Monday, April 24, 2006
Stock Game Content
So how about a contest where you are allowed to ONLY use "stock" content - a contest where the difference between games is exclusively in the gameplay?
It's just been proposed in an article called the The Game Content Dodge. The concept for the contest is still an interesting one, a more "pure" test of game design and programming. But the article also raises some questions about the use of stock content in game development.
Now, I was (and still am) a fan of the concept of using off-the-shelf and reused content wherever possible. My limited experience in set design in High School convinced me that you don't want to build anything you don't have to. We'd hit thrift stores to get everything we could for costumes and set pieces, and sometimes we'd have to special-order flats. But sometimes we had to break down and do it ourselves for central or unique set-pieces. I remember having to make a bed on stilts for one play - I think it was "Butterflies Are Free." That was a pain and consumed a lot of our time.
I've also watched commentaries on DVDs (yes, I'm one of the freaks who loves watching the commentaries), and I love hearing about the stories of how they got certain set pieces or costumes. I think it's in one of the Firefly episodes where the ballroom gown was created out of the costume designer's own wedding dress - dyed and re-shaped.
This is how it's done in other dramatic media - why can't we take some of their GOOD ideas, for a change?
As much as I'd like this to be the case, it's unfortunately not quite so simple. What we do in computer games is a lot closer to animation than live-action theater or filmmaking. If you take Bart Simpson, Disney's Snow White, The Power Puff Girls, Sully (from Monsters, Inc), and Lum (from Urusei Yatsura, a classic anime series) and try putting them in a Warner Brothers "Bugs Bunny" cartoon, and how well will they work together? Not at all, unless something extremely silly is your goal. The elements are just not compatible.
And that's pretty much the state of off-the-shelf game content. You've got stuff that's clearly not intended for real-time rendering, and you've got monsters that were designed for Quake II era engine that just CAN'T look scary on 200 polygon budgets. And you have wild extremes of quality and style, just like our cartoon characters.
It's frustrating to me, because I still think the idea of using third-party content is not only a great concept, it's going to be critical as we scale up to the capabilities and demands of newer hardware. But right now, the most you can hope for is to wade through a ton of content that won't work looking for pieces that might be salvageable, and hoping for one or two gems that can be used as-is.
So is there a way we make it work?
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 10:20 PM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
As I understand it, Nintendo has a team dedicated to making Mario.
That is, when other companies make games based on the Mario characters, such as a soccer or golf game, they get a standard model of Mario to use. It basically allows all of the games to look roughly the same so that it is believable that they are in the same world. Otherwise, you'd probably have questions like "Doesn't Mario's nose look bigger in Super Mario Bros 2?"
I wonder how easy it would be use content from other games if you don't have a franchise to base it on. Spiderweb Software does a decent job of reusing art, although sometimes they misuse it, like that pixelated canoe in Geneforge 3. On the other hand, if an indie takes stock sounds and imagery, nothing stops another from doing the same, and so now you have two completely different games that LOOK like they took the same stock content.
That is, when other companies make games based on the Mario characters, such as a soccer or golf game, they get a standard model of Mario to use. It basically allows all of the games to look roughly the same so that it is believable that they are in the same world. Otherwise, you'd probably have questions like "Doesn't Mario's nose look bigger in Super Mario Bros 2?"
I wonder how easy it would be use content from other games if you don't have a franchise to base it on. Spiderweb Software does a decent job of reusing art, although sometimes they misuse it, like that pixelated canoe in Geneforge 3. On the other hand, if an indie takes stock sounds and imagery, nothing stops another from doing the same, and so now you have two completely different games that LOOK like they took the same stock content.
The contest that I have heard proposed is a two-parter:
1. Artists compete to make the coolest set of assets relative to a given theme. Characters, monsters, background tiles, whatever.
2. The winning art is employed by coders to make the best game. Or possibly, you can use any of the art in combination, though that has those style issues.
Sounds pretty fun. I'd compete in both parts and lose the art part miserably. The biggest issue is that it enforces certain things - if the art is low-poly 3D models, you have to make a 3D game (or maybe pre-render them yourself if you have the tools?). If it's sprites, well, you're either doing 2D, or wacky sprites in 3D.
1. Artists compete to make the coolest set of assets relative to a given theme. Characters, monsters, background tiles, whatever.
2. The winning art is employed by coders to make the best game. Or possibly, you can use any of the art in combination, though that has those style issues.
Sounds pretty fun. I'd compete in both parts and lose the art part miserably. The biggest issue is that it enforces certain things - if the art is low-poly 3D models, you have to make a 3D game (or maybe pre-render them yourself if you have the tools?). If it's sprites, well, you're either doing 2D, or wacky sprites in 3D.
I wouldn't mind competing, though I think I'd lose too. Though a lot might depend upon the definition of "content." Are words, story, or HUD layouts part of the "content" you can't change?
All questions of how to use stock content aside, this does open one up to thinking about the subject of pure game design. Given a ball, a 30' x 50' field with trees, some twine, some foam padding, running water from a faucet and a hose, some scraps of brightly colored cloth, tools, and a working golf cart, what kind of game can YOU construct?
All questions of how to use stock content aside, this does open one up to thinking about the subject of pure game design. Given a ball, a 30' x 50' field with trees, some twine, some foam padding, running water from a faucet and a hose, some scraps of brightly colored cloth, tools, and a working golf cart, what kind of game can YOU construct?
Nah, MacGuyver would do it all with a stick of gum, a bicycle, grasshopper spit, and the gravitational pull of the moon.
Why make coming up with the art an issue? Just take various public domain sprite sets and make a differant contest out of each (one contest using these space shooter sprites, another using those rpg sprites, etc.).
You could start the first contest next week.
You could start the first contest next week.
# posted by 
: May 03, 2006 7:41 PM
: May 03, 2006 7:41 PM
Thanks for an interesting post. I seriously believe that the industry needs to change. Costs are sky-rocketing and much of that is due to content production. I wrote another piece on the content situation. Check it out if your interested. http://www.sicher.org/archives/2006/05/public_licensed_content.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
