#5003 - Daikath - Thu Apr 17, 2003 12:41 pm
How do you all do your learn on how to design a good game?
Personally I'm not much for books, I'm more in my element playing a game and thinking why it is good or bad or mediocre.
For example Metal Gear Solid 2. The first time you play it at least I was really amazed by the level design with the guards and stuff. Really well thought through, but the second time around I began messing with the guards. Then I felt cheated since it was so much fun but it wasnt included in the game.
This is partly because the game also needs to tell a story, so the gameplay can't be too long since then the player looses the sense that he's a movie hero (also the reason why VR missions and Substance were relased to make up for that).
This is just an example of how I try to see why a game is good or bad. How do you guys do it?
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#5020 - tepples - Thu Apr 17, 2003 6:04 pm
| Daikath wrote: |
| the gameplay can't be too long since then the player looses the sense that he's a movie hero |
That's why games such as Doom break the game up into "episodes", each of which has an ending. On the other hand, the two-hour limitation of an analogy to a movie plot never stopped RPG designers.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#5021 - Daikath - Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:15 pm
Yeah, but a longer story would be really hard to make into a MGS style format and stay interesting.
Whereas I really get bored with most RPG's on cd 3 (Final Fantasy) MGS really got me going througnout the entire game. Wich I think gives a better overal experience although the game isn;t that long, it makes the time you do spend on it that much more exciting, thrilling etc.
But then again Doom doesn't really have a good story or gameplay ;) (it was just an exuse to show 3d graphics).
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#5023 - sgeos - Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:38 pm
Final Fantasy had CDs? I think mine is a 1990 square remake bundled with Final Fantasy 2. (Which one are you talking about)
As for playing a game and thinking about stuff, you'll have to do you best to deconstruct it, and figure what is good, what is bad, and most important, why.
The music is obnoxious. Why? It was catchy and upbeat with way too much energy. Combined with the fact that the songs are not long and loop, it gets annoying fast. (Makaishima, 1987 Capcom)
-Brendan
#5029 - tepples - Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:30 pm
| sgeos wrote: |
| Final Fantasy had CDs? I think mine is a 1990 square remake bundled with Final Fantasy 2. (Which one are you talking about) |
FF7, FF8, and FF9 for PlayStation each came on at least 3 CDs.
| Quote: |
| The music is obnoxious. Why? It was catchy and upbeat with way too much energy. Combined with the fact that the songs are not long and loop, it gets annoying fast. (Makaishima, 1987 Capcom) |
And now one of Capcom's competitors is making big bucks off songs that are short and "catchy and upbeat with way too much energy" in a rhythm game named after the former East Germany.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#5030 - sgeos - Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:42 pm
> And now one of Capcom's competitors is making big bucks off songs
> that are short and "catchy and upbeat with way too much energy" in
> a rhythm game named after the former East Germany.
This is the reason asking "why?" is so important. Clearly "short and 'catchy and upbeat with way too much energy'" is not always a bad thing. Makaishima's music makes your ears bleed. You really ought to hunt it down and listen to that music =) DDR seems have done a good job with the "short and 'catchy and upbeat with way too much energy'" deal though.
(I'm partially quoting myself- twice even, and it's really strange.)
-Brendan
#5036 - Daikath - Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:42 pm
But you must also look at the bad and good parts relatifly. What you might consider good another one would concider boring and/or bad.
For example, I'm absolutly crazy about the Shenmue series. Instead of the traditional 'Mario gameplay' wich revolves around stuff like traditional level design and stuff Shenmue revolves much more around feeling like you are in a real world going through an epic saga with really good dramatic storylines and oscar winning music rather then basic gameplay.
But other poeple found it boring because it doesnt use the traditional Mario gameplay. They didn't want to live a epic saga but they just want to play a videogame.
What do you think about something as subjective as this? But on the other hand if you subjectivly dont like a game you can't really put much soul into it as a designer.
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#5038 - sgeos - Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:55 pm
> But you must also look at the bad and good parts relatifly. What you
> might consider good another one would concider boring and/or bad.
Of course. This is good. Why? This is bad. Why?
Another approach is: This is. This aspect is not good or bad, it just exists. What does it accomplish? What am I trying to accomplish?
This is just a matter of defining a goal and working towards it. There may be more than one goal. I've often had people ask me 'should I do this?' or 'should I add that?' I always reply with "It depends on what you are going for." A lot of this is subjective. Thats part of defining the audiance for any particular title.
-Brendan
#9810 - TheReturnOfSamus - Mon Aug 18, 2003 7:29 pm
Please Note: When I started writing this I didn't realize it was going to be sooo loooong. So, please, bear with me. The things I outline in this post are things I think about when designing games. I appreciate anyone who actually reads the entire post and would like some feedback so I can find someone else to talk game design with and exchange some ideas.
Designing a good game goes beyond just knowing what you want the game to look and play like. Perhaps most importantly, you need to be able to communicate these things to others (programmers, artists, musicians, etc).
As far as learning how to design, you don't really need to read any books, though, the more knowledge you possess the better. I think perhaps the first thing we, as amatuer designers and developers, need to realize is that we won't necessarily create a good game because "we're gamers and we know what kind of games we like to play". Sure we could all easily do a (NES or SNES era) Final Fantasy of Super Mario knock-off, but would it be fun? Would it be new? Would it be better? Would it be different?
Which brings me to my next point(s).
1. What are games purpose? To entertain people, is the short answer. I doubt anyone sets out to make a game thinking, "man, I hope this game sucks and everybody dogs it". I think most people are like myself and think, "I want this game to totally kick ass and be the most downloaded freeware game on the net!".
2. Is the game concept new? Mario, Metroid, and Zelda were all entirely new concepts to video games when they were introduced in the 80s. Before these games came out there was nothing like them. These days it is more difficult to make something truly unique, but it can still be done. Remember PaRappa the Rappa? Resident Evil? These games did something new and spawned new genres.
3. Is the game concept/design better? Super Mario World was a step forward over Mario 3's design which was already above the original Super Mario Bros (I leave out Mario 2 because it wasn't actually Mario 2 in Japan and anyway it has a drastically different gameplay design). This is what I mean by "is the concept/design better?". Mario World took the basic concept of Mario 3 (run, jump, collect stuff) and expanded it with more powerups, new moves, new collectiables, and by adding Yoshi. Now, whether you consider Mario World better than its predecessors is up for debate, but my point is that it furthered the design and concept of Mario games instead of repackaging what had already been done with prettier pictures (...*coughcough* Tomb Raider *hackcough*...).
4. Is the concept different? Sonic (the old skool Genesis Sonic) was different from Mario. The Sonic games took the Mario concept of run, jump, duck, platforms and applied a different philosophy to it. Instead of overweight, Italian plumber rescuing princess Sonic was speed and attitude on a collision course with the evil Robotnik. Because of this different philiosophy Sonic games had a distinct, different feel from their Mario cousins, despite the fact that they feel into the same genre.
Another, more current, example of this is the Soul Reaver series. Soul Reaver takes level design ideas from Zelda and Metroid, but ads a non-mute protaganist in Raziel and a deep, gothic story with many supporting characters. Basically, it forwards the formula of the Nintendo classics for a more mature audience.
I bring up all these points because I think they are important to design. Why do I want to play some amatuer knock-off of Mario? Is it better? What's different about it that would catch my interest? I think perhaps some commercial games are just churned out yearly to make a buck (Tomb Raider, Twisted Metal, and Syphon Filter come to mind - and just think in each case the originals were good games, but the sequels suffered). As amatuers we have the luxury of now having to make a buck off this so we should take the time to do something different, because, let's face it, no one wants to play some crappy amatuer knock-off of a successful commercial franchise.
All this is not to say, don't make an RPG with Final Fantasy in mind. But also keep in mind how you can make it different and unique. Think, how can I retool the battle system so fighting is more like fighting and less like using the DOS prompt?
I think the most important thing to good design is having a good design document to start with. This document should detail the story, characters, gameplay and anything else about the game. Over the course of development this document will change alot. The purpose of the design document is to keep everyone working on the project on the same page - this is especially important when working with people over the internet.
Thanks for reading!
#9819 - sgeos - Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:12 am
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
| Please Note: When I started writing this I didn't realize it was going to be sooo loooong. |
Long is relative. My reply will probably be longer due to the quotes.
| Quote: |
| Designing a good game goes beyond just knowing what you want the game to look and play like. Perhaps most importantly, you need to be able to communicate these things to others (programmers, artists, musicians, etc). |
Design and implementation are different tasks with different requirements. A design document is a blue print, the product is the house made from it.
| Quote: |
| As far as learning how to design, you don't really need to read any books, though, the more knowledge you possess the better. |
I agree. I think that quality of design = organization of ideas * ability to communicate to implementors. (That simplifies to organization of ideas if the implementor and creator are the same.)
| Quote: |
| I think perhaps the first thing we, as amatuer designers and developers, need to realize is that we won't necessarily create a good game because "we're gamers and we know what kind of games we like to play". |
You have a good point. Anyone can suggest improvements; that is unskilled work. It takes a lot to churn out a complete design.
| Quote: |
| Sure we could all easily do a (NES or SNES era) Final Fantasy of Super Mario knock-off, |
I don't believe that "we could all easily" create a clone of an NES or SNES era game. I just have not seen enough of them. I'm not confident that many people here could even pull off a complete sub-standard clone. A complete game takes a lot of planning.
You have a point here. I think this is a point many people forget when create games. It doesn't need to be high tech of fancy. That doesn't hurt, but if it's not fun then throwing money at it to polish it up won't fix it.
| Quote: |
| I doubt anyone sets out to make a game thinking, "man, I hope this game sucks and everybody dogs it". |
No. That would be an odd attitude. I believe that people learn a lot from mistakes. At this point I want to make a complete game. I don't hope it will suck, but it may very well. Then I'll be able to look at all those mistakes I made designing and implementing it, and learn from them.
| Quote: |
| 1. What are games purpose? |
This is very important. Remeber that there may be many very different goals including a budget and a timeline. There may be personal goals as well. I was introduced to the "goal, stategy, plan" mentality by somebody I know.
| Quote: |
2. Is the game concept new? /SNIP/
3. Is the game concept/design better? /SNIP/
4. Is the concept different? /SNIP/ |
All of these strike me as more or less the same point stated a few different ways.
I used to be one of the people that thought everything should try to be new and different, but I once heard someone say 'a good artist borrows, a great artist steals'. I agree with this. I think that originality is over rated. Every game should certainly some have reasons for playing it instead of something else like it.
I have a question. You need not answer it, although I'd be interested in hearing you answer. Why is originality/being different important? That is not a goal, it is a means of achieving a goal. What goal are you trying to achieve with originality/being different?
Not that you did not have good points. You made some excellent observations that I snipped. I think it's OK to implement a design and finish putting in the features over a few games, whether that was the original plan or not.
| Quote: |
| As amatuers we have the luxury of now having to make a buck off this so we should take the time to do something different, |
I think it is very important to design finite projects that have an estimated completion time. Non-finite projects have a way of taking a long time to never get completed.
| Quote: |
| Think, how can I retool the battle system so fighting is more like fighting and less like using the DOS prompt? |
My goal might be to capture the essence of 'fighting the DOS prompt'? =)
(It would take a really odd person to want to play that one...)
| Quote: |
| I think the most important thing to good design is having a good design document to start with. |
Design documents have to come from somewhere! I thought design entailed creating and updating the design document. A design document ought to be documentation of the design, afterall.
I'll also think that as a designer, one should focus on their strengths. One should figure out what they are good at, and try to use that to their advantage. For example, I'm good at mathematical modeling. That lends itself to RPGs and anything else that needs equations to appear out of nowhere. I'm sure that there are a bunch of people out there that are less good at this than I, but that excel at things that I would fail to be able to do.
| Quote: |
| This document should detail the story, characters, gameplay and anything else about the game. |
It should contain anything relevant.
| Quote: |
| Thanks for reading! |
Very welcome!
-Brendan
#9822 - TheReturnOfSamus - Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:06 am
Thanks for responding!
To answer your question: Is being original/different what is really important?
I think a certain degree of originality is important. From a story/plot perspective it gives the player new food for thought. But, more importantly in my opinion, is gameplay. If something is carbon-copy of a game I've already played and mastered, what's the point? This copy would not be a new challenge in terms of gameplay, I would already understand the game's mechanics and the player's abilities and those of his foes.
I think the best example I can think of this is on SNES - Super Mario All-Stars. If you're not familar with it, it's a game that has all the NES Mario games on it with pretty SNES graphics. Anyway, there is a game called The Lost Levels that is exactly the same as Mario 1, except with really hard levels. I played All-Stars quite abit, except for the Lost Levels. It wasn't anything new and at that point I had been playing Mario 1 since it was on the NES with Duck Hunt. It had nothing new to offer me in terms of gameplay and mechanics.
I don't necessarily think everything should be new and radically different (personally I like Sonic games more than Mario, and that was definately a Mario rip-off - albeit a very good one). However, things should be improved or tweaked if not added. This is what expansion packs on the PC usually accomplish (I think Blizzard is the best example of this). I got the impression that you are interested in RPGs. Observe the Final Fantasy series. Sure, everygame pretty much looks and plays the same (up to number 7) but each game also has its own personality if you will. FF4 introduced the idea of each player having a timer, each game has different spells and abilities, different ways of acquiring magic. These guys weren't reinventing the wheel with each new game or even changing the way the game played all that much, but each time they took a different approach to give the game a different feel.
In short being original just to be original is probably a bad thing in most cases. However, I think, as designers we should strive to improve our designs so we make better games and being original/different is a means to this end.
Sorry if that response is a bit messy and convoluted, I'm hungry and can't think very well at the moment. I liked your point about focusing on one's strengths. I agree, but would add that perhaps we should work to develop some of our weaknesses so as to improve our overall outlook.
I'm interested in hearing your response and hearing about any games you are working on. Currently I am in the middle of one project that I hopped into about half way through and I am working on the initial design of another game. I'd like to send you some of my initial work once it's in presentable form and hear your thoughts, I'm always up for some constructive criticism! Of course, this is if you are at all interested.
#9828 - sgeos - Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:12 am
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
| Thanks for responding! |
Very welcome.
| Quote: |
| I think a certain degree of originality is important. From a story/plot perspective it gives the player new food for thought. |
Original is a matter of degree. If we take the same story with a global name and grammar replace, is it really different? If we go further than that and rewrite it in a different setting, is that really different? These are re-tor-ical questions. It depends on the case.
Disney is a good example. Most of the Disney movies are the same story told over and over again. As an aside, they seem to be making a lot of money doing that...
| Quote: |
| But, more importantly in my opinion, is gameplay. If something is carbon-copy of a game I've already played and mastered, what's the point? |
Maybe you like the original a lot and have played the levels to death and want some new ones to try? A remake, maybe you want an updated version. (Updated graphics and mainly sound, although I understand enix did an overhaul on Dragon Quest IV for the PSX.)
| Quote: |
| This copy would not be a new challenge in terms of gameplay, I would already understand the game's mechanics and the player's abilities and those of his foes. |
They may have though of something really neat to do with existing components. Something they overlooked initially. Sometimes it's nice to pick something up and not have to learn the mechanics.
[quote]I think the best example I can think of this is on SNES - Super Mario All-Stars. I played All-Stars quite abit, except for the Lost Levels. It wasn't anything new and at that point I had been playing Mario 1 since it was on the NES with Duck Hunt.[quote]
I'll argue that you didn't play it because you were not familiar with the levels. More than that, I think we've all seen better mario. I can only take so much Mario, especially Mario 1 (or 2 for that matter).
| Quote: |
| I don't necessarily think everything should be new and radically different (personally I like Sonic games more than Mario, and that was definately a Mario rip-off - albeit a very good one). |
How do you define a rip off?
| Quote: |
| However, things should be improved or tweaked if not added. This is what expansion packs on the PC usually accomplish (I think Blizzard is the best example of this). |
Should implies a goal. If the goal is just to make money things may or may not need to be tweaked. I was talking with my brother a while back and we determined that every game needs a gimmick to sell, including sequels and expansions. At least we couldn't come up with any reason to buy a game without a gimmick even if the designers and such don't want to call it that.
| Quote: |
| I got the impression that you are interested in RPGs. |
I understand RPGs at least. I made it through FFV. At the end my party was two level 6s and two level 7s. The hardest part was not getting level ups. (I think that was about 250 HP or so.) Omega and the dragon god were hard to beat with that party...
| Quote: |
| Observe the Final Fantasy series. Sure, everygame pretty much looks and plays the same (up to number 7) but each game also has its own personality if you will. FF4 introduced the idea of each player having a timer, each game has different spells and abilities, different ways of acquiring magic. |
Agree. Rant start.
FFI to FFVI were content games. FFVII+ are special effects games, and 3d special effects games at that... I'm impressed by the budget of special effects games. Some of the effects are also really nice. I'm also impressed by the lack of content. Then again, no point creating extra work. Special effects games don't sell based on content.
End rant.
| Quote: |
| These guys weren't reinventing the wheel with each new game or even changing the way the game played all that much, but each time they took a different approach to give the game a different feel. |
They used slightly different mechanics, recycled a bunch of content and replaced most of the peripheral components of the game (non-mechanics).
Well... content is a peripheral component... they replaced a bunch of graphics and sound. They made a new game each time.
| Quote: |
| In short being original just to be original is probably a bad thing in most cases. However, I think, as designers we should strive to improve our designs so we make better games and being original/different is a means to this end. |
If you mean we should try our best not to churn out inferior remakes, I agree.
| Quote: |
| I liked your point about focusing on one's strengths. I agree, but would add that perhaps we should work to develop some of our weaknesses so as to improve our overall outlook. |
The alternative is to develope your strenths in ways that allow you to ignore your weaknesses even if they still exist. That requires knowing you weaknesses too. Self assessment is generally important.
| Quote: |
| I'm interested in hearing your response and hearing about any games you are working on. |
I'm working on a design that essentially takes the engine of Super Robot Wars Link Battler (game boy, it's not an overhead strategy game) and combines it with some of the mechanics of Seiken Densetsu 3 and Pokemon. The math and underlying algorithms are actually surprisingly solid. I'm sure that are aspects of a bunch of other things in there that I have not identified.
I've designed the battle system, and I'm cleaning it up and simplifying it for a paper and pencil test run. I'm happy with the characters I've made so far and I'm eager to test it. After I clean up the rules I'll probably start a new thread with a link to the rules and character documents. Anyone interested can discuss the mechanics.
| Quote: |
| Currently I am in the middle of one project that I hopped into about half way through and I am working on the initial design of another game. I'd like to send you some of my initial work once it's in presentable form and hear your thoughts, I'm always up for some constructive criticism! |
Feel free to do so. Again, as far as my strength go, I'm strong when it comes to analysis of mathematical formula. I'm not especially good at proof reading, spelling and grammar although I can catch glaring mistakes.
| Quote: |
| Of course, this is if you are at all interested. |
Worst case scenario, if one is not interested they will not reply. I guess the unrealistic nightmare scenerio being a person that would hunt you down and try to kill you. (I'm big on the worst case scenario deal. Unrealistic nightmare can be a goofy extention of that.)
-Brendan
#9835 - TheReturnOfSamus - Tue Aug 19, 2003 4:46 pm
I would define a rip-off as something that begins with every intention of emulating another product (or whatever) as closely as possible. If read about the history of Sonic (thanks EGM) you will find that at the time Mario was the absolute king mascot of platformers. So some guys at Sega were given twelve months to think up a character and game to rival Mario. Basically, they were told to out-Mario Mario. And that's what they did. Was it a good game? Sure was. Was it a rip-off? Yep, but it was a really good one that started a series that would head off in a different direction altogether from Mario.
Also, I see what you mean about playing the same game with new levels or updated graphics (I think the case of DQIV it was never previously released in the US though). I see this as a way to make a quick buck. I had no interest in the VR mission disc for MGS, been there, done that. I'm sure plenty of people enjoyed it, but I had already played MGS to death at that point.
I agree somewhat on your point about a game needing a gimmick. Case in point: Warcraft 3. If you've followed Blizzard's work over the years you would see that each strategy game they have released refined the control, look and interface of the previous game (Warcraft -> WC2 -> StarCraft -> Warcraft 3 -> WC3 expansion). Warcraft 3 introduced the concept of playable heroes - essentially super-units. This radically changed the way WC3 is played versus any previous RTS. A single hero can change the outcome of a battle.
This was a huge part of the design. Of course it's gonna be hyped up by marketing. Yet I would hardly call it a gimmick. To me a gimmick is something that exists for the sake of making the product sound better, something that has no real practical purpose. For instance, I was reading that Sony's upcoming portable (the PSP) would support Dolby Digital 7.1 surround sound. Can you please tell me why a portable device needs to be able to do such a thing? Are you gonna plug seven speakers and a sub into it and hop on the bus?
I would say the hero system in Warcraft 3 is most definately not a gimmick. It completely changes the games pace and feel, the fundamental way in which the game is played is now different. I would say it is a noteworthy gameplay element (I can't think of a better way to put it) rather than a mere gimmick.
note: Blizzard games may not make the best examples, because in my opinion (and the sales chart's opinion), their games have superior design and fun factor. What I'm saying is: they are a top PC game developer, they don't need to rely on gimmicks - they just make great games.
I would agree that they do need something to sell the game, but, in the case of a good game, I would not call it a gimmick.
As an RPG guy, what do you think of Fallout and Fallout 2?
#9843 - Vortex - Tue Aug 19, 2003 7:32 pm
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
Case in point: Warcraft 3. If you've followed Blizzard's work over the years you would see that each strategy game they have released refined the control, look and interface of the previous game (Warcraft -> WC2 -> StarCraft -> Warcraft 3 -> WC3 expansion). Warcraft 3 introduced the concept of playable heroes - essentially super-units. This radically changed the way WC3 is played versus any previous RTS. A single hero can change the outcome of a battle.
|
This is the sole reason I don't like the new trend in the Blizzard games. The hero system changes the focus from strategic to tactical and the whole gameplay turns into an endless quest for more experience and power-ups for the hero character. Not to mention the Warcraft III has that recycled taste of cannibalizing Warcraft II, Starcraft and Diablo. And finally, the 3D engine in WC III doesn't bring anything to the gameplay.
I was very dissaponted with that game, because Starcraft or Diablo are very good.
#9847 - antysix - Tue Aug 19, 2003 8:33 pm
About gimmicks, I agree that not every game needs a gimmick to sell.
But a classic example of gimmick (that maybe even selled the game) I found with the game Blinx: The Time Sweeper for the XBox. It was a 3d platform game where you could obtain a 'rewind'. Later in a level you could for example encounter a damaged bridge. By using your 'rewing' you go back in time and the bridge was in one piece. It was fun for one or two times but got boring after that, because it didn't require anything from the gamer. It was just using your 'rewind' at the right time, not a puzzle or something.
_________________
Currently playing: NGC: Metroid Prime
GBA: Golden Sun: The Lost Age
Currently developping: Project ~ [ Phail ]
Last edited by antysix on Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:24 am; edited 2 times in total
#9850 - cappeca - Tue Aug 19, 2003 11:51 pm
| Daikath wrote: |
How do you all do your learn on how to design a good game?
|
Playing a bad game, and understanding why it's bad, helps. The most recent one I have played is "The Ring" for the Dreamcast. It's better than just analyzing good or best selling games, because you don't get creative blocks from the on-going trends and you get a comparision factor, to make at least a passable game.
#9869 - TheReturnOfSamus - Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:50 pm
| Quote: |
This is the sole reason I don't like the new trend in the Blizzard games. The hero system changes the focus from strategic to tactical and the whole gameplay turns into an endless quest for more experience and power-ups for the hero character. Not to mention the Warcraft III has that recycled taste of cannibalizing Warcraft II, Starcraft and Diablo. And finally, the 3D engine in WC III doesn't bring anything to the gameplay.
I was very dissaponted with that game, because Starcraft or Diablo are very good. |
Have you played the game recently? They put an experience cap on creeping - heroes can only attain level 5 now from the creeps (no more creep til you have two heroes with ultimate spells).
Personally, I think the biggest problem WarCraft 3 has is that everyone compares it to StarCraft and Diablo. It's true that the game is more tactical than its forebearers, but that's what Blizzard set out to do when they made the game. Anyway, I'm not trying to say NO! You're wrong!, it justs seems to me that WC3 doesn't get a fair shake coz it's constantly being compared and criticized against SC and Diablo
As a side note: do you remember who WC3 was originally supposed to be - all heroes and no towns.
#9881 - sgeos - Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:37 am
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
| I would define a rip-off as something that begins with every intention of emulating another product (or whatever) as closely as possible. If read about the history of Sonic... |
I did not know that about sonic. Thats interesting.
| Quote: |
| Also, I see what you mean about playing the same game with new levels or updated graphics |
Sometimes remakes or remixes are kind of nice. To the extent one is going to replay an old game, they'd probably rather be playing a remake. I did once have a person comment that companies would better off spending their time to make new games.
| Quote: |
| (I think the case of DQIV it was never previously released in the US though) |
DQIV was released way back on the NES. As far as I know, the PSX remake was not released here.
| Quote: |
| I agree somewhat on your point about a game needing a gimmick. ... Of course it's gonna be hyped up by marketing. Yet I would hardly call it a gimmick. To me a gimmick is something that exists for the sake of making the product sound better, something that has no real practical purpose. |
To me, a gimmick is anything that the marketing screams extra load about. In other words, they inflate the worth of the feature. Very few games sell by word of mouth alone.
| antysix wrote: |
| About gimmicks, I agree that not every game needs a gimmick to sell. |
I looked gimmick up int the dictionary, and this is what I got:
| http://dictionary.reference.com/ wrote: |
gim?mick n.
1.
a. A device employed to cheat, deceive, or trick, especially a mechanism for the and dishonest control of gambling apparatus.
b. An innovative or unusual mechanical contrivance; a gadget.
2.
a. An innovative stratagem or scheme employed especially to promote a project: an advertising gimmick.
b. A significant feature that is obscured, misrepresented, or not readily evident; a catch.
3. A small object whose name does not come readily to mind. |
In an attempt at clarity, I'll rephrase: I do not believe that many games can sell without some sort of a catch.
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
| I would say the hero system in Warcraft 3 is most definately not a gimmick. It completely changes the games pace and feel, the fundamental way in which the game is played is now different. I would say it is a noteworthy gameplay element (I can't think of a better way to put it) rather than a mere gimmick. |
Note worthy or not, I'm sure that that was the hook to media used to try to sell the game.
| Quote: |
| I would agree that they do need something to sell the game, but, in the case of a good game, I would not call it a gimmick. |
I don't care what we call it. What you would not call a gimmick is what I believe that most every game needs to sell. I tried calling it a catch this time.
| Quote: |
| As an RPG guy, what do you think of Fallout and Fallout 2? |
Never played it. I've heard the name. I pulled up some screen shots. I don't like CGI/3-D graphics in general, and I have enough unbeaten super famicom RPGs to last me a couple more years. I probably won't play it any time soon.
| cappeca wrote: |
| Daikath wrote: | How do you all do your learn on how to design a good game?
|
Playing a bad game, and understanding why it's bad, helps. It's better than just analyzing good or best selling games... you get a comparision factor, to make at least a passable game. |
Agree.
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
| ...it justs seems to me that WC3 doesn't get a fair shake coz... |
The world isn't fair. Things are going to be campared against this that or the other, fair or not.
-Brendan
#9921 - Daikath - Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:59 pm
| TheReturnOfSamus wrote: |
| I see this as a way to make a quick buck. I had no interest in the VR mission disc for MGS, been there, done that. I'm sure plenty of people enjoyed it, but I had already played MGS to death at that point. |
Personally I felt that the gameplay never quite was used to its full potential in the actual game. It always felt that it didnt stretch the limits of its concept. Because there was also the need for a story wich needed to be told.
If you would play too long you wouldt feel like you were in a movie so the gameplay wasn't looked into as deep as it could be.
A lot of gameplay stuff I hadn't mastered and I knew all the walking paths of the guards and I knew the best ways to beat every boss. Like for example the ability to walk and fire (while pressing X you could do that I think). Or all kinds of small stuff, its not as impressive as the game but thaty is cuz it doesnt have the story.
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#11917 - dagamer34 - Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:28 pm
Jeez, this topic is loooonng. As to keep it short and still get a lot of info:
Have you ever made a design for a game?
As for me, i have no experience whatsoever in that department. I am just working on my version of Tic-Tac-Toe. (must be simple for now). Perhaps you are thinking to high!! If you are the programmer, then start out with something small and i mean really small. Then build up to what you want. But this only works for a small game that has been killed to death with remakes. (Tic-Tac-Toe, Tetris, Pacman, to name a few) Maybe you'll put some of your ideas into those games since you know they are good and test to see if you could (possibly) make it better.
If you aren't the programmer, then you need to play more games. To me, if you are asking how to design a game now, you really don't know what kind of game you want to design. Find the perfect game for you and study it. For me i like the non-traditional RPG so my perfect game is either the Zelda: Wind Waker or Kingdon Hearts. Even though the games are 3D, the same aspects are the same.
To prove my point, there is only one game that has RPG stats to build up characters in real time (Kingdom Hearts). Now has that ever been applied to 2D? And notice it has only been done once in 3D!!! Now look at how many 3D RPG games there are!!! Now do you get it? Stray away from what is out there and make a game that you always wanted to (too bad mine has already been done)
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#11919 - Daikath - Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:21 am
I've been disecting movies a long time ago and also am really good at it now with games. I really did a lot of thinking why opinions can differ so much on a game like Shenmue.
I personally feel that Shenmue is the best game ever, with part 2 right behind it. But I have debated with a lot of other poeple that think Shenmue was a failed gameplay experiement. If you want me too I could post my findings on it as far as I have them.
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#11923 - tepples - Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:30 am
| dagamer34 wrote: |
| To prove my point, there is only one game that has RPG stats to build up characters in real time (Kingdom Hearts). Now has that ever been applied to 2D? |
Secret of Mana? LOTR for the Super NES (ecch)?
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#11945 - sajiimori - Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:17 pm
Also:
Crystalis (NES)
Seiken Densetsu (GB, SNES, PSX)
Willow (NES)
Castlevania: SOTN (PSX)
Castlevania series (GBA)
Diablo 1 and 2 (PC)
Games based on Inifinity Engine (Baldur's Gate, Planetscape, Fallout)
Ultima 7 and 8 (PC)
Ultima Online (PC)
Rygar (NES, 1986)
Too many others to name...
#14111 - dagamer34 - Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:53 am
You really just had to shove it in my face, didn't you.
Anyway, everybody, what is the MOST ORIGINAL game you have played?
Mine's Banjo-Kazooie! Its kinda like Super Mario 64 but different on SO many levels..
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#14115 - col - Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:08 pm
| dagamer34 wrote: |
You really just had to shove it in my face, didn't you.
Anyway, everybody, what is the MOST ORIGINAL game you have played?
Mine's Banjo-Kazooie! Its kinda like Super Mario 64 but different on SO many levels.. |
i have to go for tetris - pacman comes a close second...
col
#14116 - sgeos - Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:49 pm
| dagamer34 wrote: |
| what is the MOST ORIGINAL game you have played? |
There are a lot of ways to approach this. Pokemon Snap was pretty original, if one can consider it a game. Thats not to say I consider it a good game. At heart it is a collect them all game, like the rest of the pokemon games.
Never played them, but I suspect that some of the Japanese dating sims are pretty funky. There are also 'digital novels' there as well. I'm not sure how much of a game those are either.
Speaking of sims, The Sims (electronic dollhouse) is in a strong position for most original. Roller Coaster Tycoon is in the same boat, as are things like Sim City.
I'm partial to Twinkle Star Sprites. It's a combo shooter/puzzle game for the Neo-Geo. Never seen anything else like it as far as mechanics go.
Rock Board for the NES was kind of neat. Lets cross Megaman with Monopoly. As far as Megaman games go, Megaman Soccer is also kind of funky.
I also recall a claymation fighting game for the SNES that I was not fond of.
NES Track and Field and Duck Hunt were pretty original. Dance Dance Revolution is also pretty original.
As far as board games go, I've been playing 1830 and Civilization lately. They also seem pretty original. Hot Money is also a really neat board game- I have also never seen that concept used anywhere else.
Never played it, but I hear that Bridge (the card game) is one of the best designed games there is. Go is wild- the rules are simple, but it is very hard to master. There was a half million dollar prize (or was it a million) to anyone that could write AI for Go that could beat a human player of (offering organization's) choice. I hear that the world champ Go player spends hours a day playing against himself.
Now that I've ranted, I'll vote for Go. Very original, it's been around for hundreds of years if not thousands (I read the supposed date somewhere, but I forget what it is). Beat that for originality. =)
-Brendan
#14120 - sajiimori - Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:31 pm
| Quote: |
it's been around for hundreds of years if not thousands
|
Nobody really knows. The Chinese claim that it's 4000 years old, but they have been known to exaggerate from time to time (see Great Wall age estimate). The earliest written reference is from about 600BC, and the game is featured in artwork somewhat older than that.
#14128 - XeroxBoy - Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:32 am
| sgeos wrote: |
Pokemon Snap was pretty original, if one can consider it a game. Thats not to say I consider it a good game. At heart it is a collect them all game, like the rest of the pokemon games. |
Pok?mon Snap seems like it was inspired a bit by Photograph Boy.
#14165 - Daikath - Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:14 am
You seem to disqualify Pokemon Snap as a game based on the facts that it doesnt have traditional gmapleay. But does that mean it isnt fun? Isnt that the whole basis of it all?
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#14184 - sgeos - Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:58 pm
| Daikath wrote: |
| You seem to disqualify Pokemon Snap as a game based on the facts that it doesnt have traditional gmapleay. |
One could argue that pokemon snap is not a game because it lacks gameplay components. Not every piece of software produced for the game consoles are games- most are.
Pokemon Snap seems to share gameplay components with the games kids play on long road trips: Look out the window and find something that starts with 'A', then 'B' then 'C' in order. (This is a hard exercise to complete, 'Q' and 'X' are very difficult.)
| Quote: |
| But does that mean it isnt fun? Isnt that the whole basis of it all? |
Something can be fun and not be a game. Pokemon Snap is interactive media even if one were to disqualify it as a game. I think that Pokemon Snap is a pretty good piece of interactive media- it's too bad they never finished it.
I enjoy some forms of non-interactive media (anime, music). When I play something on a console I expect something interactive. I don't care if it is actually a game. I am annoy by the so called games that really should be non-interactive media, but they make you press buttons to progress the 'story'.
-Brendan
#14188 - goku_ssj3 - Thu Jan 01, 2004 12:25 am
1 original i can think of
is chrono trigger
i dont know whether it came out before the final fantasy series or after
but i did like the way it played differently
but i never did complete that game
got the magus' castle and lost interestthts my problem with rpg, they tend to bore me out with the same basic gameplay
_________________
'this bird's gonna fly'
#14262 - Daikath - Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:06 pm
It came after, the first Final Fantasy game was on the NES.
_________________
?There are no stupid questions but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.?
#14976 - LOst? - Thu Jan 15, 2004 4:51 pm
To design a good game from my point of view would be to put together a group of people that have different skills and ideas. Making them work together and feel that they're on the same side.
People are always working better in groups but under one condition: They only do their best job when making things they think they're best at.
Also, the group must like the environment where they work, and there must be inspiration all over the place. Level map drawings on the walls... *explodes*
The game development process must follow rules. Giving the developers an intern network where the data and code will be put together by the managers. Letting the coordinators organize the data and code to make it easier for the supervisors to hand it over to the lead game designer, and to finally be approved by the producer... me! (Okay, I admit it. I want to be the producer, so shoot me) =P
#15013 - sgeos - Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:40 am
| LOst? wrote: |
To design a good game from my point of view would be to put together a group of people that have different skills and ideas. Making them work together and feel that they're on the same side.
People are always working better in groups but under one condition: They only do their best job when making things they think they're best at. |
Rapid Development by Steve McConnell points out some interesting things about teams in chapters 12 "Teamwork" and 13 "Team Structure". ISBN 1-55615-900-5.
-Brendan