12-03-2011, 06:09 AM
I was browsing the Internet, tonight, and happened upon a few select quotes pertaining to Jim Landes' game design philosophy. Specifically, the ones that I want to single out for discussion are:
-----
"The strength of a game is not how you play, not how long you play, but rather how often you think of the game when you are not playing."
-----
-----
"It is always about that unanswered question that makes a game "strong". Whether it be what is around that next corner, or the myriad of "What if" questions that come to the player and sow the seeds of inquiry. The mistake I think most designers make at this moment in time, is that they equate "content" with "Strength". I believe this to be an error of perception."
-----
-----
"Strength is fluidity of play, unique and changing situations, new information, and what amounts to be non static interaction with both the players and the game environment. This type of strength is not generated by eye-candy, but by the underlying game simulation that runs the game system and what has been all but ignored for the last 20 years."
-----
Jim Landes' remark about content being equated with strength, and that this is an error of perception by game designers, has much truth in it, I think. Lots of games with lots of content falls by the wayside. Content is king on the World Wide Web, or so it has been said, but is content king, where PBM game design is concerned?
-----
"The strength of a game is not how you play, not how long you play, but rather how often you think of the game when you are not playing."
-----
-----
"It is always about that unanswered question that makes a game "strong". Whether it be what is around that next corner, or the myriad of "What if" questions that come to the player and sow the seeds of inquiry. The mistake I think most designers make at this moment in time, is that they equate "content" with "Strength". I believe this to be an error of perception."
-----
-----
"Strength is fluidity of play, unique and changing situations, new information, and what amounts to be non static interaction with both the players and the game environment. This type of strength is not generated by eye-candy, but by the underlying game simulation that runs the game system and what has been all but ignored for the last 20 years."
-----
Jim Landes' remark about content being equated with strength, and that this is an error of perception by game designers, has much truth in it, I think. Lots of games with lots of content falls by the wayside. Content is king on the World Wide Web, or so it has been said, but is content king, where PBM game design is concerned?