f13.net

Instead of participating directly, I'm kind of hoping that the Red Names might review the process itself you guys are using in an attempt to "make it real". Note that the following is purely my opinion, and it's important to note that (due to my actual job being education, not direct development) I don't actually have any games to my credit--so take it for what it's worth!

--I found it extremely interesting that the first round was a "40,000 ft view of a game", or in general industry, the "elevator speech". I don't want to unintentionally modify or guide how round 2 goes so will hold some additional comments until after the rules for round 2 are announced.

--it was also extremely interesting to try to guess where an idea would lead based on how it was presented. I saw a couple of pure atmosphere based descriptions, leaving the mechanics, win conditions (if appropriate), and general game flow being totally undefined, to some that at least partially described a game mechanic, and some that focused on an existing genre with partial innovation.

--one person (the last poster, who de-lurked) defined a game mechanic, and that's it. Take that how you will.

--not a single submission described a target market, or even a target platform (pc, console, mobile, etc).

Koboshi defined that the following things would come after Round 1.

Any submission that described gameplay or target market, etc. didn't read the rules before submitting. I understand that the rules are nothing but guidelines, but everyone will get their chance to clarify.

I imagine the person who describes the market first doesn't like games and sees the video games purely as business venture.  I don't think those types would post on f13.net.

I agree completely, other than that I don't know if anyone is trying to "make it real."

I was going to post something very similar. I consider the basis for a game to be a gameplay idea, not a backstory description. Yet there are games that are more about atmosphere and story than mechanics. (Silent Hill is a good example, the gameplay is totally generic) When I think about games I always think about rough gameplay first, but I can see how everyone is different, so to each his own.

If was trying to design or pitch a game this isn't the process I would use. But that isn't the point.

I've spent a lot of time the last several years engrossed in the boardgame world, so I tend to think about mechanics before theme.  And when it comes to boardgames, nearly every game is "niche."  My submission is based on a boardgame design I've been toying with for the past year - something of a fusion between Railroad Tycoon (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17133) and Buck Rogers (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/548).  I think the orbit mechanic adds an interesting twist to pickup-and-deliver and empire building games, but it's also hard to fit all the moving parts on the tabletop.  Voters are of course free to dismiss my entry for blatant rules violation...

Yeah, I really thought we were just supposed to give a setting in round one. Did I miss something?

  The purpose of the first round wasn't to create a story first, but rather to create a reason for gameplay.  I’m hoping that something akin to the old saying, necessity is the mother of invention, will drive the future rounds to make some original gameplay ideas.  As many of you have pointed out this isn’t how it's done usually, and that's the point.  Usual methods create usual results, or to put it another way average methods create average games.  Now I realize that it would be hard to run a company like this, but fortunately this isn’t for profit, it’s for fun.  I agree that finding funding for any game made this way would be difficult, to say the least, because the market is afraid of trying new ideas.  So since the industry is averse to new ideas we have to find another way of fleshing out these out of the box ideas.  Hopefully when we're done with this game we will have come up with some interesting new ideas.  I think we've gotten stuck in a few local maxima in the industry, to use the evolutionary meaning, and we need a few more freak ideas out there to mess with the gene pool lest we get stuck with an industry so inbred it can only reproduce through cloning. 

On the subject of mechanics:  I don't think you can describe some games at even a high-level taking about mechanics.  How do you describe Katamari without discussing rolling junk up?  It would be lacking the thing that makes Katamari Katamari.

How about: "The King of All Cosmos accidentally destroyed the heavens but, knowing the Earth is full of things, sends his son down there to make some new stars." That doesn't effectively describe Katamari Damacy as we know it... and could turn into a number of different games. It's just a setting.

A global conspiracy has combined cutting edge technology with ancient necromancy to create miniature fusion suns powered by the souls of the dead: the Katamari Damashii. The Prince must infiltrate their organization and fight the soldiers of those corporations and governments who could steal these stars to control the world... so that he can return them to the sky where they might save mankind.

-=Deus Damashii=- Coming this Christmas, exclusively for the XBox 360

Good point, I should have re-read the ruleset before I made the post--my bad. Been a crazy busy week and I haven't had much time to spend on the forums reading things completely lately, so sorry :)

  Well now the rout is in full swing it seems I have some balancing to do.  I do think however that it's an easy fix. In fact it’s a two-birds-with-one-stone solution.  If you win a round you can’t play the next round. If you win a round after the second round you win the ability to chose the next round's theme. If there's going to be a second running of this game (I'd like to play again) this should help, if not get rid of, the incumbent problem.

Thank God.  Now I don't have to subject people to my (lack of) artistic ability.