next »

[Houndninja]

[TomHunt]

What makes a game compelling is a compelling experience. There we go.

A bit of an iffy response, isn't it?

Erm.... You are aware that I was making a (bad) pun on iffi's response being iffy, right? 

sorry i quoted you?

[Oskuro]

Nah, I just didn't want it to look like I was legitimately questioning iffi's statement. I'll add more silly smilies next time.

[Charlie Sheen]

Every individual will find different things compelling, from deep story, to solid action, to the ability to squash pink watermelons. Attempting to pinpoint a universal definition of compelling is utterly pointless.

anti-intellectualism alert!!!!!!!!!!
yes folks have different preferences because they are folks who can say whatever they want, delude themselves however they want and stick to whatever primitive pleasure they want, but in reality there are games which provide more pleasure and games which provide less pleasure and that's ABSOLUTE. you can also replace word "games" with word "art" and it will still be true.

the real problem is that it's simply hard to produce an agreement. that it is hard to produce an argument, however, does not mean it's impossible! capisci? to be able to come to such an agreement requires intelligence (intelligence, honesty, analytical skills, w/e) and those who are not intelligent simply cannot come to an agreement! this is the case everywhere, not just in arts. but it's pronounced in arts because we're dealing with humans.

[Oskuro]

Woah, you call me anti-intellectual and right away proceed to call me stupid for not agreeing with you? I really hope you are trolling...

but in reality there are games which provide more pleasure and games which provide less pleasure and that's ABSOLUTE

There are no absolutes in art, you dimwit. Each individual can and will enjoy different things based on their life experiences and natural inclinations. That's what makes arts interesting! There's no "right" way to do it!

Notice how you've defined certain pleasures as "primitive"? Who the hell has given you the authority to dismiss other people's tastes as primitive or irrelevant? What makes your opinion on what is likable and what isn't so transcendent and important? Attempting to define what others should like or dislike is a level of presumption bordering on bigotry.

[Charlie Sheen]

im tired of people who get insulted when someone says that what they like is worse than something else. these people are, to put it bluntly, fucking morons. there is nothing wrong with pleasure, whatever brings that pleasure. you get that? this isn't about accusing other people of being morons for enjoying themselves. if you fucking enjoy yourself, you fucking enjoy yourself and that's fucking it.

so what do i mean when i say "primitive" art? i mean art which has been done before and which we enjoyed before. ART THAT IS ALREADY IN THE FUCKING SHOPS AND ON THE SHELVES OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE OLDER. in other words, there is nothing fucking wrong with enjoying simplistic art, the problem is simply that we already have that sort of art. it's been done before, we've enjoyed it, and now we want something that is more complex. that's all there is to it.

so you can see here that my concern isn't "what people should not be enjoying" but "what should be made in the future". that's the whole point of understanding the theory of videogame art.

and how do i know what is "primitive" art? i know it because that's what i enjoyed 10 years ago but not anymore. that's how i know it. that's "primitive" art. what's so confusing about that?

besides, that people have different preferences doesn't mean there is no universally better and worse art. that's just lazy thinking.

[Maud'Dib Atreides]

im tired of people who get insulted when someone says that what they like is worse than something else. these people are, to put it bluntly, fucking morons. there is nothing wrong with pleasure, whatever brings that pleasure. you get that? this isn't about accusing other people of being morons for enjoying themselves. if you fucking enjoy yourself, you fucking enjoy yourself and that's fucking it.

so what do i mean when i say "primitive" art? i mean art which has been done before and which we enjoyed before. ART THAT IS ALREADY IN THE FUCKING SHOPS AND ON THE SHELVES OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE OLDER. in other words, there is nothing fucking wrong with enjoying simplistic art, the problem is simply that we already have that sort of art. it's been done before, we've enjoyed it, and now we want something that is more complex. that's all there is to it.

so you can see here that my concern isn't "what people should not be enjoying" but "what should be made in the future". that's the whole point of understanding the theory of videogame art.

and how do i know what is "primitive" art? i know it because that's what i enjoyed 10 years ago but not anymore. that's how i know it. that's "primitive" art. what's so confusing about that?

besides, that people have different preferences doesn't mean there is no universally better and worse art. that's just lazy thinking.

yet another powerful rant Mr.Sheen

not trying to argue against you, but I want to reason why there's primitive art

the game development industry is full of fear. don't fix what isnt broke. trying to create an iconoclastic art style can either give you a best seller, or a huge bust and mils wasted

reasonably its safe to just reuse what art style just made mils of $$$ and not bust out something new, right?

like everything, it's a gamble. but we're not playing with poker chips for stuffed animals

jobs and millions of $$$ are at stake

[DavidCaruso]

I like how this topic went through the full TIGS Design Thread Cycle, from asking a question so general that any decent answer would be ridiculously obvious (step 1) to people deciding to ignore the generality and just post cool things they like in specific games (step 2) to some guys going "it's all subjective and different people enjoy different things maaaan so it is impossible to come to any conclusions, look at me I just nullified the entire point of art theory" (step 3, at which point you know the thread is basically over and no further conclusions will ever be reached, if any even have already been reached.)

Instead of being a tardo I'm going to say to the OP that if he's making a stealth game he should focus on solid AI, creating levels with many, many multiple paths and secrets which the player can learn over time and use to their advantage (with a difficulty level high enough that they basically need to learn them if they want to not be caught), a variety of exciting locales so that they can pretend they're in Shanghai or Bangalore or post-apocalyptic Hawaii instead of in a textureless room running away from big black wireframe hitbox cubes, and a light narrative to tie all of these things together (maybe even with splits, since a stealth game design would afford a lot of opportunities for stumbling on huge secrets, etc.) This is still all very obvious but less stupid than "y'gotta make th' gaaaameplaaaaay compellin', boy."

[Paul Eres]

that's a good observation davidcaruso

when i saw this question the only answer i could think of was kind of obvious, basically something like: if you don't know what makes a game compelling why are you a game developer?

i mean, it just seems ridiculous to ask this question. i know "there are no stupid questions" but... isn't this like a writer asking "what makes a story good"? it's like, if you don't know what makes a story good why are you a writer?

or maybe he knows what makes games compelling but is unable to articulate it? that's a common concern, sometimes knowledge can be intuitive or subconsciously known, but a person is unable to explain it coherently or clearly. i feel that's the case with me; i know what makes games compelling but never actually sat down and thought it through with bullet points or something. so i'll try to do that here

anyway, here are some things which make games compelling to me:

- games are basically entertainment for the mind. they serve no practical or utilitarian purpose, the purpose is purely experiential. they are things that exist to be experienced, and preferably it'd be an experience that is worth having, something that, after you've experienced it, you feel like it was a worthwhile use of your time to experience

- games provide the feeling of being in a different place or time or situation, or being someone else other than i am. some call this "escapism", but that sometimes has the wrong implication. often you like your current life just fine and aren't trying to escape from it, but still have a desire to try something different than it for a short while

- games also exercise the mind. the mind isn't a muscle, but it's similar to one in that if it's not exercised it decays. it needs a "work out", which means a game should not be trivially easy to play through (which would make it too passive, much like watching television -- the difference between a game that's too easy for you and a game that's not interactive at all is almost nothing), it should require mental effort to play through. how much mental effort depends on how "in shape" someone's mind is, so preferably it'd have difficulty levels, with it being left up to the player to choose a level that challenges them but which they are still capable of succeeding at if they try hard at it

- games (like life) are goal-orientated, they give you the experience of having achieved goals (this is often true even of sandbox / goalless games like sim city, since even in those you tend to set your own goals). even if those goals are unlike real-life goals, they should be similar in requiring time and effort, practice, etc. i think people enjoy games because we are a fundamentally goal-driven species. goals are appealing to us. it's fun to try to do something, work at it, and succeed at doing it. for it to be fun, the work can't be too easy or impossible

- and, also importantly, the goal can't feel unimportant or trivial (the game has to give you a reason to save the princess, it can't just say "save the princess" or you won't care about her). this is where "stories" in games come in. stories exist to give meaning to the game's goals. to give them a mythology, to make you want to achieve the goals. the better the story, the more you *want* to play the game (since the story would make you hate the villain, or want to protect your home town, or even just want to see what happens next): saving a fictional world you care about is a more satisfying goal than saving a fictional world you don't care about. (having an interesting fictional world also helps with the "escapism" part of it)


(note that the *first two* of those points also apply to all art -- novels, movies, paintings, etc. -- but that the *last three* of those points only apply to games)

[Charlie Sheen]

but I want to reason why there's primitive art

each year a new generation of kids is born, a new generation of inexperienced gamers is born, and so -- a fresh new market for simplistic art is opened. just rehash the same old simplistic crap and sell it to kids. perhaps make it a tiny bit more complex in some way. maybe make the graphics more photo-realistic? or make the story longer? just invent some justification as to why these kids should be playing these new games instead of playing the old ones.

this is not to say that the industry is stagnating; in fact, the industry is still making lots of progress imo.

and im making a lot of progress in going completely off-topic too.

[Maud'Dib Atreides]

but I want to reason why there's primitive art

each year a new generation of kids is born, a new generation of inexperienced gamers is born, and so -- a fresh new market for simplistic art is opened. just rehash the same old simplistic crap and sell it to kids. perhaps make it a tiny bit more complex in some way. maybe make the graphics more photo-realistic? or make the story longer? just invent some justification as to why these kids should be playing these new games instead of playing the old ones.

this is not to say that the industry is stagnating; in fact, the industry is still making lots of progress imo.

and im making a lot of progress in going completely off-topic too.

im uncertain to what your side is

[Derek]

I think it's useful to break down games into two types. Those that use a game to tell a story, and those that are mechanics focused. The mechanics and story must compliment and support each other, but not get in the way of whichever is the main thrust of the game.

that's a false dichotomy. games can be both; in fact, they should be both. the idea that there is such a thing as "focus" of the game lol is invented by the slaves, the bunglers, to make up for their lack of skill. they had to invent some sort of exclusivity to the simplistic crap they make so that they could turn the pyramid on its head -- so that they could at least feel to be on the same level as the real masters of the craft.

in reality, simplicity has no exclusivity whatso-fucking-ever, and games that have both story and "mechanics" are the best games.

Well, according to you Shinji Mikami is a bungler, since he focused on gameplay for Vanquish (which is honestly pretty obvious while you're playing the game).

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/28/interview-shinji-mikami-on-vanquish-evolving-game-dev-locales/

As far as Vanquish goes, speaking more specifically to that title, I'm hoping you could explain the name and how it fits into the game, and if you can explain how the game is going to stand out to Western gamers, who are used to high-quality third-person and first-person action games.

"Vanquish," the word obviously has to do with conquest and destruction. In any war there's always a winning side and a losing side, there's winners and losers, but one of the themes in the story is, what makes a true victor in any conflict? And so that's where the name ties in.

Can you speak to the importance of story in games, in relations to the Eastern and Western philosophies? How important is the story in Vanquish, and how important it is to your team?

So, this time, actually, I am emphasizing gameplay over story. But, Mr. Kojima, obviously, emphasizes story a lot more.

Which do you feel is more important for a game? Is it more important that you focus on gameplay first, or is it important that you marry the two?

So, the ideal, obviously, is to meld the two. For both story and gameplay to be really compelling.

He basically said what James said, actually. That both should be compelling and work well together but that he focused on gameplay for at least that one game. I don't think anyone would say that a game should have ONLY one or the other, and the majority of games have at least a bare bones setting... but certainly there are lots of great games that emphasize telling a story versus challenging you with rules, obstacles, etc.

Focusing on something in a game is good, and it's certainly not an idea that was invented by "slaves". Have you heard of the "Covert Action Rule"? Sid Meier came up with that:

Covert Action integrated a story and action poorly, because the action was actually too intense.

Or what about Doom? You've read the Doom Bible, I'm assuming, and know the differences between the planned game versus what eventually got released? Again, it did kind of boil down to "story versus gameplay".

Now, moving forward, would it be great to see more games that have lots of both? Sure. But there will also always be room for new games that focus on one or the other. Like painting or movies or music or any other artform - if you de-emphasize one thing you can emphasize something else.

And even if you did make a game that had heavy helpings of both (I dunno, a game like Deus Ex or something) - at the detail level you'll still be making decisions about what to emphasize and when.

(Also, what's the problem with the word "gameplay"? It's too vague or something? It seems useful enough for this discussion, at least.)

[Graham.]

@CharlieSheen

The best games are made by competent creators with a vision. That's it. Any particular statement about what a "good" game has and doesn't have is contextual.

Focus let's you pour into the game what you have inspiration for. A human is unique. I can design a combat system up the side of a building, but I can't draw a decent portrayal of human free-hand to save my life, without a lot more practice. This fact will flow into my games. Focus is a sign of maturity. It says it knows what your strengths are, and what strengths your game has for an audience. Knowing what belongs in a game and doesn't belong is focus.

The hardest part about design is knowing what to cut, after you've already made it or thought of it, not what to add. ... An analogy: picking girls you want to hang out with from a lineup of millions is easy. Choosing which one you want to marry is hard. When you force yourself to focus you have to identify who you really are and what's important to you and what each of your options really offer.

No one is interesting enough for all of their ideas to be interesting to someone else. Choosing forces you to identify what makes you valuable to someone else.

[TomHunt]

The hardest part about design is knowing what to cut, after you've already made it or thought of it, not what to add. ... An analogy: picking girls you want to hang out with from a lineup of millions is easy. Choosing which one you want to marry is hard. When you force yourself to focus you have to identify who you really are and what's important to you and what each of your options really offer.

No one is interesting enough for all of their ideas to be interesting to someone else. Choosing forces you to identify what makes you valuable to someone else.

I never thought that evolutionary psychology would have such a linkage into game design. I'm going to have to go back and read David Buss again.

[Lynx]

I like how this topic went through the full TIGS Design Thread Cycle, from asking a question so general that any decent answer would be ridiculously obvious (step 1) to people deciding to ignore the generality and just post cool things they like in specific games (step 2) to some guys going "it's all subjective and different people enjoy different things maaaan so it is impossible to come to any conclusions, look at me I just nullified the entire point of art theory" (step 3...)

Yeah, it seemed to jump straight to step 3 when I read this thread, actually.  I made an attempt to steer things onto slightly more productive grounds, but I like your commentary as well:

Instead of being a tardo I'm going to say to the OP that if he's making a stealth game he should focus on solid AI, creating levels with many, many multiple paths and secrets which the player can learn over time and use to their advantage (with a difficulty level high enough that they basically need to learn them if they want to not be caught), a variety of exciting locales so that they can pretend they're in Shanghai or Bangalore or post-apocalyptic Hawaii instead of in a textureless room running away from big black wireframe hitbox cubes, and a light narrative to tie all of these things together (maybe even with splits, since a stealth game design would afford a lot of opportunities for stumbling on huge secrets, etc.) This is still all very obvious but less stupid than "y'gotta make th' gaaaameplaaaaay compellin', boy."

Good stuff. ^_^

Oddly enough I also am working on a Metal Gear Solid-inspired stealth game.  But it pretty much only has textureless rooms.  Oh dear.

Since it's a first game project, I'm trying to keep the features pared down and get to a point I can actually put it out there.  So no fancy 3D, very minimal art, that sort of thing.  To make it compelling, I have to try to inspire the player's imagination, but I also have to make it actually challenging, yet achievable.  That, I think, is where compelling gameplay comes in.  Lemme talk about that last bit.

Challenge: it should be difficult in some way.  You're trying to sneak through a heavily defended installation, there shouldn't be obvious gaps.  If there are, it makes the player question the believability of your story.

Achievable: the challenge should be fair.  It looks hard, but you should be able to approach the problem in pieces, master one challenge at a time.  No unfair surprises: taking a step into a corridor and having a hitherto unseen turret blast you to pieces will surely rub players the wrong way, if they didn't have an opportunity to notice the turret or to escape.

For me, stealth games are about 'measure twice, cut once'.  You size up the situation, you proceed cautiously through the level.  At all times you're surrounded by hostile forces that could overpower you if they knew exactly where you were.

To some extent, engaging them in combat and thinning them down is actually cheating in that it reduces the difficulty of the problem, so eventually you wind up with a level full of snoozing (or dead) guards and no challenge whatsoever, when you want the difficulty of the game to ramp up as you get further.

I don't have any provisions right now for players to take down guards in my game, but if and when I do add some, I will probably include bonus "style" points for never confronting a guard.

Furthermore, the controls need to feel solid.  The player should never be fighting the controls.  Punishment should only come if he or she makes an actual mistake.