Game design, as a whole, can be viewed from many perspectives--perspectives many might not agree with. But what is the most important factor that you look for in a game, whether you are the designer or simply a player? Often, when a concept pops into my head, I become very excited; but as I progress the concept, it gradually fades away. Why? In one way or another, it has been done before--it is not as appealing to the developer, but it might be to the player. But do you know that? No. This is why prototyping is one of the important factors in game design; it allows you, the developer, to accumulate abominable and commendable feedback. Sure, the critique is arbitrary, but what else do you expect? Below is a list of common factors, or factors that should be taken into account when designing a game; they are subjective, yes, but as mentioned before, they are prevalent. What do you guys think? Are these factors spot-on, are there any missing--if so, feel free to pitch in/disagree. :)
Challenges
We all love challenges in games. We cannot live without them. Honestly, I can't play a game if there are no challenges. But that's not really a problem with a lot of modern games, and by modern I mean AAA titles. They impose challenges, you just might not notice them--but that is a problem right there. The 'imposed' challenge is so much of an iterative of another, that you as the player, are so blind that you don't even see it.
To be or not to be?
What is the overall goal of the game? Do you want your game to be the next World of Warcraft or something that people can truly enjoy(not implying that WoW isn't enjoyable)? Set standards for yourself. Play other games. See what wrongdoings they have incorporated in the game and try to stray away from that when you are designing your game. The same can be said if the game has good components about it that you enjoy--ideas are often hard to innovate yourself, but your imagination isn't limited--try to build upon existing ideas, just don't duplicate them too much.
Jack of All Trades, Master of None
There might be an aspect in your game that completely delivers; it is so entertaining that you keep the player attached. But did the game have an exemplary reason to make the player think that this game "TRULY delivers, and most importantly, is the best of them all?" The answer is: they have probably played a game that delivers said aspect better than yours, even if you did a good job at it. So, open up your design document and keep writing, because you sir, have just acquired a reason to keep your engine pushing.
"Focus groups tell you what people like, but they don’t tell you what people want." - Rob Gilbert
Not exactly related, but it sort of is--I just ran out of catchy headings. Anyways, the point is that while there may be sources or surveys on the internet accumulating data from people about what their favorite game is, or what they like about the game, it does not say what they want. That is your job as the developer. Prototype. Publish test builds, not only in this community, but elsewhere. That is the only way you are going to know if you are doing it right.
Stop Blaming The Engine
This is one factor of game design I see people often make, especially in our community. You want particle effects, that's all fine and dandy, but are you really going to do it in an engine that has limits, even though you are well aware of them? That's hurting game-play and the player's experience. I don't want to be waiting 7 minutes for a level to generate when I could have been spending that 7 minutes doing something else.
Dec 9 2012, 2:25 pm
|
|
ExPixel
 |
I see...
|
tl;only read the bold: I have to agree with ExPixel on this one.
| |
I think in general, the sentiment seen here is a good one. I don't in general disagree particularly strongly with any of the points outlined here, in fact quite agree with a few.
Do we need to feel challenged? The challenges point is interesting, particularly in regard to AAA titles. I think what tends to happen with challenges in your Battlefield games etc. is as you state, they are progressive. But not just that, I suspect the designers aim to avoid having you hit a wall of difficulty also, as some of us are used to in more indie or older titles. The reasoning being that these newer AAA titles are games, but they are also narratives, and a wall of difficulty tends to break that narrative aspect. If you spend too long replaying the same bit of the same level over and over due to it's challenge, you become disconnected emotionally from the narrative that surrounds the level. Typically for an indie title, that's less of a concern. The level of immersion tends to be a touch lower. You don't "experience" an indie title by hooking up your console to a big TV, dimming the lights and cracking the sound up before playing, like you might with the Gears of War series. So indie titles can (mechanics permitting) allow for a few more walls of difficulty than a AAA title might design. However, you don't /need/ this, to make your indie title fun to play through or rewarding to the player. It depends on your goals. ... that is the Question To be or not to be, indeed. Intent is an important part of game design, I think. In the final run of your game, it may not be played out as you'd intended, however you as a designer must impose that initial intent to make progress, I think. It's no bad thing to see another game who's experience you enjoyed and go "I liked that mechanic / theme", and decide that you'd like to build your own game around it. Most good games, indie or otherwise, start this way I think. It gives you something to analyse, as Magnum states, and to learn from. What consequently needs to happen though, is that twist on the concept. That's your contribution as a designer in a way, saying "Well, think of X mechanic, but there's this Y aspect involved too". From that, spawns possibilities. From that; for a good designer, comes many of the supporting elements of the game, working on that twist of a known mechanic. Sometimes just adding multiplayer capability is enough of a twist, although quite rarely I think on it's own. Sometimes it's a fusion of tow mechanics that people don't ordinarily consider, to overcome the pitfalls you think the original mechanic had in terms of fun. Either way, that twist then becomes your hook, you unique selling point, the reason someone remembers your game. However ... This is where I'm not sure what your view is, Magnum. Is your opinion that a good twist (executed at least okay) is not enough, or were you saying in your Jack of All Trades paragraph that the fact something went well is not reason to rest on one's laurels? And other stuff I generally agree with the last two points, in a way that doesn't really permit me to expand on it much. Basically as a designer your job is to work out what people will enjoy or want, they won't necessarily tell you or know correctly themselves. And on the engine, use the correct tool for the job. If your game calls upon a certain level of particles, physics etc, to work, perhaps BYOND isn't the platform for that game. That's fine, BYOND isn't the be all and end all games platform for all needs. It's no crime to pick another platform if it suits your needs better. In the long run, it's less aggro for you, BYOND and your players if you did so, if BYOND doesn't meet your game's design requirements. I suspect, for many games I've seen, BYOND does work. | |
Great posts, Magnum and Stephen. Critical points. But I guess there is much more to consider for what actually makes a game engaging.
| |
previous post was 20 days ago...why don't you explain what more there is to consider?
| |
There are literally infinite possibilities to approaching game development. Honestly these days it comes down to the indie developers looking for new, radical ways of doing things, unlike the monotony of most AAA titles on the market today.
| |