It's also worth noting that it's not just what a game makes, but how long it takes to make that money. A video game, once designed, can make money for the developer forever (note, for example, that Nintendo continues to make money off the original Super Mario Bros. three decades later). Our own Paul Eres is still selling copies of Immortal Defense years later.

I'd love to see more games with varied, incremental jumping powerups. Perhaps one where you separately upgrade height, distance, or hang time.

The number of attributes is limited by your ability to work around them. If you choose to go for a small number of attributes, then work hard to make varied situations that explore the full range of those attributes. if you have a lot of attributes, you don't need to explore any one of them as deeply as you need to make all the attributes come into play.

I'd suggest you ought to let the kinds of attributes you choose dictate the rest of the game. If you start designing levels and an attribute doesn't seem to be interesting, kick it or replace it with something else. Eventually, hopefully, you'll come up with a combination of attributes and levels that's fun to play and from there you can just work on level design and polish until you're good to go.

When I was in China I was pretty surprised by the amount of Angry Birds stuff they were selling everywhere. And a little upset that it appeared to be selling well to the tourists.

Someday I'll play a COD game.

WiiU sales are way below Nintendo's expectations (a little better than a quarter of projected sales over last year) and that's after they reduced the price. Since you can't sell WiiU games to people who don't own a WiiU, it hurts software sales too. The XBone and PS4 are catching up fast despite only being released very recently which suggests without some kind of turnaround from Nintendo they'll each pass the WiiU sales sometime this year. Hence, Gimmy's article about Nintendo's new strategy for trying to re-position itself in the market and try to sell the idea of their tablet controller better.

This is also disconcerting because last generation the Wii dominated sales.

The 3DS is selling extremely well, at least, so Nintendo's not in danger.

Hospitals?? Is there a new Trauma Center coming out??

Everything Gimmy posts will be compiled together in a vault and video game development scientists will spend the next one hundred years translating every line to English and from it glean the secrets of the ultimate game design. But it won't happen in our lifetime. In the meantime we will just have to partake of his infectious, nonstop positive attitude about the future of game design.

I guess we'll just wait and see if this health monitor thing will work, and what kinds of games they're going to tie into it and this console hybrid thing. I just don't feel the old magic from Nintendo after the days of Miyamoto making "magical gardens" in games. Focusing on the health of the player is cool, but making games that are fun to explore and challenge the player still needs to be the number one directive.

Fun games are what draw the audience, and the attention to the health and welfare of the player is the differentiating factor that keeps them playing. If you fail to have the first nobody is going to stick around for the second.

Edit: Also interesting is the talk about adjusting game pricing based on number of games purchased to encourage picking up more titles per year. It could encourage Nintendo loyalty. On the other hand, if it's download titles only I wouldn't bother with it. I don't know how they'd make this work with physical copies sold in stores.

On one hand, it's good to hear that they're going to try to come up with more games that take advantage of the tablet controller, on the other hand, it seems like they should have been doing that anyway.

I feel like they really missed the boat by not even trying to talk about what kinds of games people are playing, other than broadly talking about single player and multiplayer. Long games, short games, action-heavy or exploration-heavy, even in a meeting where nobody actually plays video games it would've been a useful thing to consider.

Reading the presentation, though, makes me feel slightly more confident in their 'quality of life' strategy. It comes across as a more logical goal, although it's still not clear if they can marry up the idea to traditional Nintendo game design in the style of the 64 era.

This is quite possibly the most extreme example of Poe's law ever recorded.

There are some games that are simply bad, like Big Rigs which is terrible but not interestingly so. Generically poor art or bugs that result from simply not bothering to program in some elements don't tell you anything (so I think Bad Rats may not be useful at all as a study, based on what I can see in comments about it).

Games like Bethesda titles can make for an interesting study because the bugs are usually the result of mechanics stacking up in ways that can be exploited or things that can fail to be tested in all of the hundreds of quests or conversations. These are things that come up despite a well-funded team of playtesters, so being aware of these problems can help you avoid similar mistakes by recognizing similar situations when designing your own game.

Sonic 2006 is just funny because of how extreme some of the glitches are. Inexplicably flying into the sky by doing kicks on a crate is pretty much as ridiculous a glitch you can get without putting it into the game intentionally.

The error is assuming either randomized design or intelligently designed levels are superior. You could remake Spelunky with non-random levels (especially with branching paths in a style like Kid Chameleon or Umihara Kawase) and make the focus on maximizing time/money/items and the game would still work. The mechanics could be almost entirely the same, but the game would be drastically different since it would be about testing new strategies to improve known optimums and performing perfect maneuvers instead of planning ahead for unknowns or coping with unexpected twists.

I don't think there exist any absolutes in game design. Every rule can be overturned so long as you're ready to let that decision drive the rest of your design (as opposed to steamrolling ahead without thinking of how that decision affects the game as a whole).

Reading this thread keeps reminding me of Gravy Trader from the old PC Gamer magazines.

Based on watching the video of your game, it looks like the game is about touching/shooting some threshold of objects on each level to win while working around the gravity formed by each level's layout. It sounds like you've already found the easiest (and best) way to adjust difficulty - give the player optional objectives to complete for higher scores and to enable optional, harder levels. It's hard to tell from your video how much control the player has after they launch the planets. If the player still has a lot of control, you might also consider using lives or limited attempts to make the player complete a series of levels in order within some margin of error. If you use a life meter or score approach, you can balance the value of certain kinds of mistakes (although be careful that allowing certain errors doesn't inadvertently introduce extremely easy solutions like shooting through the center of a sun and taking some damage).

If you find that your optional objectives are difficult enough but players don't want to complete them, the problem may be that your game simply isn't fun enough to merit putting that much challenge into the game. Some concepts just don't lend themselves well to high levels of difficulty. You may try putting some clear indicators of accomplishment, like a level select that shows completed levels to encourage the player to get a perfect score on every stage. You also might tease the player with some manner of reward for completing all the stages with all collectables, like a bonus splash screen or alternate characters.

One more thought came to mind, that perhaps the difference between a "Perfect" level and merely doing well isn't enough to make it more fun to attempt. Perhaps if you designed levels that require a different approach for a "good" score and a "perfect" score, like where shooting straight through is sufficient to pass, but to get a perfect you have to arc around a planet instead. That would let skilled players push themselves right away instead of working through a gradual difficulty curve.

Have you gotten actual feedback from playtesters who feel the game is too easy or that the collectables are not strong motivation to get perfect scores?

I feel like Zelda's been better than Mario in terms of mixing things up. Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword and Link between Worlds varied pretty significantly in mechanics and tone. Mario's seen some variation in its spinoffs - Luigi's Mansion, Paper Mario, Mario & Luigi - but the main games have been extremely resistant to exploring new villains or new settings. I'd love to see a game with a new villain sort of like when Wart, Tatanga or Wario showed up in the earlier games.

Sort of on that subject, the latter half of Uncharted 2 did pick up. There are a couple of chapters that emphasize the exploration and platforming without the awkwardness of seemingly forced gunfights, such as a level that consists of almost entirely scaling a complex maze of cliffs, and another involving operating a huge and complex device that functions as a lock. There are other levels that hit the other end of the spectrum, consisting of non-stop battles where you're being chased by tanks, or fighting along the top of a convoy of trucks. I liked the pacing much better, since I was able to settle myself into an exploration mood or an action mood and stick with it to the conclusion of a chapter.

I also noticed they let you flip freely through your journal, and it's periodically updated with mostly useless but amusing sketches from throughout the game including a couple of in-character jokes (and periodically clues you need for a puzzle). Once you get past the awkwardness of the first few chapters the game really hits a strong stride. It's a definite improvement over the faults of the first game, I think.

Sonic the Hedgehog: 2006

Twilight Princess had some excellent dungeon design, though. The water dungeon with the huge staircase mechanism in the center and the "dungeon" in the dilapidated mansion were both beautiful, though not the only ones. A couple of the boss fights were really fun as well, especially the one against the phantom samurai that starts after you cut the charms off the sword. I'm also not sure why someone would suggest the tutorial is three hours long - the game seemed to hit its stride pretty quickly after the first dungeon when you could go to Hyrule Field. If you're bored just try going to your next destination - the first town has a lot of stuff to do that doesn't actually give you anything valuable.

Skyward Sword was the only one I felt had, on balance, more wrong with it than was right. I'd argue you should keep at Twilight Princess. It has some clumsy design decisions (the top is arguably the worst Zelda item there is even if it is used in a fun fight) but there are a lot of parts that shine beautifully and leave you with a positive experience overall.

Uncharted 2 is kind of wearing on me. It seems like a good game on balance, but little things like twitchy animations (characters jumping suddenly from one animation to another, moving near a wall and noticeably vibrating) or maps where it isn't clear what you can and can't climb on bug me. The stealth segments are also pretty awful, since it's really confusing what guards can and can't see.

The climbing segments, though, are gorgeous and fun to do even if they're easy, and I love the quantity and variety of hidden treasure. It's got an even better variety of maps than the first, mixing up jungles, ancient ruins and modern ruined cities. My favorite part of these kinds of games is looking at scenery and picking out a path of platforms, pipes, boxes and vehicles to figure out how to cross to the exit like solving a maze, and this game offers a good amount of that.

Perhaps the game will pick up a bit in the second half.

Assassin's Creed 3 has a great setting (I like how many of the encounters are based on documented historic events), gorgeous maps, and lots of fun (but simple) sidequests to do. It just really falls down on horrific pacing. Way too many cutscenes, and I feel like after four chapters I've started over with a new tutorial with a new protagonist. Once I'm out of the quests, though, running through treetops looking for feathers, climbing mountains in the frontier or grabbing almanac pages in the city is fun.

So basically typical Ubisoft, making you fight tooth and nail to get to the fun part.

You can also design the game where stat progression exists outside of the life of your character. Tokyo Jungle, for example, portrays your characters as descendants of previous playthroughs and thus you inherit a portion of stats of previous runs. Spelunky doesn't feature stats at all, but does allow you to build shortcuts that persist between playthroughs.

Rather than looking at permadeath as added punishment look at it as an opportunity to mix up the progression. When your stats are permanent you have to start the game over from the beginning in order to experiment with different builds, or to try a different technique for leveling. There's not much incentive to learn the early parts of the game to do them more efficiently, since you're liable to only play them a few times. A permadeath title gives the player a reason to repeat early parts of the game repeatedly, and try to perfect their strategies. If you offer the player a lot of content in the early game so they can experiment to find better ways to progress, especially ways where they can use advanced techniques to do things that seemed impossible on their first try, you've created an experience that simply wouldn't exist in a traditional title.

That's the real allure of roguelikes - that you're not learning levels but mastering mechanics.

I felt like 3d games weren't that badly explored in the N64 era, especially if you consider some non-collect-a-thons like the N64 Zeldas or the Castlevania games. DK64 struck me as more of an extreme outlier than the end result of a predictable trend.

Rocket: Robot on Wheels was mechanically similar to Mario 64 with a low number of collectables and emphasis on interesting mechanics to explore in the stage. There were three items to collect - tickets that unlocked new levels, cogs which unlocked a vehicle in each stage, and machine parts that were used to activate something in the level to explore deeper. Like Mario 64, it had a hub map that contained a number of weird sub-levels that might only contain a single item to collect, and were more interesting for the unusual visuals or physics based devices you might find inside (conveyors filled with tumbling rocks or a room with magnetic walls and steel blocks you can throw).

The vehicles especially were a nice touch, since they were usually designed to let you roam around large segments of the level freely in addition to the parts you needed the vehicle to find more tickets. There were also a lot of physics based segments and minigames that gave you reason to replay levels even when the collectables were exhausted, like the roller coaster and carnival arcade in the first level, or the extremely fun glider bike in the last level. The 'theme park' theme of the game was very suitable.

SNES Action/RPGs are the ones that give me the fondest memories, like Actraiser, Soulblazer and Robotrek.

Adventure on the Atari was the first game to really catch my attention and make me think about how games could be something other than lengthy tests of reflexes.

With a common enemy identified, finally the Indie Kingdoms can unite for battle once more. This fractured world we live in will be reforged in the fires of trademark law.

I'm actually going to not want to read anything about areas that are going to be in the game. It's way more fun, I think, to be surprised at everything you find.

I have no doubts this will happen. Those early bird copies went fast!

The skeleton key thing is weird. I'd think that you'd be able to find keys in-game to get the costumes, in which case you'd think fans of La Mulana would prefer to find and unlock the costumes themselves. I'd certainly be bummed out if I missed out on the opportunity to find the keys myself. Maybe they're kickstarter exclusive unlockables? The description doesn't suggest that.

The eight-piece illustration tier sounds clever. I wonder how long it'll take for somebody to find all eight owners of the illustration and get them to share their parts.

I'm pretty excited. I have faith these guys will come up with something great, and it'll be fun to play La Mulana again in a time when the game is mysterious and the puzzles are unknown. That alone is worth getting the game at launch.

Surviving winter in Don't Starve: If you're playing as Wilson, growing out your beard provides extra warmth in the winter. You'll want to accumulate a stockpile of berries, carrots and rabbits for food (store rabbits alive so they don't spoil). Don't cook food right away, since cooking it shortly before it spoils makes it last longer (food also spoils less quickly in the winter). Rabbit traps still work in winter, so catching rabbits is a good source of food (doubly if you have a drying rack to make jerky, which helps you stave off insanity). Obviously make sure you have enough wood to keep a fire going, and carry a spare campfire kit with you in case you are at risk of freezing while away from your camp. Planting saplings near your campsite is a good strategy so that you have lots of wood available. You can also make a Heat Stone with the alchemy engine, which charges up and keeps you warm while exploring. Making winter clothes will also keep you from freezing for much longer.

I haven't played in a long while, though, so it's possible any one of these strategies is no longer valid due to a patch.

I wrapped up Hardcore difficulty on Dead Space 2. If you play the early chapters carefully enough you can breeze through the last few chapters by using up all your Contact Beam ammo. The hardest part is the first few chapters where you lack options for fighting. Once you get a good selection of upgraded weapons, you can take control of the fights so much more easily. I'm really impressed how they've designed the game to be so well balanced for such an unforgiving mode, since all of the weapons are viable choices and the encounters are structured so that you can use your more expensive ammo to save yourself in a pinch in many places. It's still challenging after you've memorized all the enemy ambush positions, and some of the ambushes are randomized just enough to stay threatening even though you know what's going to happen. Giving the player freedom to select where their checkpoints are was also a great idea, it felt good planning out where I'd make my limited saves and then getting nervous about dying as I neared them. The unlockable bonus weapon for beating Hardcore is hilarious, though at this point I've played it enough that I'm not going to bother playing through one more time to use it.

I sort of wish there was a way to turn off the enemy spawns so I could admire the detail of the levels. They did a fantastic job decorating all the rooms, putting interesting posters on the walls, piling up various objects on tables to suggest how the room looked before the outbreak, and generally making every inch of the game interesting even up to the very end.

Easily one of the best games I've played in the last few years. Anyone that is into survival horror games ought to play it.