next »

[Sik]

What you mention is an issue with endless mode in general though, at some point the only thing you can do anymore is just keep throwing more of the same. The question is whether the mechanic itself would be engaging if stretched to infinity, not the whole thing.

[Graham-]

A good way to think of it is this: how far could you stretch a mechanic in an infinite mode?

[Graham-]

Here is something stupid simple.

Take your mechanic. Let's assume your game already has 3 mechanics. DO NOT test with the other 3 only: bad idea. Instead, try something different.

Try just 1 original mechanic, and the new one; and even if you are just doing it conceptually, map out levels, the "infinite mode" if you will.

So if your character can jump, shoot, and punch, and now you want to add a new gun, take out two of the originals, and just see how good that is. Just day-dream about it, or build it - whatever.

That's the test. You can do it in your head. So much bloat can be removed this way, just by thinking about it. If a mechanic needs all of the others in order to be interesting, then maybe it really isn't that interesting.

Then if it is even more interesting when in with the kitchen sink, even better.

This thinking can be applied to writing stories, planning presentations, whatever.

(There are some obvious limitations here, because sometimes mechanics have necessary dependency chains).

[Sik]

Sadly, the kind of person who can figure out whether a mechanic is good enough to stand on its own by just thinking about it is probably the same kind of person who would not need to ask this question.

[Graham-]

*shrug* I only sort of know what you mean.

Thinking can never hurt, and people are smarter than that. There's just an effort thing. Often devs admit a feature won't stand on its own, but justify it anyway with, "who cares; throw it in there anyway."

Also you can just build the thing. Building a level that focuses on two mechanics, then layering on complexity, is a good design strategy anyway.

[s0]

i think some people itt are missing the point of the thread. ofc actually trying out your ideas in practice and seeing what works is the best thing, and if we all had infinite time, resources and attention spans we could prototype everything. but we don't, and the question was how can you save yourself some work by throwing out mechanics that you know (or have good reason to believe) aren't going to work before you implement them.

or rather, everyone who develops games already does this and the OP's question was what people's processes are.

[Sik]

*shrug* I only sort of know what you mean.

Thinking can never hurt, and people are smarter than that. There's just an effort thing. Often devs admit a feature won't stand on its own, but justify it anyway with, "who cares; throw it in there anyway."

Also you can just build the thing. Building a level that focuses on two mechanics, then layering on complexity, is a good design strategy anyway.

Well, you can think it if you want, but unless you're experienced enough you're bound to potentially miss some fatal flaws or take a long time to notice, while somebody who's experienced enough is likely to realize what's wrong nearly immediately (and even come up with a way to fix those flaws on the moment). So while doable, you'll end up wasting lots of time if you aren't good enough at it yet, possibly more than just prototyping it (although I guess it's still good when you don't have access to your development stuff).

Of course the only way to reach that point is to keep experimenting until you learn the common patterns.

[Graham-]

Nah, I just meant sometimes a dev will throw something in, believing that it would not stand on its own, thinking that that is okay.

[Graham-]

i think some people itt are missing the point of the thread. ofc actually trying out your ideas in practice and seeing what works is the best thing, and if we all had infinite time, resources and attention spans we could prototype everything. but we don't, and the question was how can you save yourself some work by throwing out mechanics that you know (or have good reason to believe) aren't going to work before you implement them.

or rather, everyone who develops games already does this and the OP's question was what people's processes are.

Okay, so I'll revise my response.

If I am working on any project, I go with my gut. I mean what else is there?

The trick is to BAIL when you know you've been had. Then try something else.

[cbox]

We asked our friends to playtest our new game modes. For our beta we implemented data tracking to a database and measured what weapons and abilities everyone used. We then adjusted each mode according to trends we saw. Before we came up with a game mode, we tried a small test, and if it didn't win the audience over, we either cut it entirely or reworked.

[gunswordfist]

posting so i can return to this thread and finish reading it.