[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: chick flick?
- To: idrama@flutterby.com
- Subject: Re: chick flick?
- From: Morbus Iff
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:54:23 -0500
- Reply-To: idrama (at sign removed to prevent spamming) flutterby (dot) com
- Sender: owner-idrama@flutterby.com
>Here's the another related thing that I've yet to resolve: I'm looking at
>other markets, pursuing the "chick flick". Puzzle based stories don't work
>so well there, but I'm also thinking about soap operas. Soaps are
>traditionally high on dialog because they're designed to be "watched"
>while other things are going on, housework is getting done, etc. But that
>makes them less interactive. If anyone wants to riff on that topic I'd
>love to hear thoughts.
Well, were we designing the game to be full interaction with 3d camera
angles, and animation up the wazoo, or as the type of one frame, minor
animation, point and click type?
The former lends itself to not being a chick flick. You can have dialog in
a 3d world like an Ultima (I'll use that as an example), but most of our
players who are attracted to "the new Ultima ripoff" aren't gonna want
dialog. They just want to PK until the game sucks.
The latter lends itself to dialog well. There is a LOT of dialog in
Starship Titanic. If it's spoken, it becomes much better than reading
dialog on the screen - more like a soap.
------- <http://www.disobey.com/> ----------- ICQ: 2927491 ----
Disobey has been mentioned in The Netly News, Internet World,
ABCNEWS.COM, Bruce Sterling's Dead Media Notes and many more.
Microsoft and 3Com ripped us off also.... that has gotta mean
we're important. And hell, we got a rise out of Playboy! With
sections that have nothing to do with the others, you'll like
at least one thing. No, really. Go there. There.... I'm done.
-01------------<\/>------------------- Bad Ego, Any Notice ----