GDC call for submissions

  11 Responses to “GDC call for submissions”

1. SirBruce says:

   June 30, 2006 at 6:58 pm

   I recently saw the first episode of a PBS series called How Art Made the World.

   http://www.pbs.org/howartmadetheworld/episodes/human/

   The first episode, More Human than Human, discussed the history of art and basically made the assertion that the human mind doesn’t really WANT realism, and prefers instead an exagerrated version of reality. And I thought this notion tied into the whole Uncanny Valley effect, and virtual worlds in general. And I thought, “Wow, this would make a good talk at GDC or something, but I’m not qualified to do it. It’s more appropriate for someone like Raph Koster or Ernest Adams.” So, there’s the basis for an idea; use it or not. 🙂
2. Lobosolitario says:

   June 30, 2006 at 8:07 pm

   How about Minimum Viable Population in digital worlds? For the time being at least, genetic diversity and natural disasters aren’t an issue, but socialization is.

   The random number generally quoted for communities is 150, as per Social Networking.
   But I’ve never seen this put to the test, or examined in detail within online communities. So, how many people does an online world need per given size? What kind of population densities? How many “towns” or gathering places should there be per number of inhabitants? How to offset the fact that people aren’t online all the time? In general, how can design be improved to make socialization more effective?
3. SirBruce says:

   July 1, 2006 at 6:05 am

   Well, I submitted my lecture proposal. Pro Tip: Update your cookie beforehand, because the default cookie logs out after 15 minutes, and it won’t remember all the stuff you wrote in those submission proposal boxes. Luckily I had copies of it, but still, it was quite annoying to have to go through the whole process twice.
4. Amaranthar says:

   July 2, 2006 at 9:02 am

   Lobo, good one. I’d like to see socialization talked about more. I’d also like to see some effort put forth on the alternative play style it would bring, compared to the level/item grind style of play.

   A thing I’ve thought about often is the world size in a game where socialization is big, in the form of communities like cities built and expanded by players. I fear that some developers would think that the world would have to be small so as to keep players together, and I don’t believe that at all. I fear that some would want to do just what you are talking about, working with numbers, and developing a world that’s only so big for so many players. And I think it should actually be just the reverse. The more huge the world is, the more opportunities can be had for players. The more cities, the more politics, the more room for growth, and the more possibility for danger and threat.

   Socialization would need to be cool enough that players want to join in. Requiring cooperation for grand projects would be a must. A glue must be applied. And yet, players would also need to be able to go out into the world, and return, in a quick fashion. I used to think that teleporting was a bad thing for a game world, but have since come to a new conclusion that it’s essential. However, load limits would need to be required there to ensure that socialized aspects such as trade and mass movements are done overland, adding to socialization and community efforts.

   Mainly, whenh talking about socialization, I’m affraid of the “control” theories that could go the wrong way. I’m affraid that the industry will look at it as a “nut shell”, rather than as a “goal driven” control.

   After all, this is the history of gaming design. My fears are real.
5. Lobosolitario says:

   July 2, 2006 at 11:44 am

   There are definetly some numbers that need to be applied, but I very much doubt there would be a “one size fits all” solution to latch onto. I learnt from SWG that social nuclei have to be tailored to the population – when player cities hit, there were too many nuclei for the active number of players, meaning most (player and original) towns were ghost towns, and it was very hard to find a social nexus where you could reliably meet new people. I find a similar effect in Matrix Online – too many places for not enough people. That doesn’t mean that the world should be small, or that the placement of nuclei should be limited, but there should possibly be some kind of “economy” effect, where popular nuclei grow, and empty ones dwindle. Or a better form of “people location” so players know where to find gatherings.
6. Amaranthar says:

   July 2, 2006 at 5:09 pm

   Yeah, I didn’t see anything in SWG as far as cities that would really entice people to play “the city”. I mean, to make it work, the game really has to give city building/running/life alot of paths, alot of things to do centered around the city. And it’s got to be wide in variety to pull together many kids of players (hopefully all kinds).

   but there should possibly be some kind of “economy” effect, where popular nuclei grow, and empty ones dwindle.

   I agree. It means players can lose an investment. That’s part of the “different play style” thing. But where there is potential loss, there is potential victory, making such things so much sweeter.
7. Allen Sligar says:

   July 3, 2006 at 10:53 am

   Amar and lobo great discussion, I always had a good time in those player cities (I built two actually) but your right they needed more of a “hook” to keep players returning. Much depended on overall server population though.

   Raph maybe something based on your ecology post, that seemed to raise some hackels, it was interesting as well. Something maybe along the lines of development of ecology, what WURM is doing and implimenting something like “Guns Germs and Steel” into a VW……

   Thats a lot to cover, but it would be interesting to see/hear
8. Tess says:

   July 3, 2006 at 4:26 pm

   I’ve had people telling me I should talk for years, and I’ve never had any clue what to talk about, either.
9. Morgan Ramsay says:

   July 3, 2006 at 4:28 pm

   Tess, you could talk about topic selection. 🙂
10. Jorgen says:

    July 4, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    Speak about why (and what your new project is..) you’re going indie. 🙂
11. Tess says:

    July 6, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Morgan, obviously I’m no authority on that topic. 😉

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.