Beseech thy lord

[ArchAngel]

I originally got into computer science to do game development, and while professionally, I'm happy to not work for.. oh, say, EA, I do keep thinking about doing a game myself. Indie style.

I'm a big fan of RPGs and turn based strategy, the "ultimate" game would have to be an open exploration-centered space pseudo RPG. Something along the lines of Firefly meets Star Trek meets Star Control.

[delve]

Immediately made me think of this
http://www.soldak.com/Drox-Operative/Overview.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
One of these days I need to try that demo.


So... question... have you played any if their games? The ones I've played are pretty good.

[ArchAngel]

I've never heard of them. Do you recommend?

[delve]

I recommend Depths of Peril as an interesting evolution on the Diablo-esque ARPG. It is decidedly not a Diablo clone, though it does use many of the same gameplay elements.
Din's Curse is another take on the DoP theme. It looks good at first play but I haven't played it extensively enough to recommend it. Kivi's Underworld was a pleasant, less than inspiring diversion for me and I've yet to try the Drox demo, as I said.

The company has been around for a few years now and, at least while I was participating when DoP was new, active in their forum.

So are you a fan of experimental indie work or do you prefer the more mainstream?
Do low-fi graphics earn an automatic de-merit in your personal opinion of a game?

Edit:
Oh look, a review of Drox by Sstavix

[ArchAngel]

Cool, I might have to check them out, both DoP and Drox.

I honestly like to keep my mind a little open when it comes to indie vs. mainstream. Both gave me games I find very engaging and appealing. Indie provides a lot of areas to explore more risky game styles or mediums, but on the other hand, these experiments can quickly become unrelatable, boring, or unplayable. For example, I didn't particularly enjoy flOw, but FTL swept me away. This isn't to say I don't like artsy games: I posted a thread on a game called Loneliness earlier, and while it's a bit of a non-game, I think it was quite a profound experience. I do believe gaming is an emergent art form, so I look at indie games with a interested eye.
Mainstream can deliver big, grandiose games an indie team couldn't deliver, but sometimes can be bland in safety. Oh, look, another military shooter. But, I love sprawling rpgs and epic 4X games very dearly, and they often take a full studio to pull off fully. There's a place for both, really.
This being said, Indie games also give me a hope that I too can put out a game myself, my own expression.

I would definitely say low-fi graphics are not a deal breaker for me. In fact, I have a very special place for low-fi/retro/pixel graphics. Much of my favorite games are pushing 20 years old and are 2D. If I make a game, it'd probably lean towards this as I don't have anything to offer in a 3D scape.
But, one thing I will not say is that graphics don't matter, it's about gameplay. It's a short-sighted thing to say and I feel anybody who does say that doesn't understand why they like games. While graphic quality might not be important to me, aesthetics are deeply important. It doesn't need top of the line 3D to make a very compelling art piece. This might be one reason why I don't care for early 3D games, most of the lack of quality pulls away from it's ability to create a good aesthetic (obviously, this isn't true for all), but a 2D game from the same era would be able to have masterful pieces setting very elaborate and compelling scenes. So, I find art very important to a game, and I need to love what they've done with it; I just don't measure it in polygon count and particle renderings. This being said, hi-fi graphics is just a bigger toolkit for an artist to draw a game, but there is still something to be said about less detail.

So, those are my long-winded answers.

[delve]

I think we're in very much the same place here.

I've read advice that one should read the first 50 pages of a book and then move on if it isn't enjoyable. Do you agree with that in principal if not specifics? Do you translate this to video games as well, and how long do you play before deciding?

[ArchAngel]

I suppose I do that de facto. Often, I judge a game by it's ability to make me want to come back and play some more. After one sitting, if I enjoyed it, I'll see how I feel about it next day. If I don't feel like I'd want to play more I often don't. For the first sitting, I try to get it past the tutorial area and into at least some of the main game.
This being said, some games I come back and pick up again a good deal later and find myself enjoying it much more. Often it's the case because my expectations were wrong about a game, or it got superseded by another game.
So, I might give it another try, but if I'm not drawn in on the second sitting, it's not going to be taking up hard drive space. I have a ton of other, more fun games to play and try and I don't have time to sit through a game I find mediocre.

[ArcticFox]

I originally got into computer science to do game development, and while professionally, I'm happy to not work for.. oh, say, EA, I do keep thinking about doing a game myself. Indie style.

I'm a big fan of RPGs and turn based strategy, the "ultimate" game would have to be an open exploration-centered space pseudo RPG. Something along the lines of Firefly meets Star Trek meets Star Control.

Is that the sort of game you'd work toward if you did the indie thing?

[baconisgood23]

Steam or Windows?

[ArchAngel]

Both?

[Chozon1]

Hot glue up the nose?

[ArchAngel]

nopenopenope.

Is that the sort of game you'd work toward if you did the indie thing?

Yes. I have several ideas swimming in my head and on scratch paper (as do most aspiring game designers), but this would be the grandest on them.

[Sstavix]

Edit:
Oh look, a review of Drox by Sstavix

Indeed.

So, ArchAngel, if you were developing a game (something I wouldn't mind getting involved with someday myself) what do you think should be more important - the gameplay or the plot? Certainly both are important (unless it's a puzzle game like Tetris, for example), but do you think one should be emphasized over the other?

[ArchAngel]

Honestly, it really goes for what you want to convey. Extra Credits really gives a good overview of this with their piece on Aesthetics of Play.

Some games, the plot is really immaterial. Super Mario isn't a classic for it's plot, but at the same time, it's the some games are entirely made by the plot on how it unravels. I honestly can't even say which I'd prefer. Different games for different moods, really. Sometimes I just want some great, fast-paced action, sometimes a masterful plot that twists and unravels, and sometimes I want to be able to create my own plot with my own character.

So this isn't a complete non-answer, the one thing I'd say is that the two should really build off each other. If the plot's the main point, the gameplay should support the narrative on what the plot means to convey and shouldn't detract from it, and the plot should also be a good driving force to move through gameplay.

[Sstavix]

Makes sense and I agree that there should be a good balance. I've played games that seem to have a good storyline, but are nearly unplayable because of the game mechanics or control scheme. Likewise, I've played entertaining games that handle well, but fail to hold my interest for long because there's little to no storyline to keep me interested.

Moving on, what do you think of "magitek," or the blending of magic and technology. Is it generally effective, or is it a cheap technique some writers use to expose that they don't really know how science works?