next »

[baconman]

Well, especially where nonlinear gameplay is concerned, it's usually best to focus on risk/reward as a balancing system; and you have to take into account three groups of gamers all at once: casual players, completionists, and speedrunners. Ideal level design will take all three varieties of gameplay into consideration, by putting some subtle, hard-to-execute speedrun shortcuts (some of which use a little of both paths), with an unlikely/hard to find or execute link between the core parts of each choice.

The choice itself, however, is all about inherent risk vs. reward. Clearly there should be some visual indicator leading players in the direction of the "recommended" route, with a par-for-the-course experience and appropriate rewarding thereof. But you should also allow for some deviation thereof, perhaps a "safe but longer" route, or a tremendously more hazardous one that doubles both as a shortcut *and* has a high payoff for pulling off.

A lot of the exploration rewards don't even have to be featured on a path deviation; they can be a simply-hidden "sweet spot" in your level design. A good example in Super Metroid (or even classic NES Metroid, for that matter) is how many of the rooms containing a new major item is *explicitly* designed with a hidden basic Missile upgrade, *just* for using your new item correctly. And where the hidden Energy Tanks are located: most of the time they're just "there" in the levels, behind a destroyable block. Another good example is whipping walls and specific-place crouching in Castlevania games; they're both very simple things to do, and your reward for exploring them is simply "there," often in the form of a life refilling turkey meat.

The difficulty of finding and reaching these should, for the most part, match the value of whatever you're hiding. But along the way, you'll probably want to trickle at least one of each type of thing in an easy-to-stumble-upon spot... this way, the player will almost inevitable stumble upon SOMETHING, and the desire to "find" more will be triggered.

One more factor you might want to consider, which isn't listed here:

Geometry is FUN.

If I've learned anything from games like Bust-A-Move, Yoshi's Island, Chrono Trigger and MegaMan 8, it's that few things are quite as fundamentally enjoyable as geometry-based gameplay. Most often played in forms of attacks, few things are as righteously satisfying as taking a simple weapon or item-collection method, nailing an awesomely-planned bank shot (or an awesomely unplanned one via whiff) and scoring something cool from it is one of the best gaming sensations out there.

They should include some level of twitchy-reflex in their aiming systems (as opposed to point-and-click, for instance), to make "missing the shot" something with a reasonably valid chance of happening, because sometimes it's in doing that where players trip over some of the coolest (or most ruthless) consequences in that kind of game. Sometimes bouncing yourself around geometrically is every bit as fun, too! Perfect example of that: barrel cannon sequences in Donkey Kong Country games. Look at how many entire levels in that series are built around that one, simple concept.

[Gimym TILBERT]

If you want to impress people in the industry, talk about market, production process, risk management and how it relate to the gameplay.

Sometimes, the best gameplay is not what you want if it create balancing horror and expensive resource or awful messy and long iteration process to find the fun. We are talking business no day dreaming.

see:
http://www.eldergame.com/2011/01/classes-vs-open-skill-systems/

[Coz]

I'm not sure what you mean by the unrelated part

What I meant was that I was just telling you how you could impress them; afterwards I started to actually give feedback on the content of your metroidvania presentation.

It's mostly work-in-progress documentation found on GMC and some other game developers' websites (like midnightsynergy.com). I read up on their design plan and what they are going to consider and one thing I commonly see overlooked is how to create the right pace of rewards. Like I said, though, their games usually do have a good pace, due to it coming automatically to people who design it right, so it's common, but not heavily focused on.

Try reading some profesional game design docs. I have also had negative experiences with Midnight Synergy( I kept getting spam about their game and upon contacting them there would be no reply, and the spam would continue ). I'm not saying the design docs from amateurs have no value, but they probably just have their own experience to aid them; they haven't gone to game conferences, bought & read game design books, and the like. Most likely, the better design docs came from people who are more natural talent, than theorical learning.

Yeah, I'm still at a standstill on how I'm supposed to suggest a good way to balance rewards since it's entirely dependent on the game

To be honest I'm not sure this is the best way, but I just give examples.

I guess I thought it was useless since to me, the idea was simple, and the visualization was just an add-on

I'm going to be specific: the confusing part started when you started to mention the 'Content Model'. Things started to get easier to understand when you started to mention 'Circle bar', 'Full bar', '1/3 or less bar'.

[mewse]

So recently, I've been trying to get an internship at a game development company and thinking to myself "Once I'm in one, what can I do to impress the people there with my game designing talent?" Despite mostly being a programmer, a sense of good dame design is necessary for any successful game, so it's something I had to keep in mind.

Speaking as somebody who has been in the industry for over a decade (so old..), I feel the need to step in here, and not answer the question you asked, but to answer the question that you should have asked.


If you get an internship as a programmer at a game development company, the most important thing is to impress them with is your ability to act as part of a team.  This means your ability to take direction, to deliver good quality results on time, to offer ideas when asked (or when otherwise appropriate), and to work well with others. 

If you have the skills for it, then it's also fine to impress them with your coding skills, as long as you can remain within the bounds of their coding standards (see above, about working as part of a team).


If design is an area that interests you, then your programming internship is a fantastic opportunity for you to expand your knowledge and improve your understanding about how you need to think about design in large-scale games which are designed to appeal to a wide audience base.  It really, really isn't an opportunity for you to make powerpoint presentations about game design to people who are more experienced than you and are actually paid to do it, even if you're convinced that your ideas are right, and their ideas are wrong.

As an intern, your best bet to remain in the industry is to be thought of as someone who is pleasant to work with, who can be relied upon to produce results on time and who doesn't cause too many problems.

I'm definitely neither a wannabe or a beginner. For years, I've made tutorials for some people on GMC and answering quite a bit of advanced topics, made a ton of platformers/maze-type games in the past (but still have programming knowledge in other areas), and programmed small games on other languages like C++. I'm intermediate at best.

You need to understand that within the game industry, this experience qualifies you as a newbie.  The standards here are substantially higher than in internet forums.

[vinheim3]

@baconman - I liked the idea of building the design around those 3 groups. It was why I was confused when I said "it depends on a certain game" when you're making your reward system. It didn't really depend, it's just that some games only appeal to 1, 2 or all of those groups, which is why their scoring mechanics tend to be different. However, all games should really try to tend to those 3 groups if they can. Another perk of Metroidvanias is that their formula tends to these 3 groups easily.

Also, I liked how you can implant the desire of finding more rewards by putting the extra power-ups in easy and hard places, with easy ones being the ones you may accidentally stumble upon and the hard ones being the ones the player will try hard to find or get due to the desire given from the easy-to-get power-ups.

I don't exactly get the geometry part though since I haven't played those games

@Gimmy TILBERT - That article was an interesting read. And since my course took up a lot of marketing based subjects (as well as reading books and exploring in several of my dad's or his friends' companies), I think I have at least an ounce of knowledge to talk about the industry, market and risk management (though not a lot since I haven't been in the game making industry). How it relates to gameplay is something I need to do a bit of research on.

@Coz - Professional game docs are hard to come by even by going deeper than simple Google searches. Dev Logs here are great, but if there are those kinds of logs by professional, well-sold games out there, that would definitely help.

@mewse - I get that team leadership and team player are qualities you need, and I've practiced them in non-workplace situations, so let's see how much more difficult it is, eh? Unfortunately, I won't be getting an internship for programming skills, just basic encoding since it's been 3 months without internship and my time is running out and I have to take the easy-to-get jobs my friends found which are encoding, but those tips on how I should perform will definitely help in a future job if it is in a game development company.

I'm thinking of saving the presentations for private get-togethers (hang-outs) and making it more casual with the more professional people and see if they recommend me to talk to the other designers/programmers. And yeah, compared to GMC, I'm intermediate at best, but I'm definitely a newb at professional stuff (I've visited several companies for school visits and the coding, integration of everything, tools to test code, all this complicated stuff are things I need to learn).


Now does anyone want to comment on the game design techniques? Maybe if it's helped, if you're going to use it or other tips you can give to expand on the techniques?

[salade]

@Coz - Professional game docs are hard to come by even by going deeper than simple Google searches. Dev Logs here are great, but if there are those kinds of logs by professional, well-sold games out there, that would definitely help.

Are they? I know that you can get the Grim Fandango Docs, the MGS2 docs  and I think I vaguely remember seeing the doc for Planescape torment.

To be fair, these were all kinda unconvential, containing tons of jokes and tomfoolerly. The Grim Fandango and MSG2 ones were great reads (I haven't read the planescape one).

Anyway, these can't be the only ones around, any others people know of?

Just did a quick google search - here are my findings... (these are all direct downloads btw)
Planescape: http://www.rpgwatch.com/files/Files/00-0208/Torment_Vision_Statement_1997.pdf

Grim Fandango: http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/GrimPuzzleDoc_small.pdf.zip (I don't know if this is complete, as it is bandwith saving. It may just be that it is a compressed file, or at most some art may have been left out. I have a copy from when Double Fine originally hosted it, so I'll check later)

MGS2: http://downloads.kojimaproductions.net/download.php?MetalGearSolid2GrandGamePlan.rar

[Philtron]

@baconman I'm thinking of saving the presentations for private get-togethers (hang-outs) and making it more casual with the more professional people

Don't do that. No one wants to "hang out" and then have their job explained to them, especially not by the new kid. You should really pay attention to what mewse told  you.

It's okay to hang out with your coworkers and talk about game design but instead of trying to impress them try asking them their thoughts and let them impress you. They're the ones with the experience and they can probably teach you a lot you don't already understand.

And there is a lot you don't understand, vilheim3, which I know because I am reading your list of techniques right now.

You write "completist" when what you mean is completionist.

You make a lot of assumptions and say a lot without backup.
 

Players will want to explore the whole world because of how interesting each new world is.

You haven't explained what makes the world interesting to begin with. Why are you so certain the player will want to do anything? I hope you don't think it's because of powerups. I don't like searching for powerups because while I'm searching for them I'm not playing the game anymore, I'm playing a different game and it's called "Boring Treasure Hunt".

If you've played any good adventure/RPG game that has a lot of content, by the time you've completed the game, you'll be exploring even more, leveling even more, to do absolutely everything you can in the game.

Actually when I am playing an RPG by the end I'm exploring less because I don't care anymore. The rewards of exploration have become smaller than the tedium of doing the actual exploration.

The easiest way to lengthen play time...

Extending playtime through artificial means like making a list of items to find does not make a good or fun game, nor does it make a game worth playing.

When you think popular MMORPG, you think..

.
Don't tell me what I think. I know what I think. (It is a bad writing technique to tell your audience what they think, even if it's just hypothetical.)

Well obviously if it's got such long play time, it's doing something right, right?

No, it isn't. Length of play does not equal quality.

Course they are, MMORPG's that are good, are simply addicting.

You keep talking about making things addicting like it's something desirable. Making a game addicting is a cheap, and I think unethical, way to design a game since it psychologically manipulates people into thinking they're having fun long after the fun has gone away. Games shouldn't be addicting they should be fun and there is a huge difference between the two. If you want to be addicting go be a drug dealer, don't make games.

You talk a lot about completion lists, and skill trees, and branching paths and these are all just artificial ways of making a game seem longer not actually make it more fun to play.

Here's a link to a short blog post at Wolfire, the guys that made the indie game Lugaru. It's about leveling up versus having the player increase his own skill naturally.
http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/09/character-stats-vs-player-skill/

In that blog post I found a link to another Wolfire post that you should read:
http://blog.wolfire.com/2009/07/creating-the-illusion-of-accomplishment/

There are more posts out there on these topics (EDIT: written by other people in the game design community) but I happened to find these.


Ultimately, you should follow mewse's advice. Don't try to impress anyone; don't try and show them how much you know about game design. Just work hard and eventually you'll be one of them.

[vinheim3]

Don't do that. No one wants to "hang out" and then have their job explained to them, especially not by the new kid. You should really pay attention to what mewse told  you.

It's okay to hang out with your coworkers and talk about game design but instead of trying to impress them try asking them their thoughts and let them impress you. They're the ones with the experience and they can probably teach you a lot you don't already understand.

And there is a lot you don't understand, vilheim3, which I know because I am reading your list of techniques right now.

You write "completist" when what you mean is completionist.

You make a lot of assumptions and say a lot without backup.

I was thinking more on the lines of, while I'm having lunch or hanging out with higher-ups (which my friends with internships are doing, in fact, a couple of my friends are even having their lunch paid for), I just mention something like, "Hey, you see this game, what if.." and maybe they'll be enlightened. You might say there's no chance of anything coming out, but I'd risk it anyways, because my idea might actually just change a game.

Also, I'm young, but not stupid, I know I'll learn a lot from co-workers and higher-ups since I've been doing so from day 1 of my life (ish), and I know I don't know a lot, but internship is a learning experience, and an apparently brutal one, I think I'll learn a bit from it and a lot from an actual game development company.

Is it really completionist? Every time I look on the internet, people who say completionist are corrected by other people who say it's completist (I thought completionist first too). Also, google has a definition for completist, rather than completionist. And yes, I make a lot of assumptions, but do I need backup for my ideas when it's noticeable in the games I describe?

You haven't explained what makes the world interesting to begin with. Why are you so certain the player will want to do anything? I hope you don't think it's because of powerups. I don't like searching for powerups because while I'm searching for them I'm not playing the game anymore, I'm playing a different game and it's called "Boring Treasure Hunt".

I say "the world is interesting" on the assumption that developers make the world interesting. These are game design techniques, since I don't describe how to make a world interesting, it means that people should try to do that with their own tips. Anyways, worlds are interesting because of different things dependent on what the developer does. Maybe the art for each world is nice. Maybe (and like most games), there are new challenges in each world that take a lot more skill to get past.

And no, you don't need power-ups to make a world interesting, just for Metroidvanias and some adventure-type games (some). Some shooter games have interesting worlds, some racing games have interesting stages, some of these games have no power-ups.

Actually when I am playing an RPG by the end I'm exploring less because I don't care anymore. The rewards of exploration have become smaller than the tedium of doing the actual exploration.

Please read the content model section. The RPGs you're mentioning fall under the Full Bar description. The ones I failed to mention (like Golden Sun, Disgaea, etc) fall under 1/3 or less bar.

Extending playtime through artificial means like making a list of items to find does not make a good or fun game, nor does it make a game worth playing.

That's where experience would say you're wrong. My playtime on Tales of Symphonia, Castlevania games with lists, the flash game level up, etc, has been lengthened a lot due to the lists. Without the lists, I wouldn't have the drive to get all the hidden cakes or all the souls in Castlevania. I wouldn't have searched for townspeople I haven't spoken to yet in Level Up. I wouldn't have strived for the tons of weapons and other equipment in ToS, I would have ignored one of the biggest challenges in-game (Nifleim, if you've played the game). Granted, it's not a sure way to make a game fun, but there are people out there who'll find the search interesting, and those who don't wouldn't bother anyways.

Don't tell me what I think. I know what I think. (It is a bad writing technique to tell your audience what they think, even if it's just hypothetical.)

I really should have said "what do you think? I'd say you might be thinking...", but I was on a roll here, come on.

No, it isn't. Length of play does not equal quality.

It doesn't, there are short, yet sweet games, but if a game plays long enough, there's something quality or addicting in it, otherwise people would have just quit.

You keep talking about making things addicting like it's something desirable. Making a game addicting is a cheap, and I think unethical, way to design a game since it psychologically manipulates people into thinking they're having fun long after the fun has gone away. Games shouldn't be addicting they should be fun and there is a huge difference between the two. If you want to be addicting go be a drug dealer, don't make games.

No, I say add these things because it is fun to get involved in the things I've mentioned. It is fun to get new power-ups in fighting games to see what they do, how they help, etc. Tetris is fun because of core gameplay and scoring, which drives people to play it even more. Talent trees are a layer of strategy that is fun for people who think and strategize a lot. None of these techniques are like a drug. They are addicting because they are fun, and I have a list of games to back them up.

You talk a lot about completion lists, and skill trees, and branching paths and these are all just artificial ways of making a game seem longer not actually make it more fun to play.

Well I was talking about good core mechanics throughout. If your game has good core mechanics before these additions, would you let it go to waste? I wouldn't, I'd stretch out my game with extra stuff that are linked to the core mechanics because the goal of making any game is to make them as fun as possible. They don't need these techniques (short and sweet games), but these techniques can help improve the quality if done right.

Ultimately, you should follow mewse's advice. Don't try to impress anyone; don't try and show them how much you know about game design. Just work hard and eventually you'll be one of them.

Thanks for the links, and to be honest, that was my plan at start, I wasn't going to mention my whole internship and making presentations for this topic, JUST the game design techniques. I wanted the techniques discussed, not the internship-based stuff because life is a learning experience, I could have done it without help. But of course, all this talk people have said about jobs and whatnot provided a lot of insight that'll further help how far I get or how good I become in the game industry, so thanks y'all.

[Philtron]

I say "the world is interesting" on the assumption

As I said, you make too many assumptions. At the very least mention what assumptions you are making to your audience like, "Assuming the developer has already made the world interesting..." or something to that effect. It makes your point more clear.

Extending playtime through artificial means like making a list of items to find does not make a good or fun game, nor does it make a game worth playing.

That's where experience would say you're wrong... Without the lists, I wouldn't have the drive to get all the hidden cakes or all the souls in Castlevania...

Actually, the experiences you mention say I'm right. You say that without the lists you wouldn't have kept playing to the extent of finding all items. If a list of yet-to-find items is what drives you to keep playing a game then it's not good, it's not very fun, and it's probably not worth playing to the extent that you are. If it was worth playing that much then it wouldn't need find-item lists to get you to keep playing.
Let me give  you an example. There's an old game called Marathon: Infinity that I like very much. It's a 2.5D shooter that I played for the first time 7 years ago, maybe longer, and every now and then I go back and play it. About five months ago I was replaying the game and found a secret room I hadn't found in my ~7 years of play. I found that secret room because the game is good and its quality drove me to play it again. I didn't need a list of yet-to-find-secret-rooms to get me to find that particular room a few months ago. That's natural replay value. What you're describing, such as having players play a game three times over just to get all the content, is artificial value and doesn't need to be added to a good game.

I really should have said "what do you think? I'd say you might be thinking...", but I was on a roll here, come on.

No you shouldn't have because that's not much better. You should have stated simply, "An MMO consists of millions of players..." It says what you need and it doesn't address your audience as if you've met them.

but if a game plays long enough, there's something quality or addicting in it, otherwise people would have just quit.

No there isn't. Just because someone doesn't quit doesn't make it quality. And again, why do you think addiction is a good thing? Something being addicting means that people can't stop doing it even after the fun has stopped. Why would you want that?

They are addicting because they are fun, and I have a list of games to back them up.

When you mention you have a list you should probably just list the games. But even if you did list them I don't see how it would prove your point. Fun things are addicting? Addicting things are fun? I've watched people going through high level dungeon raids in WoW as the raid fails over and over. They are most definitely not having fun and yet they and their guild keep playing over and over. They don't stop and they're not having fun.

Well I was talking about good core mechanics throughout. If your game has good core mechanics before these additions, would you let it go to waste? I wouldn't, I'd stretch out my game with extra stuff that are linked to the core mechanics because the goal of making any game is to make them as fun as possible.

How in the world would letting good core mechanics stand on their own be letting them "go to waste"? If mechanics are really good they don't need extra stuff thrown onto them. If a game is genuinely good then it doesn't need to be "stretched out" artificially. Yes the goal of games is to be fun but I don't see how any of the techniques you mention would add fun to a game.

No, I say add these things because it is fun to get involved in the things I've mentioned. It is fun to get new power-ups in fighting games to see what they do, how they help, etc.

Again you're making assumptions. Your statement is saying that these things are objectively fun for everyone (even if that's not what you believe that is how it comes off). I don't find powerups to be fun. This next sentence is much better:

Talent trees are a layer of strategy that is fun for people who think and strategize a lot.

This is good. This tells me why you think talent trees are fun and what type of player would enjoy that kind of fun. This sort of analysis should have appeared more throughout your original posts.

[vinheim3]

As I said, you make too many assumptions. At the very least mention what assumptions you are making to your audience like, "Assuming the developer has already made the world interesting..." or something to that effect. It makes your point more clear.

Well, these aren't magic formulas. I'm not telling developers how to do everything. I assume they're using their own techniques for level design/core mechanics/whatnot.

Actually, the experiences you mention say I'm right. You say that without the lists you wouldn't have kept playing to the extent of finding all items. If a list of yet-to-find items is what drives you to keep playing a game then it's not good, it's not very fun, and it's probably not worth playing to the extent that you are. If it was worth playing that much then it wouldn't need find-item lists to get you to keep playing.
Let me give  you an example. There's an old game called Marathon: Infinity that I like very much. It's a 2.5D shooter that I played for the first time 7 years ago, maybe longer, and every now and then I go back and play it. About five months ago I was replaying the game and found a secret room I hadn't found in my ~7 years of play. I found that secret room because the game is good and its quality drove me to play it again. I didn't need a list of yet-to-find-secret-rooms to get me to find that particular room a few months ago. That's natural replay value. What you're describing, such as having players play a game three times over just to get all the content, is artificial value and doesn't need to be added to a good game.

The fact that it gives me more drive to play doesn't mean everything else is fun, and it itself is not. I wouldn't have gone post-game if the main game wasn't fun. The lists are further lengtheners, but the game is fun if I get to the point where things are almost complete and I want to complete them.

No you shouldn't have because that's not much better. You should have stated simply, "An MMO consists of millions of players..." It says what you need and it doesn't address your audience as if you've met them.

I'd say it's better, I'm not addressing them as if I've met them, I'm saying more like "maybe you might think this.. or this.. or this". Not anything in the lines of "You'll think this".

No there isn't. Just because someone doesn't quit doesn't make it quality. And again, why do you think addiction is a good thing? Something being addicting means that people can't stop doing it even after the fun has stopped. Why would you want that?

If someone doesn't quit in a game, something in it is fun that's making them continue. In what way could a game create addictiveness the same way as a drug? What game makes people continue after the fun has stopped?

When you mention you have a list you should probably just list the games. But even if you did list them I don't see how it would prove your point. Fun things are addicting? Addicting things are fun? I've watched people going through high level dungeon raids in WoW as the raid fails over and over. They are most definitely not having fun and yet they and their guild keep playing over and over. They don't stop and they're not having fun.

They utilize the core game mechanics that's given throughout the whole game, if those mechanics aren't fun, they wouldn't have gotten that far. And even then, repeating a raid isn't addicting, I wouldn't repeat a raid cause ooh my mind and fingers need more. I'd repeat them because I have to tolerate going through the trouble to get the reward. The flaw is its not fun, but in the same way, it's not addicting, I would quit after a number of failures before taking time off for a break.

When I say addicting, I mean the mechanics are fun and you want more, so they're, in essence, the same, only difference is that some games are fun, but you wouldn't play more cause you've had a good dose, like RPGs with no need for a post game.

How in the world would letting good core mechanics stand on their own be letting them "go to waste"? If mechanics are really good they don't need extra stuff thrown onto them. If a game is genuinely good then it doesn't need to be "stretched out" artificially. Yes the goal of games is to be fun but I don't see how any of the techniques you mention would add fun to a game.

I say good instead of excellent because some games are fun, but they could have done more with them. VVVVVV had excellent core mechanics and you wouldn't need more than you're given. Generic RPGs, however, would need something to stretch out their potential to stand above the rest. They usually include new mechanics that are linked in a way to current ones. Just cause a game is good as it is doesn't mean there's no need to add other fun things. The developer can keep it as is and it'll be good, or add new things and it'll be good or bad depending on how they do it. Like I said, my tips aren't a guide to good game designing, just supplements.

[zombieonion]

You talk a lot about features that you yourself like in games, and then ask "how could you implement them in your game?"
Why would I want to implement that anyway? The list is very subjective.
I disagree with half of those features being "good". The MMORPG mechanics of grinding for content, for instance.

[vinheim3]

Again, this is no guide to magically make your game instantly better. Just like core mechanics, these things are only good if the person who is developing the game uses it well. What I'm trying to do is open up ideas to people that have been implemented well in previous good games. Maybe you don't like the grinding in MMORPGs because of the way it's normally done. However, if done another way by a different developer, you may find it appealing that way.

[zombieonion]

No. I won't like grinding at all. In anyway. I despise fake rewards. Grinding for better gear does not improve or alter the core gameplay in any way. Same verbs over and over. Select enemy, use abilities in correct order.

Also, why only try implementing the Metroidvania concept into a sports game? Or into an RTS game? It's like you say "I like apple juice, hence I put it on every food and into every beverage. If you do it right, it might work. How can you implement apple juice into YOUR dish to make it good?"

[vinheim3]

Well I too hated grinding until I played Disgaea 2, which took grinding to a whole new level. At the same time, other gamers might hate Disgaea 2 grinding and other grinding, but might like the grinding in, say, Golden Sun. In another example, I dislike platformers that use one or more maps that are too huge that you need to keep a mental map of so you can get to every crack and crevice of it. Level Up! had mechanics that made it fun regardless. But there are people out there who might love huge mapless platformers like Seiklus which I found was ok except the exploration part/thinking I might be missing something somewhere and not knowing.

So you might say you hate grinding, but there could be a game one day that mixes grinding with another game mechanic to make it appealing to you. Not all possibilities have been explored yet.

Also, grinding for better gear might not alter the core gameplay, but might become fun from the core gameplay. I remember a game where even a simple +1 to a stat dramatically changed how much damage you did to an enemy. Grinding for better gear made the game fun as I smashed through enemies easier everytime. When it comes to grinding, I guess it comes down to sacrifice/reward. If the reward is good enough to sacrifice time/effort and even make me sleepy, I'll do it, though it isn't a good game design practice.

I remember a PS2 or Xbox 360 racing game that implemented Metroidvania into it and it was fun. The parts to ur car were sorta multi-power-ups (multiple stat boosts, an engine might give jump and double jump, while another might give jump and ice beam if compared to Metroid) and if they had the right stat boosts to them, you can participate in more races (a race might require a double jump and a glide, the double jump from an engine and a glide from a spoiler, etc. Spoken again in terms of Metroid). Forgot the name since it was more than 4 years ago.

Also, I can easily see potential for Metroidvania in an RTS. Like I said before, it just has to be done the right way.


Also, I see these game design techniques similar to all-purpose sauce (rather than apple juice) which I put into everything, pasta, bread, meat, noodles, etc. It tastes good with most meals, even soup, even if the meal is crappy (tastes especially better when the meal is crappy). That analogy is closer than the one you made of apple juice.

[zombieonion]

So basicly you're saying you can put whatever into a game as long as you do it right.
What else is new?