Games can be infinite, so why are you still working on a throwaway project?

The never-ending cycle of waiting for the next great thing.

Lets get this straight. Books, images, music and video are a single-use item. Once you’ve seen them, read them or listened to them, the discoveries has been made and you move on to something else.

Sure, you may revisit them for a second or even a third go, but by that time, they’re already old. You know what happens, you know what it looks likes and how it feels. Its done.

A throwaway product.

Before I continue, I do infact recognize that its a throw-away product for a single person. It may have as many uses as there are the amount of people, which are born every day, making its potential lifespan infinite in that sense.

But thats not the point. Lets get a bit selfish here.

This article about you as a consumer, not the whole world.
Picture this the following:

So you’ve experienced some neat scripted game and its now over. It was fucking awesome.

You want more.

There is none at the moment.

Lets also mention that making games is a hard and slow process.

…

That sucks, doesn’t it?

You’re back to square one. You experienced something inspiring, but it ended and thats it. You wanted more, but the experience was cut off as soon as the content ended. Now you’re left stranded to look for something else to enjoy.

Whats worse, is that it may take a long while before you get something that good again, but if its the same limited design, you’ll consume it in a few hours like the last game and be back in this same state of emptiness.


Waiting till the next good game comes around.

Its an endless cycle. So what’s the point of continuing this?

However, there is another way.

Something a computer program can do that a movie can’t.

Video games have something that movies, music and books don’t. The potential to be infinite.

When I say infinite games, I don’t mean those simple highscore-based arcade games, no.

I’m talking about games with the same seriousness and scale as those massive scripted ten plus hour adventures like Mass Effect or Skyrim, but much better and truly infinite.

If you’re freaking out and saying this is impossible, then stop. It is. The main difference between those above examples and the infinite game, is that you play as yourself and not forcibly being someone you’re really not.

From the perspective of gameplay design, it works much more fluently, is more consistent and doesn’t require the artifical constraints you get often get in a scripted game. It just works.

Most of the time, unless your main goal is to specifically teach something or tell a story, which movies, visual novels and books are more fluent at, these games are meant to give you a specific experience. A thrill, an emotion or some particular feeling. An atmosphere.

The trick is to focus on that experience and build around that, rather than stuffing the player into a some arbitrary role, when the real goal of the game is to simply give an experience, like being a pilot, monster, soldier, hunter, spy, hero, adventurer, commander, god… you name it.

The whole aspect of putting a player into a specific character’s role only shifts the focus from what is really important, which is about delivering an experience, not being someone you’re not.

Were not really making the games we really want, are we now?

But alas, the games industry, both AAA and indies, seem oblivious to all this and keep doing the same thing over and over, despite deep down really wanting that infinite game. Talk about the definition of insanity, eh?

Whats mind boggling, is that developers spend years of their life to create games, only for them to have such a limited - and often rather shoe-horned - design that can be exhausted within a few hours, some times even in just mere minutes.

This is understandable for movies and books, since they’re not interactive by nature and cannot generate fresh new content like a computer program is capable of doing, either through multiplayer, user content or procedural random generation.

But come on, whats with the obsession of shoe-horning the scripted movie framework on video games?

This is especially the case when the player is put in the role of a specific character, usually with the hopes that he or she will experience the story from a more closer angle.

There is a huge problem with this design. A big conflict.

Fitting a square peg in a round hole.

You put the player in full or even partial control over a character that has a previously established past, abilities and perhaps a personality of some description.

The problem is that the player can do anything he wants. Any story or personality the character has or the path that he takes will get perverted in one way or another.

Its no mere coincidence players are having fun doing absurd things that the character they play as would never ever do. Like tea-bagging corpses. Or going AFK during a conversation with an NPC in the middle of something important.


Typical player behaviour in a video game universe.

Why? Because you simply can. As the player you’re in control, after all.

A game is an interactive system and its natural for this behavior to occur, so your attempt to tell a convincing scripted story and creating strong immersion in this way goes right out the window.

And yes, an obvious thing to do against this is to limit what the player can do, to the point that the pretty much runs on rails, but at that point your game has turned into a glorified movie.

Doing so cripples the game’s ability to be infinite and it greatly limits its flexibility in terms of gameplay and what the player can experience within it. Thats just contradictory game design right there.

Trying to force a storytelling approach to a video game while giving the direct control over a character to the player is as shoe-horned as it can get. The more serious a game tries to take itself, the more cringe worthy it becomes.

So you’re basically shooting yourself in the foot with a design that adopts the approach of movie and books.

So, back to the point of infinite games.

Like mentioned previously, there are three big things that make the whole infinite game idea possible; multiplayer, procedural random generation and user content. In addition, there are two more; persistency and emergent behaviour.

Using these five concepts, either all of them or even just a few of them, it is possible to create a video game that never gets old or lame unlike a movie, book or those traditional scripted video games do inevitably.

With all that said, I return to my initial question:

Why would you spend years creating something so complex as a video game with the goal to deliver an experience that limits itself with a scripted, finite design?

All that hard work you put in would get used up in mere hours, where instead you could create a game with a design that is infinite?

Not only you could create something that will have virtually infinite longevity for yourself to have fun with endlessly, but also provide a lasting product to your players that offers them same infinite entertainment, with much wider flexibility on how it can be played.


Infinite games are the future.

Talk about some seriously huge value for their money. This is what video games were meant for. This is what they’re capable of.

Besides that, people are starved for infinite games, you can see signs of this in any hardcore gaming communities when you ask them about it. Theres a huge opportunity to be had here for success and a new form of games to enjoy.

Go out there and design your games with infinite gameplay in mind and a strong focus on the atmosphere and emotion its supposed to evoke in you. Its all a matter of design.

I read 2 times through, didnt get it.

Just because I want to make a game that delivers on a specific experience and a specific narrative does not mean I’m making a “throwaway” project. Stop equating “length” and “value.” It’s a hideously damaging things to games in the most subtle and insidious ways.

Qualification References Please,

Does Reactorcore Games not also include in it’'s Services QA Quality Assessment’s such as play test debugging.

Person has idea.

Person speaks.

Sadly, this usually means said person did very little thinking between the two. There are plenty of very important questions the OP needs to answer, that as far as I can tell he hasn’t looked at yet. For example:

  • Is all existing entertainment a ‘throw away’ product?
  • If so, why so? Is this a bad thing?
  • Has anyone else tried to create an endless game/product?
  • Did it work?
  • What were the drawbacks?
  • How do people approach/experience the two.
  • What is value?

etc.

I personally think anyone who goes out claiming that most/all existing media is a ‘single use throwaway’ and therefor bad is surprisingly ignorant of value. Let’s put it this way: I’ll happily sit down for an hour and a half and watch a movie about a man imprisoned - say fugitive or shawshank redemption - however if you wrongfully imprison me for 20 years so I can ‘experience the real deal’ I won’t be too happy about it.

That’s a long article for something which can be answered very succinctly, so my apologies for not returning your verbosity in kind.

Because I would rather create* ten hours of wonderful entertainment than an infinite number of hours of computer generated tedium.

  • also play

I believe he’s saying that the games industry, including indie developers have hamstrung themselves into tired tropes of what they believe gaming is.

Games as a medium are still incredibly new, so why are so many wasting their time trying to “sell” their work like this is hollywood? We have the technology to make games that are really creative-- we don’t need “genre” games or endless derivatives of the same formula. Look at Bioshock infinite, take out the story and cinematics and it’s wolfenstein. In many ways we’re still coasting on the breakthroughs of the 90’s with the super nintendo, I don’t think we’ve really breached too far beyond that yet.

No, he’s pretty clearly talking about games that can go on forever. He even cites examples of this.

I think what you’re getting at is dynamic game mechanics.

Standard scripted mission: NPC has mission for player, talking to NPC gives the player the mission. All the factors of the mission were pre-programmed. The mission is either completed once, or can be repeated.

Dynamic mission: Enemy monster type A have gone un-killed and multiplied during the length of the game, a script detects their large numbers and tells NPCs to make missions for the player to kill this type of enemy.

With dynamic missions the quest the player does can be generated based on the events in the game world, the actions of NPCs, the player and random events would mean that each time you play the game the exact goals the player will have will be changed. There have been some games to attempt this type of game mechanics, I don’t think any were very popular.

As far as making a game just go on forever though, that’s not ever great. For example I loved Super Metroid for the snes, one of my favorite games ever, but I would not want to be still playing it today, eventually I would have gotten very tired of it if it never ended. All good things must come to an end. Life is finite and so are all the most meaningful experiences within it.

That’s why mmorpgs were once my favorite genre, if not my favorite hobby. But then money came in.

Uh no… he’s talking about games expanding beyond their current petty aspirations, just like chess isn’t a game that gets old. Today’s games are like vending machine honeyrolls, you eat them and throw them away.

Should try Dwarf Fortress :wink:

The word infinite was used multiply times in those paragraphs you might as well be talking what Dark Matter Is or Is Not.

Nothing contained in that post say’s how one would apply this methodology in said games, as is useless ranting, Not that i disagree with the some of the points made. :smile:

Chess isn’t a game that gets old because it’s a two player experience that was refined over literally hundreds of years.

The current “petty aspirations” are not a bad thing. A game can be designed for single consumption and still deliver a valuable experience and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. The concept of having a structured narrative that is better facilitated and emphasised by gameplay is not something we should just throw away because “WHOA INFINITE GAMEPLAY!” In fact, the examples of games he provides where “infinite gameplay” would help would actually be marred by such a concept because they’d effectively lose the meaning that ultimately drives them: the accomplishment of a single, overarching goal.

when i think infinite game i simply think MMORPG… like Lineage II, this game has been going strong for 10 years now with new expansions and game content being released. I’m sure there are a number of other MMORPGs that have been going strong for a number of years as well, so I think Infinite Games are already here in the form of MMORPGs.

another good game that comes to mind that might be considered an infinite game could be FireFall, a new MMOFPS Game just released in 2012, really cool! you can play in first person, or third person mode, fight other players in arenas, team-play vs enemie ai that tries to take over the world in realtime, and much more…

So yea, i think Infinite Games are probably the most profitable kind of games because you get to continue the life of the game forever by providing more content, and as long as the players enjoy the game and the new content you keep putting out then you have yourself an infinite profitable game…

but these games im talking about are all backed by millions of dollars im sure… how many indie developers have millions stashed away to develop such games…

i think there is one exception of a possible infinite game created by indie developer, and that’s minecraft. So i guess it is possible without millions to back such a game, only we need to come up with some really unique ideas that are totally different from minecraft, which i think my be hard to come by because minecraft takes one of the best possible unique *cheapest concept of create an infinite game and that’s simply allowing the users to create the worlds they want with pixel graphic cubes. (*Note: when i say *cheapest concept, i’m saying it didn’t cost him a fortune to create because he is just using box and pixel graphics for content)

im sure there are some other awesome ideas that are lingering around in some indie dev’s mind lol… it’s just a matter of coming up with something simple in a way where it doesn’t require millions to create, but genius enough to sell like minecraft did, and capture a huge player base that don’t care about graphics.

possible, but very difficult i think…

btw i didn’t really read the whole first post, i thought it was way tooo long and probably could have been expressd in a couple sentence or a paragraph as most. I kinda know where he was going with it by the subject alone…

Minecraft.

I didn’t read the rest, TL;DR

I love it when people present a common concept as if it is some sort of revelation.

WoW, Spore, Sims, SWOT, Lego Universe, Little Big Planet, Second Life, FarmVille, (most social games are designed with that goal in mind), many MMORPGs. Heck there are still large communities around Tribes and UT, though those are maintained/expanded by players. And of course the upcoming Disney Infinity. And many others over the years. It’s an idea that has been around pretty much since games moved from hardware to software.

It still comes down to compelling game play and engaging story. But even in the best case scenarios, players can still get tired of playing in that universe. I can’t even imagine a type of game that would keep me engaged for more than a couple of years. I go through phases of types and styles of games I like to play, as do most of my friends. Though clearly it can and has worked. Especially if you define “infinite” as a few years.

As far as content, procedural really doesn’t work that well, it is too grindy and lacks engagement, it can aid, but not be primary. UGC is probably a method that works really well, but it can also hurt a game (Spore). Having a well designed system that allow for story-tellers/designers to add easily is probably the best, but that can be an expensive system to build and even if it works, having good content creators would still be the key to success/failure.

The biggest trick to ongoing content driven game is striking a balance between keeping players from to progressing too quickly through new content, and slowing them down to much where it ruins the game. Players can play through stuff much faster than it can be built. Much like it is faster to read a book than write one. I personally felt that Avatar was a little too long to sit through in a theater. Imagine what it was like for the people worked on that movie for almost ten years.

I’m just going to put out the fact that I prefer short games. I’m a college student juggling college work, a side project and a social life. I hardly have time for games anymore and when I do play a game, I want to know that it will be worth the time. I think it’s far more important to maximize the enjoyment to time ratio as much as possible. It’s stupid to artificially lengthen your game or make it infinite when doing so doesn’t add anything substantial to the gameplay. Unfortunately I think the majority of games do this to some extent, and it’s pretty annoying. Kind of makes me avoid or prematurely put down a lot of video games these days.

yea, i agree… i don’t see anything wrong with that at all… it seems like Reactorcore is saying to us all that we should totally just drop everything we are working on and ONLY WORK ON INFINITE GAMES… hmmm that’s not really going to go over well with most i don’t think.

there are plenty of games i have played in my time that I enjoyed playing for the length of time they provided, yes i may have wanted more… but i think it’s that longing for more is something that has given me alot of inspiration and ideas for what I want to create, and or further experience in a different way through different games. If i was stuck playing one game forever i think i would have missed out on alot of different experiences that influenced me as an artist. So i’m happy to have played those games that i did once, and have them in my memory to go back and refer to and draw ideas from.

There’s something wrong with it because most games do it. Not only is it boring but it creates a corporatized approach where game makers fall into a groove of putting a carrot before the rabbit. You like Grand theft Auto X? We’ll guess what, the new GTA gives you 3 cities to explore and flyable spaceships. It becomes like the tech market where it just keeps going; when you view games in such narrow terms they become a commodity, like smartphones, they get outdated and have to be replaced.

Narrative in games has seldom been done right, the final fantasy series is generally a good example because the gameplay and narrative are totally complimentary. But a lot of games take narrative way too far, the simple fact is that most people don’t care to “watch” half ass character models try to express human emotions, when games try to become films and forget that they are games it can be almost embarrassing to watch.