|
As the title says what makes you play a game?
As someone who has recently started programming a game (Link) I've become much more interested in other aspects of making a game and I'm wondering what makes people play a certain game.
When I look at myself I play a game if it has a good story (Final Fantasy,Metal Gear Solid) or it rewards skill like Starcraft or Counterstrike (1.6 doh).
Some people I know play because the game has good graphics or they play because it's popular to play and the people they know play it as well so they can interact with their friends.
So my question is what makes a game interesting for you to play.
This could help me understand people better and to improve my game making by taking these aspects into account because even though I might be able to make a game (which I'm almost halfway done already) but if it doesn't interest people then I won't really learn from it as I want people to play my games which are interesting for them.
Thanks for reading!
 
|
Imo, its about interaction, rewarding skill (like you said, sc, cs, basically all fps and rts games), a ranking system too actually, I would like to know how my skill compares to the top leveled players (like in sc2 the ladder system), and tbh I don't really care about graphics, but maybe at least make it watchable :3.
|
Personally, i either like competitive games (like SC, many FPSes), or games that are immersive.
LA. Noire is a good example of such a game. I just picked that up, and i'm having a blast going through and figuring out the little things here and there and putting together a case. It's really rewarding.
Similarly, F.E.A.R. was really good, because it sucked you into the genre of horror-fps that it was.
The only thing that can take away from games like that, are when they're too short. Example: From Dust. I felt like it created a wonderful little world, but as soon as you got control of everything, it ended.
|
Imo, competitive, legitimate rankings (elo, or leagues like in sc2), a possible professional career in the game, and always room where you can improve. I think starcraft is pretty much perfect as a game for me  , I just want to see it grow in the Western Scene more and more as I grow older.
|
It's concept, gameplay, story, back story, plot, plot twist, music, background music and voice acting.
I have little care for graphics.
|
So for I've written down:
- Feeling of achievement (by means of rankings,leagues,elo for competitive games)
- Stories that are immersive that aren't short (but not take forever either I presume)
On January 03 2012 01:48 shaftofpleasure wrote:
It's concept, gameplay, story, back story, plot, plot twist, music, background music and voice acting.
I have little care for graphics.
Could you please tell me what a good "concept, gameplay, story, back story, plot, plot twist, music, background music and voice acting" would be for you?
Thanks for the replies so far guys. Didn't expect replies that fast :D
|
Feelings of achievement is actually a incredibly huge factor, the reason why games like CoD is so popular is because of that sensation after you get a kill and then get a killstreak bonus.
|
Try the original Deus Ex. Sure, the graphics are on the poorer side, but it doesn't detract from the gameplay. The only place that the graphics really affect anything is in cutscenes, but the voice acting is excellent.
You can play Deus Ex the way you want to. You can be a bloodthirsty motherfucker, or you can play non-lethal. It's your choice. There are many ways to complete objectives, which is what makes it a great game. The sense of your character development is nice as well, as the choices you make affect your personality in cutscenes and other things.
For example, in one part of the game, you need a LAM (explosive grenade). You can kill someone off to get it, buy it, or kill off a whole gang to get it. Either way, you make the decision, and you live with the consequences.
I like that Deus Ex is very immersive, and it does feel like you are playing as JC Denton.
|
While rewarding skill is good, whether or not you do, make sure to avoid a game that encourages grinding.
|
Yeah, honestly, grinding games are mainly for social interaction imo, sitting there hitting the exact same mobs for hours and hours and the only enjoyment you get out of it is talking to your friends about how boring it is. And also, I left out epic music :D, like peaceful music in town epic music fighting boss? Something like that.
|
for me, it's a clear challenge or problem to overcome, with some foreseeable means of doing so. Engaging in problem solving for me. is what games are all about.
|
There's two things that make a good game for me. That's competitiveness and simplicity. If a game is too complex, too much set in rules then there's little to be discovered by the players.
And thirdly, but that's not realy the game itself, it's the community a game has.
Although instead of competitiveness there is an alternative, and that's storytelling. But it's not a game in the same sense, FF7 and Metal Gear Solid (the first one dammit, not the sequels!!!) are two of the best games ever and both because of an amazing storyline that draws you in till the end.
|
I don't know how to write it in more general way so I just chose some games I like(d). Hope it will help a bit.
+ Show Spoiler +
X-com Enemy Unknown /Terror from the Deep
Turn base strategy. Complicated management of bases, a bit of economic thinking (Should I build a new base/ hire workers/should I wait?). Concept of research and research tree - you are behind, aliens have better equipment and ships, you need to catch up.
In tactical mission it was that haunting feeling. An alien could be anywhere. Something could go wrong and you could lose entire squad.
Settlers
So many resources! Relatively peacefull and good looking game. You could see those people doing their job - carrying stuff, planting trees, minig, fishing... A bit like a bee hive.
Terraria
your world, you can build own house, need resources to do so. You can farm, explore (huge cave systems), collect rare things, even fight. Some progression possible.
|
Balanced asymmetry. Such as between factions, weapons, cars etc. This not only gives depth to the game but allows people to explore other avenues without being punished for it.
With regards to single player, I prefer a guided sandbox type of game. One that isn't on rails to allow freedom and give it a replayability factor, but also isn't a complete sandbox because without clear objectives the game can be very boring.
Building things. I like building stuff whether it be in an rts, or a game like minecraft, or even fps's or third person perspective games. It doesn't have to be a building or units, it could be a car, or an obstacle or trap.
|
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.
|
Games are good either because they're competitive and balanced, which leads to a ton of depth (ie StarCraft) or if they tell a good story, like MGS or some FF games. A good atmosphere with great back ground music and sound effects can really help as well, Skyrim is a great example. Sometimes if a world is so alive, it makes the game interesting in itself. I am not a fan of grinding games any more, but a game like Skyrim can be an experience since you really don't have to grind and you can just enjoy the world. The game is very artistic, the developers gave it its own flavor and art style and that makes it interesting. Art style can go a long way as well. Crackdown is essentially a GTA clone, but way cooler in my eyes becayse of the comic-bookish graphics combined with the superhero vibe.
Games with great stories are the only single player games I really want to invest time into, and even then the story better be really good. Usually games with great atmosphere have a moderately interesting story, or are sandbox games so you can always just kind of make your own story up.
A slick interface in competitive games is a must. I am not a CoD fan, but the CoD interface works extremely well, especially on consoles. StarCraft also has a great menu system.
Anyway, the absolute bottom line is, in my eyes, the best video games are extremely imaginative in their own rights in regards to story or atmosphere and the depth of the experience. Furthermore, good games encourage the player to be imaginative in their own decisions throughout the course of gameplay.
|
after playin tekken 3 with friends for a couple of years I started with PC games trying to learn to play SC, but I didn't get decent so I tried CS and soon enough I fell in love with it. I played CS for 10 years or so because, like football soccer or basketball, its a balanced and extremely competitive team based game that not only rewards skill like fighting games but it also requires lots of communication, teamplay, the will to sacrifice yourself for the team and lots of trust in your teammates. I think its glory is what kept me playing non stop all this time to get better and better even tho I have not had the opportunity to play in a serious team.
2 years ago I found the time to watch some tasty korean Broodwar (shoutout to NukeTheStars, the main reason why I started watchin BW VODs) and I learnt to love it (even tho I suck at it like the D- iccup newbie I am), the korean scene is sensational, now I can't miss any important matches. I love competitive games like SCBW and CS 1.6 they got so much history and glory that I don't think I'm going to stop watching 'em anytime soon.
so yeah, I think the games that are loved and played the most require real hard work to get decent on 'em and the ability to think out of the box to excell on 'em.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
Edit:
Thank 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.
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.
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.
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. - 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.
|
Gameplay and how hard it is.
|
If there's one game I'd use as a model of a perfectly designed game, it would be Chrono Trigger(but not its sequels). It pretty much has everything a good game should have. A very interesting and unique combat mechanic(especially when you're racing against time to find that one combo or item that you need), doesn't need that much grinding(except tech, but that doesn't take very long), yet still challenging in its own way. Awesome music(this is often overlooked but is actually really important) and interesting characters and story. Also, finishing the sidequests really makes you feel good about yourself for solving all of the problems of the world.
The game pretty much had everything that any good game should have. Whether or not it did this the best is still arguable, but it certainly succeeded by using all of these things.
|
On January 03 2012 06:19 shannn wrote:
...
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.
Well, I'd say use feedback for things like new ideas into sequel/datadisk, or fixing bugs, control, interface issues.
However I would be careful with balancing according to what majority is complaining about. You should be the judge to make that decision. You know the lowest players will never be satisfied and will usually complain about imbalance rather than lack of skill.
I think that slightly boosting seemingly unused abilities/skills is usually better than nerfing the overpowered one.
|
No RNG.
No save/reload feature if you die.
|
On January 03 2012 07:55 Lightwip wrote:
If there's one game I'd use as a model of a perfectly designed game, it would be Chrono Trigger(but not its sequels). It pretty much has everything a good game should have. A very interesting and unique combat mechanic(especially when you're racing against time to find that one combo or item that you need), doesn't need that much grinding(except tech, but that doesn't take very long), yet still challenging in its own way. Awesome music(this is often overlooked but is actually really important) and interesting characters and story. Also, finishing the sidequests really makes you feel good about yourself for solving all of the problems of the world.
The game pretty much had everything that any good game should have. Whether or not it did this the best is still arguable, but it certainly succeeded by using all of these things.
I've never played Chrono Trigger. Only heard about it. Just read and saw some videos after your comment. It's made by Square :o (now Square Enix) which imo produces the best RPG fantasy games there is.
The game play is quite innovative :o real time combination with turn based fighting system is really interesting.
On January 03 2012 08:56 LastWish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 06:19 shannn wrote:
...
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.
Well, I'd say use feedback for things like new ideas into sequel/datadisk, or fixing bugs, control, interface issues. However I would be careful with balancing according to what majority is complaining about. You should be the judge to make that decision. You know the lowest players will never be satisfied and will usually complain about imbalance rather than lack of skill. I think that slightly boosting seemingly unused abilities/skills is usually better than nerfing the overpowered one.
Yea I was talking more about the former rather than the latter
On January 03 2012 09:09 Boblion wrote:
No RNG.
No save/reload feature if you die.
I'm not sure if you're serious and are you talking about every game or a specific genre?
Thanks for the replies. I appreciate all the feedback I can get.
Didn't expect people to give me this much feedback :D
For those wondering how far my own game is at right now.
I've just finished the fighting system like Final Fantasy (turn based with progress timer to attack, use magic spells,use items,target different targets/yourself/allies).
|
On January 03 2012 01:54 shannn wrote:So for I've written down: - Feeling of achievement (by means of rankings,leagues,elo for competitive games) - Stories that are immersive that aren't short (but not take forever either I presume) Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 01:48 shaftofpleasure wrote:
It's concept, gameplay, story, back story, plot, plot twist, music, background music and voice acting.
I have little care for graphics. Could you please tell me what a good "concept, gameplay, story, back story, plot, plot twist, music, background music and voice acting" would be for you? Thanks for the replies so far guys. Didn't expect replies that fast :D
Concept being unique way of how the game develops. It's practically a base for the other fundamentals of the game like gameplay and story. Like how you play Portal 2.
Gameplay would be how different it is from other more common games. Like how CoD and BW are different. I prefer a game that requires me to think. CoD require almost no thinking at all. But that doesn't mean I don't like FPS. Rainbow Six and/or Hitman was good.
Story. CoD's story on the other hand is really good. Just like Half-life, WoW, Diablo, SW:Kotor, ES3,4,5, Portal, Half-Life. There is a certain uniqueness to it. It's development is why I played CoD but didn't buy it lol.
Back story. Amnesia for example. It makes you feel more immersed in the story think how events have been unfolding long before you were a part of its universe.
Music and Background music and voice acting. are a given.
|
On January 03 2012 09:48 shannn wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I appreciate all the feedback I can get.
Didn't expect people to give me this much feedback :D
For those wondering how far my own game is at right now.
I've just finished the fighting system like Final Fantasy (turn based with progress timer to attack, use magic spells,use items,target different targets/yourself/allies).
Sorry I kind of skipped on the fact that you were actually making a game. :p
Making a game alone (something that is more complex than say asteroids), takes an immense amount of time and resources. If you're not already colaborating with artists, fellow coders or scriptwriters(lol I guess that one could be skipped though) I suggest you think about it. Dividing up the work realy will cut an immense amount of time out of the development process. Not to mention you might just give up on the project because between coding and doodling with sprites and music, you'll feel like you're making no headway at all.
Whatever you decide, good luck man. I'm actually thinking myself of enrolling into a programming course this year, so I'll be following your posts with a lot of attention.
|
On January 03 2012 12:39 Grndr101 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2012 09:48 shannn wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I appreciate all the feedback I can get.
Didn't expect people to give me this much feedback :D
For those wondering how far my own game is at right now.
I've just finished the fighting system like Final Fantasy (turn based with progress timer to attack, use magic spells,use items,target different targets/yourself/allies). Sorry I kind of skipped on the fact that you were actually making a game. :p Making a game alone (something that is more complex than say asteroids), takes an immense amount of time and resources. If you're not already colaborating with artists, fellow coders or scriptwriters(lol I guess that one could be skipped though) I suggest you think about it. Dividing up the work realy will cut an immense amount of time out of the development process. Not to mention you might just give up on the project because between coding and doodling with sprites and music, you'll feel like you're making no headway at all. Whatever you decide, good luck man. I'm actually thinking myself of enrolling into a programming course this year, so I'll be following your posts with a lot of attention.
Hehe actually I have divided the work with a close friend who's very passionate like me about making a game.
He isn't really into programming itself and I am so it evens out. Right now my progress into making the game is quite faster than anticipated (way faster) as I expected to take at least a month with the simple battle engine (been a week so far).
Like my previous comment, I've already done the battle system and I'm now actually creating some particles with Particle Designer to use in my game. This part is quite fun right now :p Will probably blog about it later in the evening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
