Hi Len,
I completely agree. Moreover I would go one step further -- the games
that have proved to have longlasting appeal actually did involve the
user emotionally. (Who, really, can forget the dread of walking
around the mazes in Zork thinking the @#$%^ thief might be around the
corner?) There have been some recent examples of this -- Myst
certainly provided serenity, Resident Evil 2 provides the suspense
factor... even Quake has its "ewww" gross-out factor.
Lately I've been addicted to a little game called Worms 2. This is a
strategy, turn-based game involving cute little worms blowing things
up at each other. However what makes the game so compelling for me is
not necessarily the gameplay (although it's a great game design), but
the little tweaks of personality attributed to a worm. For instance
if it's my turn and I point my gun at a worm far away, you can see the
other worm's eyes get big and you can see him swallow. This really
provides a sense of enthusiasm for these little worms. Character goes
a long way, even in a blow-em-up.
-John
>IMHO, this is critical: a *game* may or
> may not involve the user emotionally, but if a *story* doesn't,
> it doesn't work. Story devices exist to create emotion
> (eg, involve them in Jeanie's imprisonment), or to drive
> the pace (don't drop the dancers on their butts at a cadence).
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
