us with no imagination. A dog. Yes that’s right there’s a dog. There was a great amount of difficulty making it a worth while addition to the game. BUT with added features to it such as when you ignore it and it is injured people around you start to comment about it. The fact that the dog is customizable and trainable makes it something worth investing in, though at the start it is of little use to the player and seems more of a hindrance than a help. The other risky endeavour of theirs namely the removal of the GUI. This was a great risk, because come on lets face it how many games do you remember enjoying without a GUI? Not a lot personally.
So Game-play, what is it and how do we use it in our games? Does it matter if we do? Personally I think game-play is the wow factor, it’s the immersion into the game through the involvement of the plot and character and a smooth control system and camera. Who need all this malarkey about game mechanics and things, back to basics! If you can’t pull off the basics then you shouldn’t try anything fancy.
Christmas
Creation has been a hotly debated topic for aeons. There is no such thing as an original creation, if you listen to many religious fanatics everything is a spinoff of whichever deity they believed created the world and universe. Originality isn’t so original it’s just new to the people viewing it. Chances are it was refined hundreds maybe thousands of times before hand. Take Einstein’s theory of relativity he spent the entire second part of his life trying to make it work and never succeeded. Everything he did was based off prior knowledge. Though he is quoted to say that the biggest obstacle he had was his education. Many people have said that creativity comes from thinking of the abstract and the uncommon. But how would we know what these are without having experienced them in the first place? And how would we know how to express the new ideas if we didn’t know the old.
In actuality the way that we know things does shape how we express things, but we shouldn’t let them limit them. People always believed that humans couldn’t fly. Now we have many different ways of flying. People used to think you could never reach the moon. But through ambition and hard work it happened.
The major point is that creativity is not limited by what we know, but what we don’t know.
Creativity unfortunately must be backed up with what we can do. If you look at a lot of the ancient scientists works, things like Archimedes screw and laser which where centuries ahead of their time but where the materials to make them work wouldn’t have been available.
Proving that creativity is not limited to prior knowledge, but the implementing of creativity is.
As to how I’m going to show it in my work. I’m not sure yet. Obviously my own style and understanding of what I have to do is going to shape the work more than how creative I can be. But with hard work I shall be (hopefully) looking at producing pieces with a high quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment