EPTThank you everyone for all the great replies :D
On January 03 2012 02:31 Lightwip wrote:
While rewarding skill is good, whether or not you do, make sure to avoid a game that encourages grinding.
While rewarding skill is good, whether or not you do, make sure to avoid a game that encourages grinding.
I'm a ex-WoW vanilla player. I think I know what grinding means
But I totally forgot to include this >< Thanks for reminding.
On January 03 2012 03:39 I_are_n00b wrote:
I've been doing hobby game development for a many-a-years (my previous job was also game dev related) and it really depends on your genre and target audience. On tl you're going to get a crowd that likes challenging game play and so forth, but if you were making an RPG, it'll mostly be storyline and system depth.
I have recently been trying to not to think of "game design" aspect as being limited to computer/electronic gaming. You can actually learn a lot from looking at board games, card games and sports. Some of these games have a lot of strategic depth but are easy to pick up, which is important. Overall though, there are so many established genres that you could feasibly clone their designs and as long as the execution is smooth, it'll be deemed as a good game. If you only add one or two good aspects to the established genres, it'll be enough to be seen as creative. Games are pretty much going to be judged by their weakest aspect. If anyone aspect is below the norm, people are going to complain about it. Luckily, 2D pixelated graphics are still normal for indie games, but the UI system must be smooth and there is a certain amount of polish that is expected.
Immersion is pretty important in game design though. In the end, games are just a bunch of number crunching, but you can't let the player know that. Whenever you have a klunky menu system, or areas where you don't have enough polish you knock the player out of suspension of disbelief. Just look at simple games that made it huge like Farmville, or Angry Birds. At the core, they have a very simple game mechanic but they have enough polish around it so that people don't know they're just playing a 2D physics simulator.
There are a few sites that are dedicated to homebrew game development like tigsource.com or gamedevelopersrefuge.org (I'm way more active on GDR, but tigsource is bigger). I've been doing flash games recently, because indie PC games rarely get noticed by people who aren't in the scene. It's really hard to get anyone to download something, no matter how good it is. Also, another thing I've learned is that just trying to finish games on some of these genres requires a herculean effort. I think most game developers want to make an RPG when they first start out and they usually have some ideas on features they want to add, but to be honest if you don't make a standard Diablo or FF Clone, you won't truly understand some of the design choices that are already implemented.
I've been doing hobby game development for a many-a-years (my previous job was also game dev related) and it really depends on your genre and target audience. On tl you're going to get a crowd that likes challenging game play and so forth, but if you were making an RPG, it'll mostly be storyline and system depth.
I have recently been trying to not to think of "game design" aspect as being limited to computer/electronic gaming. You can actually learn a lot from looking at board games, card games and sports. Some of these games have a lot of strategic depth but are easy to pick up, which is important. Overall though, there are so many established genres that you could feasibly clone their designs and as long as the execution is smooth, it'll be deemed as a good game. If you only add one or two good aspects to the established genres, it'll be enough to be seen as creative. Games are pretty much going to be judged by their weakest aspect. If anyone aspect is below the norm, people are going to complain about it. Luckily, 2D pixelated graphics are still normal for indie games, but the UI system must be smooth and there is a certain amount of polish that is expected.
Immersion is pretty important in game design though. In the end, games are just a bunch of number crunching, but you can't let the player know that. Whenever you have a klunky menu system, or areas where you don't have enough polish you knock the player out of suspension of disbelief. Just look at simple games that made it huge like Farmville, or Angry Birds. At the core, they have a very simple game mechanic but they have enough polish around it so that people don't know they're just playing a 2D physics simulator.
There are a few sites that are dedicated to homebrew game development like tigsource.com or gamedevelopersrefuge.org (I'm way more active on GDR, but tigsource is bigger). I've been doing flash games recently, because indie PC games rarely get noticed by people who aren't in the scene. It's really hard to get anyone to download something, no matter how good it is. Also, another thing I've learned is that just trying to finish games on some of these genres requires a herculean effort. I think most game developers want to make an RPG when they first start out and they usually have some ideas on features they want to add, but to be honest if you don't make a standard Diablo or FF Clone, you won't truly understand some of the design choices that are already implemented.
Thank you for the long and clear answer on a lot of questions I had.
Although I'm a beginner in game development. I've already gotten a lot of stuff done already. Right now I'm in the just finish the game already to get into the comfort zone of making more games. Right now I know most people get stuck on trying to finish the game. Luckily this game is for an assignment for school which it has to be playable with some basic things my teacher laid out. So the game will have to be finished if I want to graduate LOL.
But I also like programming in general so the hurdles games can give doesn't really affect me
In the book I've read you had to make a space shooter. I've finished that and I'm using the core things I've coded there for the RPG (scene transitioning and basic things like that) and I know that if you're going with RPG then you obviously have to look at the best games which imo is FF atleast. So I've copied and tried to improve the battle UI where it could be better (which I'm doing now and am almost done within few days).
Regarding design choices, yes at first I did a different design than what FF normally does and I noticed what problems will occur in doing so (like I first used up the entire width of the screen for my attack buttons only to find out later that you won't see the cast timer on each char or their stats ><). Luckily looking at these games and doing it different you will understand why some games have gone that direction in design.
On January 03 2012 04:01 heishe wrote:
Thorough design.
The game shouldn't have any obsolete elements. This includes an absolutely huge amount of things, but it all comes down to generalizations of special concepts. Like the way you generalize a formula in physics to retrieve a general formula that describes the same things but in a more simple way (you only need one formula for all possible cases instead of 5 for 5 special cases where you don't even know the other 42 special cases that exist). This is abstract, so I'll give an example: I'd much prefer a game where you can invest experience points directly into abilities/talent tree perks/etc. instead of gaining "one level" with a certain amount of XP and having one or two of each elements unlocked each level. The latter system, which is used by most RPGs, is obsolete. My proposal unites the same features and the same result under a simpler and more unified concept.
This is an automated process. I don't see an element of the game and think "wow, this is very unified, how awesome!". Unified elements are inherently more fun than specialized elements, since they have the same (and most of the time more) features, but are easier to understand and execute.
The game should be generous. It shouldn't hide it's weaknesses behind the abuse of the reward system of the human psyche. Don't make me grind hours on end for a certain reward that's just there to keep me motivated. Just give me the item for free if you think it'll make me feel better. Don't constraint your world to a small set of rails that I have to walk on (hello call of duty) just because you don't know how to show me your 5 hour long cutscene with shooting elements (the game) without always having me look a certain direction and be at a certain position. That's just bad. The best games in the world are games which are very generous this way and still make me want to play the game. A game that makes me want to play the actual core gameplay instead of making me want to gather rewards in the game.
Just think about Starcraft 2. It gives you all units, all buildings, all degrees of freedom that the game has right from the beginning of the game. You don't have to get to Masters League to unlock Mutalisks. And you don't have to follow a predetermined path to win a game. This is generous, and part of the reason why the core gameplay of Starcraft 2 is objectively very good. Now, this generosity is pretty common in real time strategy games, but not in other genres. Why do some arcade-y single player shooters just follow the path that Halo set a couple of years ago to only allow you to carry a small amount of weapons around? That makes no sense. It provides no benefit at all.
I mentioned grinding. The grinding itself should be fun. The gameplay behind grinding should be fun. In most games this is the combat system. This is what I would call "core gameplay" and anything else (grinding gold for items for example) would be "metagameplay" - meaning gameplay that isn't actually manipulated by the player. Metagameplay should never be the center of the game (nowadays it is - just think about achievements and everything similar that keep you playing a game long past the point where it's actually fun for you). Examples of good core gameplay: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Braid, TLOZ: Skyward Sword, Metal Gear games etc. Examples of bad core gameplay: All MMOs that have ever existed (yet I still play some of them from time to time, since my brain succumbs to reward mechanisms or fanboyism, as is the case with SWTOR [I love Lightsabers]).
Focus on emotions other than fun. Most games just want to entertain you or want to let you have fun. This is not a bad thing, but it's a very noticeably positive refreshment if a game puts emphasis on other, darker, emotions (sadness, pain, etc.).
These are the things that have to be part of the game to even have a chance to make it come into my top 10 list of my favorite games of all time. I might enjoy other games, but I will never want to replay them.
Bonus points (can make a very bad game enjoyable for a couple of hours):
Good soundwork. Audio-related stuff makes 50% of a game for me. Battlefield 3 would be a mediocre game if it wasn't for the awesome sound effects. Of course BF3 is not an amazing game, but it's a good game, imo.
Fancy technological stuff. Some new amazing graphic-feature (still waiting for halfway decent vegetation), fluid dynamics in games (still rare), etc.
Good story.
Star Wars. Batman.
I probably forgot about a lot of things, but these are some very important points to me. Notice that all of the above is, as always, just my personal taste.
Thorough design.
The game shouldn't have any obsolete elements. This includes an absolutely huge amount of things, but it all comes down to generalizations of special concepts. Like the way you generalize a formula in physics to retrieve a general formula that describes the same things but in a more simple way (you only need one formula for all possible cases instead of 5 for 5 special cases where you don't even know the other 42 special cases that exist). This is abstract, so I'll give an example: I'd much prefer a game where you can invest experience points directly into abilities/talent tree perks/etc. instead of gaining "one level" with a certain amount of XP and having one or two of each elements unlocked each level. The latter system, which is used by most RPGs, is obsolete. My proposal unites the same features and the same result under a simpler and more unified concept.
This is an automated process. I don't see an element of the game and think "wow, this is very unified, how awesome!". Unified elements are inherently more fun than specialized elements, since they have the same (and most of the time more) features, but are easier to understand and execute.
The game should be generous. It shouldn't hide it's weaknesses behind the abuse of the reward system of the human psyche. Don't make me grind hours on end for a certain reward that's just there to keep me motivated. Just give me the item for free if you think it'll make me feel better. Don't constraint your world to a small set of rails that I have to walk on (hello call of duty) just because you don't know how to show me your 5 hour long cutscene with shooting elements (the game) without always having me look a certain direction and be at a certain position. That's just bad. The best games in the world are games which are very generous this way and still make me want to play the game. A game that makes me want to play the actual core gameplay instead of making me want to gather rewards in the game.
Just think about Starcraft 2. It gives you all units, all buildings, all degrees of freedom that the game has right from the beginning of the game. You don't have to get to Masters League to unlock Mutalisks. And you don't have to follow a predetermined path to win a game. This is generous, and part of the reason why the core gameplay of Starcraft 2 is objectively very good. Now, this generosity is pretty common in real time strategy games, but not in other genres. Why do some arcade-y single player shooters just follow the path that Halo set a couple of years ago to only allow you to carry a small amount of weapons around? That makes no sense. It provides no benefit at all.
I mentioned grinding. The grinding itself should be fun. The gameplay behind grinding should be fun. In most games this is the combat system. This is what I would call "core gameplay" and anything else (grinding gold for items for example) would be "metagameplay" - meaning gameplay that isn't actually manipulated by the player. Metagameplay should never be the center of the game (nowadays it is - just think about achievements and everything similar that keep you playing a game long past the point where it's actually fun for you). Examples of good core gameplay: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, Braid, TLOZ: Skyward Sword, Metal Gear games etc. Examples of bad core gameplay: All MMOs that have ever existed (yet I still play some of them from time to time, since my brain succumbs to reward mechanisms or fanboyism, as is the case with SWTOR [I love Lightsabers]).
Focus on emotions other than fun. Most games just want to entertain you or want to let you have fun. This is not a bad thing, but it's a very noticeably positive refreshment if a game puts emphasis on other, darker, emotions (sadness, pain, etc.).
These are the things that have to be part of the game to even have a chance to make it come into my top 10 list of my favorite games of all time. I might enjoy other games, but I will never want to replay them.
Bonus points (can make a very bad game enjoyable for a couple of hours):
Good soundwork. Audio-related stuff makes 50% of a game for me. Battlefield 3 would be a mediocre game if it wasn't for the awesome sound effects. Of course BF3 is not an amazing game, but it's a good game, imo.
Fancy technological stuff. Some new amazing graphic-feature (still waiting for halfway decent vegetation), fluid dynamics in games (still rare), etc.
Good story.
Star Wars. Batman.
I probably forgot about a lot of things, but these are some very important points to me. Notice that all of the above is, as always, just my personal taste.
So in summary: you like it when you have control over the player you're playing. Like don't just level up and give a player a spell but give the player a choice what spell he wants to learn / spend his spell points so to speak (a bit like FF 10 iirc).
About the generous paragraph, so again it comes down to control
You don't like it when people have to play so long in a direction the game designer laid out instead it's better of the player choosing his direction.This is indeed a smart and logical thing to do imo and thanks for backing it up with the sc2 analogy to help me understand.
Core gameplay, I see and I think I understand. I don't like it either when you have to grind so many hours to get a levelup and such just to get some better stats. Just go with the story line with the player choices and you should be able to finish the game is how I want to approach it. Grinding past the point of enjoyment is a thing I want to avoid at the very least.
Focussing on emotions, okay that one seems to be in combination what the goal of the game is as far as I understand.
It's good that you give your own personal opinion as everyone has their own taste but most people will have a common interest in games and I want to basically find that out.
Thanks for all the replies. Took me a while to read them and come up with a reply.
On January 03 2012 06:02 LastWish wrote:
Depends on the genre.
Depends on the genre.
- Adventure games:
Like for: Drawn graphics, story, humor, multiple possible ways to solve puzzles
Favorites: Monkey Island, Indiana Jones, Broken Sword... - Platform games:
Like for: Hard gameplay, innovation in level design(e.g. new monsters, weapons, other challanges, skill choices are fine too)
Favorites: Mostly classics like Prince of Persia, Golden Axe, Commander Keen, Another World, Flash Back, from new ones usually flash games which I don't remeber names of - FPS:
I must say this isn't really my genre and I only played a few deeply.
Like for: Mix of graphics, toughness(needs to be challenging). I must say I really enjoy open areas with vegetation, structures...
Favorites: Unreal, Serious Sam... um what else I don't remember - RPG:
Like for: Skill system which is somewhat balanced(doesn't have to be perfectly) and diverse at the same time(many options/ways to play are possible;this is core). Story that is easy to get into, but let's you fly around(you are not pushed into what to do in what order).
Favorites: Fallout, Baldur's gate, Might & Magic, Wizardry... - Warrior like 3d games(don't know how to call this genre, but games like God of War, Prince of Persia Trilogy, Devil may cry, Assassin's creed):
Like for: I guess feel of power by abilities and graphic effects, storylike
Favorites: My most favorite is the PoP trilogy - Strategy games:
Turn based strategy games usually need similar qualities as RPGs, however more focused on skills&units and less on story and dialogs. Also different strategies need to be available and the total balance needs to be ok.
Favorites: Master of Orion, Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, Age of Wonders...
Now real-time strategy games are probably my all time favorite.
Unless I play them competitively I care little for balance, even when I play with my friends and the game hasn't been figured out, imbalance can be actually fun.
I must say I like the feeling of somewhat overpowered units and abilities like: RA2 prism tanks, iron curtain, kirovs; KKnd1+2 barrage crafs, flame thrower infantry;Tiberian sun cyborg commando, artilery; Starcraft siege tanks, storms, carriers;defilers;SC2 colossi, banelings, banshee;W3 blademaster
...
Favorites: all mentioned and more; I really don't enjoy the new ones as much, because for my taste the 3d engines are poor and thus it is difficult to see what's going on. Also the new games tend to be less of a challenge, I have to say I had more challenging time playing KKnD2 than SC2.
Thanks for the new input (just finished reading and commenting the previous comments :D).
One thing I've also understood so far is feedback people give you to your game and actually use it.
Like with sc2 when something is just ridiculously OP then listening to the community to "fix" the OP thing in order to make the game better for the player experience is something I noticed although it's hard to please everyone.
