The Computer Game Dogma

 原文地址：http://www.happypenguin.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2895&start=0&sid=dcfa8723b0691ab1f1d829eedc0478bd

Computer games are a rather young media, and the limitations are few: We have a screen and and a speaker for output, and a keyboard and mouse for input. How can this entertain the player? There should be quite a lot of posibilities. Despite this, most games moves around in very much the same concepts.

I once wrote this set of dogmas for computer games, Inspired by the Danish Dogma95 movement. Following the three dogmas will force the programmer to create games without being burdened by the traditions. That's the theory, anyway!


This shall be the rules:


DOGMA #1
THE GAME MAY NOT FOCUS ON KILLING
Violence is fun. However, it has been used a bit too extensively, and is now a bit worn-out.
Death and violence is allowed, but NOT as fundamental part of the gameplay, as it is in First Person Shooters and tactical war games.

DOGMA #2
THE GAME SHALL TAKE PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD, PRESENT TIME
Science-fiction and fantasy can be used to create some really rich worlds, for example with Discworld, Lord of the Rings or Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. However, a sci-fi theme is often thrown on a game, only because its what games uses to be like.
This dogma will return the game to the most basic theme of all: Real Life.
It is allowed to "stretch" the reality, by letting pencils be alive and such.

DOGMA #3
NO DIGITAL ARTWORK IS ALLOWED
While great art can be made on a computer, it has been used too heavily in games. So out it goes.
Digital manipulation is allowed, to adjust colors and lightness or to make a texture repeat seamlessly. But it may only be used to exchange the image - not to create it.

Depends of course if those rules should apply to commercial games or stuff that you see on the Gametome each day. For commercial games something like this might be helpfull:

Dogma1: As above.

Dogma2: Never shall the protogonist of a game act on its own without the player controlling him. (cutscenes are evil)

Dogma3: Never shall the player be forced to commit an actions which he does not want to. (GTA is not a sandbox...)

Dogma4: Depiction of real events, especially war, is forbidden. (yet another WWII shooter)

For OpenSource games:

Dogma1: You must not write a Tetris clone

Dogma2: ...and not a PuzzleBubble clone either.

Dogma3: You must not reinvent the wheel.

Dogma4: Have a strong vision, best written down on paper, of what you want to do *before* you start.

Dogma5: Release when its fun, not when its done.

I could say: "You may not import any 3D objects, bitmaps or sound files" :-)
Seriously: yes, it is a very restrictive rule. It is only useful for programmers who like to experiment or who are just a little bit masochistic.

But almost all 2D games are based on bitmap graphic moving around. And almost all 3D games are based on wireframed models with bitmap wrapped around them. I thought it could be fun to see some alternatives.

I also like the idea that the entire game is a result of the programmers skills. I don't know why, it just seems cool.
I think this one somewhat follows the rule:
http://www.happypenguin.org/show?Bubble%20Thing


My initial explanation of Dogma 3 was a bit unclear. I will try to explain its purpose:

DOGMA #3
NO DIGITAL ARTWORK IS ALLOWED
While great art can be made on a computer, it has been used too heavily in games. So out it goes.
Digital manipulation is allowed, to adjust colors and lightness or to make a texture repeat seamlessly. But it may only be used to exchange the image - not to create it.
The rule is targeted towards 2D indy games.

What is left if we cannot create the artwork on the computer, is scanning, taking photos and importing video.

What possiblities does this give us?
1) Claymation
2) Stopmotion using dolls, dead animals or other objects.
3) Pixilation (stopmotion using humans)
4) Rotoscoping
5) Cutout animation
6) Drawings/classic animation (using pencil, tush, watercolor, etc.)

I think the most obvious choice would be hand-drawn graphic. The other options are a bit exotic, even though I think all of them have a lot of potential.

Here is some (commercial) games which don't use digitally created graphic:

http://php.deadline.dk/games/giften/desc_uk.php?type=0&lang=1&id=28&lang=1

http://php.deadline.dk/games/blackout/desc_uk.php?type=0&lang=1&id=30&lang=1
(Not really a game, but pretty good)

http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/gamezone/html/reviews/never.htm

http://www.retro64.com/platypus.asp

http://www.adventuregamesforever.de/Harvester.Screenshots.htm
(Did this game rule or what!!)


I have taken a look at the 500 latest entries at the Gametome. I only found two (2) games which didn't used computer made artwork.

The first one is a clone of Mortal Combat:
http://www.happypenguin.org/show?OpenMortal

The second is GalaxyHack: (This one doesn't really count since I colorized the drawings on the computer)
http://www.happypenguin.org/show?GalaxyHack

In my opinion, it suggest that the computer has been used a wee bit too extensively for the artwork. Couldn't we try something new?

Dogma 1: No more first person shooter only. If you want a first person shooter you have to add some other element to playing the game then point and click. Deus Ex, and System Shock 2 have seemed to be forgotten by todays developers.

Dogma 2: No more World War 2 games.

Dogma 3: Fantasy worlds need rules, and bounds, and need to be consistent. Let's say you have a class that can bring people back from the dead. You can't have a party member die during the story, and then Party-"OH MY GOD HE'S DEAD! WE'LL NEVER SEE HIM ALIVE AGAIN!" Player-"Can't we just res him!?" Party-*Evil Glare*"No he's D.E.A.D., it's different from all those other times he died."

Dogma 4: Sci-Fi, you are projecting the future, you need to remember that. Try to prevent making overly grand ideas for the near future. Trust me, we don't have flying cars now, and we won't for a long time. The more believable your outlook on the future is, the easier it is for the player to get in it.

Dogma 5: Level design can't be linear! Half-Life 2, Doom 3, I'm looking at you two! You have to let the user figure out, and make a path them selves. No "Oh look, a broken open pipe in this dead end, how convenient..." It should be "Well I can't go that way, well I have some C4, lets see if I can't blast my way threw this dead end, or there has to be another path to take." Once again System Shock 2 nearly broke free from this, to bad computers weren't powerful enough to make the maps larger.

Dogma 6: Story Lines shouldn't be linear, hell they shouldn't have a real end. You need to give the user a world that gives them an idea of what they want their end to be. If it's rule the world, save the week, and meager from evil, or make his world a better place. If Fallout 2 didn't have the Oil Platform ending area, and a larger map, with more things, like running a crime syndicate hands on, or being able to build and own structure, and businesses, with a dynamic AI then it wouldn't need an end.

Dogma 7: Players must be given the power to mold their world, or them selves. It can be as simple as staking bricks. Nothing is cooler then owning, and making structure you can walk around in. I think that's the fun I get out of level editing.

Dogma 8: You must never speak, OR DO anything for the player. If you want him to speak, then give him a microphone! Cut sense are only bad if they force a player on a path. You can use them to generate some sort of mood for the situation he may be in, as long as he got there him self. No forcing the player to help someone they don't want to.

Dogma 9: Look to eliminate limitations, and bounds from the player as much as possible. Some of the things I've stated above can't be done with todays computers, but most can. You shouldn't be redoing the same game system over, and over, with only making VERY little changes along the way. The Grav Gun in Half-Life 2 isn't that big of a deal. You're still stuck in a linear story, with no control over what you do to reach your end. Oh, you get to play with the boxes on the way though. Why couldn't they say. "Gordon you're here, in this city. Ummm, you can leave, over throw the government, or go on a mad killing spree. Just have fun!" Just model the whole damn city, and let us go nuts. Design an AI that can over see the deployment of enemies, and let us use that grav gun to figure out a really kick ass way of doing what we want to do our selves.

Dogma 10: Simple is fine, as long as you only expect someone to play it once in a while, for short times. I hate games with simple mechanics, like Final Fantasy, and most other RPGs, and they expect you to play threw for hours, upon hours, with very simple game mechanics, and not get board of it really quick. If you want to make good story lines either make a game that doesn't suck, or a movie!

I'm sure I may have stated something stupid, that someone somewhere will pick apart, but I don't really care. These are the major problems with games I keep running across, and I want them to be known.

As you may have noticed I don't talk much about software design, or limiting data or artwork.

Honestly I have no idea what "NO DIGITAL ARTWORK IS ALLOWED"? Does he want us to finger paint on our monitors? That's fairly analog.