Path: chuka.playstation.co.uk!news From: James Rutherford Newsgroups: scee.yaroze.freetalk.english Subject: Re: Game Design article (not mine) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:31:30 +0100 Organization: The Hex Heroes Lines: 25 Message-ID: <360A73E2.7BE7@writeme.com> References: <6ua24q$bdk9@chuka.playstation.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: atl4-m03.publab.ed.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Nick Ferguson wrote: > > http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/Games/Coin.html > > Here's a fairly interesting game theory article IMHO. Food for > thought, guys? Interesting, yes - groundbreaking, mostly no. The stuff about power-ups has quite a lot of content (and you'd be well advised to give it a scan), the rest of the article is misfocussed IMO. The author is trying to compare yesterday's style of game with the current crop - and that's something that cannot be done so casually. Earlier games lacked the 'depth' that most of nowaday's games exhibit (Not that that's necessarily a good or bad thing, of course). Current games almost /rely/ on the fact that 1st person perspective narrows the view or that multiple secrets keep interest up [and many of these secrets are /not supposed/ to be played twice]. The take home message (what should have been the slant of the article) - make sure you think very hard what, where and why you put things in your game. Don't just do for doing's sake. James (~mrfrosty)