Questions, questions, questions
by Aditya Kulkarni · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 10/15/2010 (5:46 am) · 3 replies
Dear GG members, whattup!
I am still learning the ropes of game design. Went through numerous game dev blogs and read through the interviews. Found the iterative approach the best because it has the potential to weed out the non-engaging elements and make the game more fun overall.
Some teams focus their efforts on innovative mechanics (goooo), some on storyline, others simply on that polished look and feel.
Simple question, what makes a game more 'engaging'?
I am still learning the ropes of game design. Went through numerous game dev blogs and read through the interviews. Found the iterative approach the best because it has the potential to weed out the non-engaging elements and make the game more fun overall.
Some teams focus their efforts on innovative mechanics (goooo), some on storyline, others simply on that polished look and feel.
Simple question, what makes a game more 'engaging'?
#2
"Good games let you master one simple thing, then another one, and then they chunk both into a more complex combination of the two which you have to master, and so on."
Creationism leads to a sense of ownership which leads to replayability, I get it. For the casual audience, how do you decide if the number of 'rules' are too much (complex) or too less (boring) during design?
10/24/2010 (12:54 pm)
Read this somewhere:"Good games let you master one simple thing, then another one, and then they chunk both into a more complex combination of the two which you have to master, and so on."
Creationism leads to a sense of ownership which leads to replayability, I get it. For the casual audience, how do you decide if the number of 'rules' are too much (complex) or too less (boring) during design?
#3
The below views are solely my own - as such they are opinions and not facts.
As far as the 'complex' vs 'boring' aspects you're worried about - these are very subjective based upon the mechanics you put into place. If you want it to be 'friendly' to these casual gamers - you cannot put in too many consequential possibilities. As an example, take your old school RPG vs new age ones. Old school RPGs tend to use interruptions and timeouts for the spells. Newer RPGs seem to be favoring a slowing effect and in extreme cases a full interrupt. Once you start punishing the players less you are learning towards the casual gamers. This is purely one area where such consequences can be implemented. The reason it's viewed this way is because the learning curve is lessened when you don't have something to worry about.
For my game design I'm using the following which works out well. It's the whole point of the game too.
I have an 'inevitable consequence' that will take place if the players don't do something. I've made that consequence the driving point behind the game. Not to give away any of my storyline and such, but imagine an MMORPG that had the same *3day consequence one would face in 'Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask'.
*Not exactly the same time frame my game will use.
10/24/2010 (2:33 pm)
Rule set such as magic or guns gives you your genre.The below views are solely my own - as such they are opinions and not facts.
As far as the 'complex' vs 'boring' aspects you're worried about - these are very subjective based upon the mechanics you put into place. If you want it to be 'friendly' to these casual gamers - you cannot put in too many consequential possibilities. As an example, take your old school RPG vs new age ones. Old school RPGs tend to use interruptions and timeouts for the spells. Newer RPGs seem to be favoring a slowing effect and in extreme cases a full interrupt. Once you start punishing the players less you are learning towards the casual gamers. This is purely one area where such consequences can be implemented. The reason it's viewed this way is because the learning curve is lessened when you don't have something to worry about.
For my game design I'm using the following which works out well. It's the whole point of the game too.
I have an 'inevitable consequence' that will take place if the players don't do something. I've made that consequence the driving point behind the game. Not to give away any of my storyline and such, but imagine an MMORPG that had the same *3day consequence one would face in 'Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask'.
*Not exactly the same time frame my game will use.
Torque Owner Gregory Cain
Ownership and meaningful server world interactions.
To be more specific - I want my players to feel as if they actually had a part in accomplishing something. The way I'm writing my design is to ensure that all aspects of my game are based on the player's interactions. There are predetermined elements within the world, such as the models and environment, but it is merely a formality of creationism from the viewpoint of the player. All other aspects will be controlled directly by them whether that is knowingly or not.
You can call it a complete sand box, but I'd ensure that a rule set exists so that the genre of the game is not lost.
Games still require a form of direction IMO.
If my explanation is too vague - I'll gladly elaborate within reason.