Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsMATTHEWAC95'S PROFILE
matthewac95
55
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Interesting blog post about defining visual style
I don't know if you guys play League of Legends, but recently the company who makes the game have been taking huge leaps forward in the game's aesthetics. Basically, the game is mostly played in 20-60 minute-long segments on the same big map, and that map has changed very little over the last 3 or so years; until now, which is a pretty big deal. In my opinion the change has been a huge improvement on the original style, and is quite refreshing to see after playing the game for about 2 years.
Anyway, some of the visual developers who worked on this project have made a blog post about the work they did to define a new visual style for League of Legends. Though most of us aren't working on a game that's going to be anything like League, it's still interesting to see them talk about the kinds of decisions they made when they were working on the new map, and a lot of it is still relatable to any kind of game.
It's a cool read, and I suggest you guys check it out. Here's a link.
http://promo.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/summoners-rift/
Anyway, some of the visual developers who worked on this project have made a blog post about the work they did to define a new visual style for League of Legends. Though most of us aren't working on a game that's going to be anything like League, it's still interesting to see them talk about the kinds of decisions they made when they were working on the new map, and a lot of it is still relatable to any kind of game.
It's a cool read, and I suggest you guys check it out. Here's a link.
http://promo.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/summoners-rift/
Would you play a game with HORRIFIC art if the story is REALLY Good?
For me it's more of a question of where the gam makr put the most design emphasis. If they designed unique tilesets for every area of the game, made animated grass, drew pictures for cutscenes, etc., but it all looks really bad, then there's a good chance I'll be more overwhelmed with the ugly than I am appreciative of their other design values. If the graphics are simple but effectively represent what they're supposed to, and more work was put towards other aspects of the game's design, then I'm likely to overlook and maybe even come to love whatever that game has to offer graphics-wise.
Another thing to remember is that imagination can go a long way in making up for substandard visuals, and sometimes invoking the right mental picture is better than showing any actual picture at all. That's why books are so popular.
Another thing to remember is that imagination can go a long way in making up for substandard visuals, and sometimes invoking the right mental picture is better than showing any actual picture at all. That's why books are so popular.
Making the story into a journey
I appreciate the feedback this thread has gotten, and I'm pleased to see that the information here seems to have been what other people needed as well, not just myself.
I do just want to comment, though, that in my original post I wasn't endorsing the idea that a game's story should have a bunch of random fetch quests in order to progress the plot, but I understand how it seemed that way since I guess I didn't articulate the idea well. I'm one to think that everything that happens in a story should happen for a reason, and should in some way be connected to the overarching objective; my difficulty was in coming up with the "everything"s that happen.
I do just want to comment, though, that in my original post I wasn't endorsing the idea that a game's story should have a bunch of random fetch quests in order to progress the plot, but I understand how it seemed that way since I guess I didn't articulate the idea well. I'm one to think that everything that happens in a story should happen for a reason, and should in some way be connected to the overarching objective; my difficulty was in coming up with the "everything"s that happen.
Opinion on Fangames
What I like about the concept of making a fan game is that the creator is delving into a world where most of the hard rules have already been set. Typically before you even begin seriously working on a fan game you already have a setting, some characters, and a back story, among several other possible things. I like that because as long as you understand those things that have been given to you from the start, you have a lot of liberty to play around with and expand on and create in the artistic world you're working in. Your work might be a derivative, but that doesn't mean your creative freedom is limited because you can still breath life into an already established character in ways that the author might not have even been able to express.
This is all assuming that the person aspiring to make a fan game has a very good comprehension and understanding of the material they're working with. While it's more than possible to breath life into a character, you can't change the aspects of their personality because after a story has been established it's like they're an actual living person, and this is true with everything about the story. It's kind of like playing chess; you can be very creative with how you use the pieces, but you can't change the rules of the game or modify the actual physical composition of the pieces.
All of that being said, I tend towards making my own original work than making derivative works, both because I feel like I can reach a broader audience with original works and also because I find that making a whole new world is just so much fun to do.
This is all assuming that the person aspiring to make a fan game has a very good comprehension and understanding of the material they're working with. While it's more than possible to breath life into a character, you can't change the aspects of their personality because after a story has been established it's like they're an actual living person, and this is true with everything about the story. It's kind of like playing chess; you can be very creative with how you use the pieces, but you can't change the rules of the game or modify the actual physical composition of the pieces.
All of that being said, I tend towards making my own original work than making derivative works, both because I feel like I can reach a broader audience with original works and also because I find that making a whole new world is just so much fun to do.
Making the story into a journey
In my experience in designing games, one of the biggest obstacles I seem to consistently face is this:
I've a story concept. I've developed it enough to where I know who the main protagonist(s) is/are, I know who the main antagonist(s) is/are, and I either know or have a good idea as to why either party is involved. I know at least some of the setting, have some of the game world in mind, have some key themes I want to integrate, and maybe even one or two specific scenes or bosses which I have planned out because that's how the game comes alive in my mind.
In short, I have my main ideas. I have my major plot points. At this stage I have a good feel for the foci which my game is going to be revolving around.
Yet despite having all of that, it ultimately means nothing to anyone if it isn't all tied together through gameplay.
I'm finding this difficult to explain with words, but what I mean to say is that, though I know where I want to take the player in my world, I have trouble figuring out how to get them there as a part of a video game. It's this that I mean when I say "Making the story into a journey"; that is, to take a story, a few characters and a plot, and how to make it come alive by intertwining it with an interactive game world that's going to have enemies and bosses and some towns and non-player characters that just aren't important to the plot, and really hold no other weight than for being there because without them I wouldn't be able to use the actual gameplay elements I designed to make playing the game fun. In some ways I guess you could just call it "fluff", but it's more important than that to me because if you don't put your game in a world where it fits, then you risk breaking immersion and making everything seem too forced.
So I guess I'm asking how you guys find yourselves doing it, or at least to give insight to the problem and maybe some tips as to how to get better at doing it. One solution to this problem I've observed is to just make a number of small objectives for the player to follow until they hit the big plot points the designer had planned, but then how do you guys come up with the small things?
I've a story concept. I've developed it enough to where I know who the main protagonist(s) is/are, I know who the main antagonist(s) is/are, and I either know or have a good idea as to why either party is involved. I know at least some of the setting, have some of the game world in mind, have some key themes I want to integrate, and maybe even one or two specific scenes or bosses which I have planned out because that's how the game comes alive in my mind.
In short, I have my main ideas. I have my major plot points. At this stage I have a good feel for the foci which my game is going to be revolving around.
Yet despite having all of that, it ultimately means nothing to anyone if it isn't all tied together through gameplay.
I'm finding this difficult to explain with words, but what I mean to say is that, though I know where I want to take the player in my world, I have trouble figuring out how to get them there as a part of a video game. It's this that I mean when I say "Making the story into a journey"; that is, to take a story, a few characters and a plot, and how to make it come alive by intertwining it with an interactive game world that's going to have enemies and bosses and some towns and non-player characters that just aren't important to the plot, and really hold no other weight than for being there because without them I wouldn't be able to use the actual gameplay elements I designed to make playing the game fun. In some ways I guess you could just call it "fluff", but it's more important than that to me because if you don't put your game in a world where it fits, then you risk breaking immersion and making everything seem too forced.
So I guess I'm asking how you guys find yourselves doing it, or at least to give insight to the problem and maybe some tips as to how to get better at doing it. One solution to this problem I've observed is to just make a number of small objectives for the player to follow until they hit the big plot points the designer had planned, but then how do you guys come up with the small things?
What process do you do to make games?
Similar to what GoatBoy said, I want to make a game when I have a story to tell, and this usually comes from a "spark" of inspiration. I absolutely love making fictional worlds, it's one of my favorite things to do, and the best way I can think of portraying a world is through a game.
That being said, the setting and story of the game usually ends up being something like the second and third major thing I do, since the first thing I do is conceptualize the reason why I want to make the game, and this ties back into the spark. The spark could be anything from an moving series of dreams I've had to a unique gameplay mechanic that I want to make come to life, or a combination of a few of these things. Once I've figured out what it is I want to create, how that thing is going to work in a game, and roughly how to go about doing whatever it is I want to do, I begin the rest of the process.
In bulleted form, I would say my process is like this...
Naturally at any point in the process things are subject to change, but I tried to organize that list to best reflect my creative process.
EDIT - Also, I usually end up designing one or a few boss fights and stuff like that before I actually start putting things together.
That being said, the setting and story of the game usually ends up being something like the second and third major thing I do, since the first thing I do is conceptualize the reason why I want to make the game, and this ties back into the spark. The spark could be anything from an moving series of dreams I've had to a unique gameplay mechanic that I want to make come to life, or a combination of a few of these things. Once I've figured out what it is I want to create, how that thing is going to work in a game, and roughly how to go about doing whatever it is I want to do, I begin the rest of the process.
In bulleted form, I would say my process is like this...
- Flesh out the core idea of my game
- Create a setting / story for the idea
- Create a story / setting for the setting / story I have
- If necessary, program the game engine
- Some time in the middle of the steps above, decide and flesh out what game mechanics I want to have
- If there's anything I still haven't completed at this point, be that engine/story/setting, I work on that until I'm comfortable enough with it to continue
- Organize/Create resources necessary for the game
- Put it all together until I have a final product
Naturally at any point in the process things are subject to change, but I tried to organize that list to best reflect my creative process.
EDIT - Also, I usually end up designing one or a few boss fights and stuff like that before I actually start putting things together.
Fast Times at Aremen High: Sign-Ups
I should participate in this community more. I'd be happy to join.
As for what I would be doing in the game, if you want I can send you a line or two to use in the game. Maybe you could base it on my avatar, like I have this weird looking energy cube that I use for something.
I generated a sprite to use.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/dztldg.jpg
As for what I would be doing in the game, if you want I can send you a line or two to use in the game. Maybe you could base it on my avatar, like I have this weird looking energy cube that I use for something.
I generated a sprite to use.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/dztldg.jpg
Art Principles in Game Graphics: Making Pretty Stuff
I appreciate this post, it's very informative. Thanks for sharing this with the community!
I don't really have much to say in terms of how I approach aesthetics in making games except that I always find it helpful to do things in steps, as you did with the forest sketch (spoiler alert). When I make maps for a game, for example, I make a preliminary outline of what I want to make with various ground textures and then fill things in from there. I remember for one map I actually made a simple version of it using the RPG Maker RTP, and then later on used that map as a visual outline to make a bigger, more detailed map with a better tileset.
I don't really have much to say in terms of how I approach aesthetics in making games except that I always find it helpful to do things in steps, as you did with the forest sketch (spoiler alert). When I make maps for a game, for example, I make a preliminary outline of what I want to make with various ground textures and then fill things in from there. I remember for one map I actually made a simple version of it using the RPG Maker RTP, and then later on used that map as a visual outline to make a bigger, more detailed map with a better tileset.
How important are extra playable characters?
There are a lot of RPGs that offer more characters than are possible for you to play with all at once. This often leaves the player with an option to pick and choose which characters they like the best and want to make a party with.
Now I'm not about to reject this design choice, I actually enjoy it very much. I feel as though it gives the player more room to be creative with my game and more opportunities for them to become attached to the characters in the game. I've also enjoyed this when it's done in other games, i.e. Chrono Trigger, Pokemon, Romancing SaGa, Final Fantasy, etc. There's no need to pigeon-hole the player in to playing with one set of people when you can design more people to let the player express themselves more freely.
However, and this may just be my perception, it seems to me as though if you want to make a game (in particular a game with a battle system that involves more than just one or two characters), and you want it to be good, you can't just design enough characters for there to be one possible party; in other words, it seems to me that extra playable characters are kind of necessary in order for people to take your game seriously. That or something like in Final Fantasy V where your 4 party members can take on the abilities of several different ones at the same time.
What do you guys think? How important is it to you to have more than one kind of party available to play with? When, if at all, is it necessary to have more than the maximum number of party members?
Now I'm not about to reject this design choice, I actually enjoy it very much. I feel as though it gives the player more room to be creative with my game and more opportunities for them to become attached to the characters in the game. I've also enjoyed this when it's done in other games, i.e. Chrono Trigger, Pokemon, Romancing SaGa, Final Fantasy, etc. There's no need to pigeon-hole the player in to playing with one set of people when you can design more people to let the player express themselves more freely.
However, and this may just be my perception, it seems to me as though if you want to make a game (in particular a game with a battle system that involves more than just one or two characters), and you want it to be good, you can't just design enough characters for there to be one possible party; in other words, it seems to me that extra playable characters are kind of necessary in order for people to take your game seriously. That or something like in Final Fantasy V where your 4 party members can take on the abilities of several different ones at the same time.
What do you guys think? How important is it to you to have more than one kind of party available to play with? When, if at all, is it necessary to have more than the maximum number of party members?
Games - Tester
Games - Other
