Comments on: Tunguska: Polish and Value

By: A.L.

A.L. — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:48:01 +0000

To quote from Wikipedia, “no generally-accepted definition of design exists”. You idea of design is apparently to make things interesting and innovative, or to add “Lebensrelevanz”. I propose the “professional touch” as an over-arching concept – to have the game look like it was meant the way it turned out.

I mostly agree with your review of “Tunguska”, but the back of the package should be warning enough not to expect anything too serious or revelant. It is one among many riding the supernatural mega-wave, and pleasantly free of set-piece demons. The story is totally forgettable, and the interface “improvements” have been over-hyped because they’re really everything that’s outstanding about this game. Not really worth a review unless hype bothers you, or because the game is German.

By: Krystian Majewski

Krystian Majewski — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:16:00 +0000

I do appriciate your enthusiasm but I suggest you should re-consider your concept of what "design" is. It's a lot more that making things "beautiful". Actually, it doesn't even have to do anything with "beauty" at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:40:00 +0000

Yesss! You are absolutely right. A computer game is not just programming technique. It is story and design. For me design means that one can say “Oh how beautiful” or “Wow, impressing environment”. You can find that in Syberia 1 and 2, in the late Myst 5, 5 and Uru.
All these games are story-driven. You are not just looking for stupid stones and nails to put them together to a tank-tool, even if you have no idea what this tool could be used for.
And then, these never ending “dialogues” drive me crazy. One problem of this game is that the player does not know what he wants and how he could reach his goal (difficult if he has none).
The 3D environment is, well, 3D. It is neither interesting nor beautiful. It is not even functional.
Some guys tried to make a buck, and that is it.
JML

By: Krystian Majewski

Krystian Majewski — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:05:00 +0000

About your Dune II vs. Warcraft example – actually there were a lot of differences between Warcraft and Dune II. The polished version of Dune II was rather Command & Conquer.

Things get more difficult when we talk about action and strategy games. For example – both are re-playable which means they offer value even if you already saw the content once. So bringing out another game with more of the same gameplay is less problematic. This less true for adventure games.

By: Rafael Van Daele-Hunt

Rafael Van Daele-Hunt — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:45:00 +0000

“The flipside of “established” is that you have larger footsteps to fill.” That’s a good point, and it’s something that producers looking for a surefire hit seem to forget. Yes, a copycat knows that a market exists, but why should anyone play Game B if it’s the same as Game A but worse?

OTOH, the games that make the large footsteps aren’t the ones to first introduce a new idea (Dune II), but the first to show off an idea in polished form (Warcraft II). This, I think, is the core of successful game publishing: let others generate ideas. Some will be turds, others will be established (but not yet done-to-death) ideas. Steal and polish the latter. Profit!

By: Christophe

Christophe — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:01:00 +0000

agreed

By: Krystian Majewski

Krystian Majewski — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:23:00 +0000

Story Sucks - I guess you could boil to this. But there is more: In some games, a bad story is acceptable if there are other redeeming factors: innovative game ideas, unique themes, interface innovations, Lebensrelevanz (more on that later) etc.. Experience 112 or Fahrenheit are good examples. If none of that is present all you left with is just the bad story.

And it's not just that the plot is cheesy and unconvincing. It also has no meaning beyond the superficial action. There is even no character development.

By: Christophe

Christophe — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:03:00 +0000

humm, haven’t play the game so I may be wrong, but it looks like the problem is basically that the story suck … a problem common to a LOT of games

By: Krystian Majewski

Krystian Majewski — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:02:00 +0000

You are right, this is somewhat a strawman argument.

But I still think the two myths overlap at least to some extent. The “Turd” one is just so hyperbolic. “Turd” in this means a “bad” idea. This can mean old, boring, over-used or even cliché. Fixing that with just polish might not be enough as in case of Tunguska.

Or to put it differently: The flipside of “established” is that you have larger footsteps to fill.

By: Rafael Van Daele-Hunt

Rafael Van Daele-Hunt — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:57:00 +0000

Thanks for the analysis of Tunguska, but I think your central idea — that there is a contradiction or apparent contradiction between “you can’t polish a turd” and “polishing an established idea is good” — is just wrong. You seem to be assuming that an established idea is the same as a turd, which is silly: usually (admittedly not always) an established game design idea is established because it is a good idea!

I’m not saying that innovation isn’t nice, but it certainly isn’t necessary to avoid turdhood.