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.
Developer
