It started as a simple response to Michael Steffans post about Myst here, but garnered more attention as it grew.
"Myst was definitely a top favorite of mine at one time, however it would never be able to stand on it's own at the moment (and I do mean at this very moment). Myst held my attention for both the imaginatory and visual. AKA "What wasn't there, that was there before, that left a trail is interesting, as well as all the pretty CG things that I can feast my eyes upon at that very moment." Essentially what I am trying to say is this, I had to use my imagination while enjoying the eye candy. However today, the eyecandy falls apart because we are doing that in real time now (aka the reason for the re-release of REAL Myst, check it out sometime). Interaction with the environment was rudimentary, but worked because of the slideshow atmosphere. I think it would take a lot more of the interaction with the environment today and in a much more realtime environment to pick up where myst left off, not to mention a WELL crafted story. Story and interaction fall in the toilet so much these days. I just got done with Max Payne 2. It was pretentious, gratuitous, and un-imaginative. The story was terrible and the action was repetitive ad-naseum (sp?). But it was kinda fun and it looked good, for the first 15 minutes. Then the idea of bullet time and shooting characters with akimbo uzi's got old...very old. Unfortuneatly, I think akimbo Uzi's will never get old to some people, as long as they continually get better looking *sigh*. How about this...wheres a game that makes the player actually bend over, reach out there hand, grasp something like a leaf or a twig with their fingers, and gently lift it to their height to examine it. How about then, I have to reach around to my back, unzip my back pack with my hand, and gently place the object inside. That's interesting to me, as long as it serves a purpose later. Why not construct a game that is simple in scope yet complicated in interaction? At least make the character shut-up for a while too, so I can actually hear myself think!"
Good post Mike S. I will continue writing more later.
Posted by Mike at January 18, 2004 05:38 PMwho was it that was talking about subtle interaction within games? maybe it was you, mike. if it was, i meant to add to that conversation that i was wondering if it were possible to create a game in which instead of physical moves associated with the buttons, you had emotions. and those emotions would result in emotional responses from the other characters and so would progress the narrative.
what pops to mind are those aol quizzes in which you had to try and get a date - kind of a choose your own adventure format. except that if this could work, we could have games infinitely more complex.
Posted by: kellee at January 21, 2004 12:55 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)