next »

[J-Snake]

One certain thing for me is that potentially a good game is not one that TRIES to appeal to boring people. I just can't stand if some people think the game has to adapt to their intention/demands in particular. The player should adapt to the game and its rules, not the game to the player in general. There is an example with some harder maps in my puzzle-game. Some people expected an easier solution but ended up with a dead-end. They wanted their way to be a valid way to solve the map but I say no: You know the rules and you realize you will end up in a dead end this way so YOU have to adapt and work out more sophistitated plans. Many people are like an ignorant child wanting to cook his own meal while missing out decent recepts an actual cook is providing him.

[rivon]

but it looks very repetitive and sometimes too much precision-based.

@topic:
You are not even slightly qualified to judge TrapThem until you have played it, mate.
It is one of the most varied puzzlers you will ever find. And You don't need to go the action/dexterity-route. There are challenges for every typ of player. The placeholder graphics are repetetive, I give you that, but it is a blast to play, especially for smart people.

I don't need to play a game to know that it's boring (some exceptions of course exist but TT isn't one of them), or at least that it will be boring for ME. When I was talking about repetitiveness, I wasn't talking about the graphics - you said many times that they are placeholders.

I would like to know what exactly looks boring to you (exept for the graphics). So we perhaps might gain more insight about what makes a good game.

Everything. I think you're just trying to create another Tetris/Pac-man but it doesn't work. One probable cause for it is that the game looks quite complex.

[Fallsburg]

When I called them synonyms, I didn't mean in the dictionary sense, just for the context of this thread, i.e. describing what makes a game good. If you say that a game needs to be "fun" or "compelling", you're not answering the question, you're just wording it differently, since that would just lead to the new question of "what makes a game fun/compelling". But you actually mentioned some very specific examples of factors that make a game "not fun":

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly.  I'm saying that those are all equally valid measures of "good".  And I'm saying there are many more (perhaps an unlimited amount of) other equally valid measures of "good".  So asking "What makes a game good?" is a stupid question, because there are so many different things that can make a game good.
You say I'm just rewording the problem, but you are missing my point. I'm not saying "To make a good game you have to make a deep game."  I'm saying "One of the things that people often value in a game is depth.  How do we go about making a deep game?" 

Now, if someone wants to ask,
How do I make a game _____?
tense
deep
addictive
exciting
moving

It's moving in the right direction.  It's still probably overly broad, but at least it comes closer to having genuine answers.

[Christian Knudsen]

Guess I read you wrong then, 'cuz yup to all that.

[J-Snake]

Everything. I think you're just trying to create another Tetris/Pac-man but it doesn't work. One probable cause for it is that the game looks quite complex.

Let me ask you a question: Do you find it boring if a game can challenge your brain already in a tiny map despite you know the rules?

[rivon]

No. But your game looks ultimately boring.

[J-Snake]

You just contradicted yourself.

[JMickle]

J-Snake, I too think your game looks pretty boring, and/or tedious. I also find you and your constant talk about your game boring and tedious. From what I've seen and from what you've said about it, I can't see myself even bothering to download it if it will be free. lord help you if you're putting a price tag on it.

[J-Snake]

It is pretty obvious when I make fun or when I am serious. I think you are underestimating how much life and immersion visual art and animation can add. Imagine angry birds or cut-the rope with abstract geometric shapes instead of characters, would be boring aswell, right? Other than that it is funny how some people jump into judging sophisticated systems. It is like you only know a chess-game by watching some matches and then claim to see the qualities of that rule-set. Perhaps it is just not your preference but you are not qualified to judge a system as long as you haven't dedicated some time to discover its qualities. I am not sure what rides some people to talk something down they are obviously not qualified to do. btw. dedicated puzzle-players consider TrapThem a master-piece.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

trapthem reminds me a little of digdug. anyway i think this is a perfect example of what i said in my first post in this thread: that standards for what makes games good depends on the developer and audience, and that games that some people don't enjoy and feel are bad others love and find awesome. it's a little sad that people like jmickle and rivon haven't learned that basic concept yet, especially on a forum where we are supposed to be encouraging each other to make your dream game

i think it's because a lot of us (most of us?) believe that what makes a good game depends on the individual developer and their audience. whether it's true or not, what makes a good game is treated as a matter of taste. it's like asking what makes a good cheeseburger. some people think lettuce and tomato do, others think bbq sauce does, others think ketchup does, others think mayo, etc.

consider ff13. in the west it's thought of as a bad game, too linear and story-heavy, too many cutscenes and not enough freedom, in japan it got nearly a perfect score in famitsu and is outsold all the other final fantasy games and is considered one of the greatest games ever made. so i don't think 'what makes a good game' is something that you can scientifically investigate, because it varies so much, and first you'd have to decide by what standards, etc. etc.

i do think everyone should ask (and answer) "what makes a good game -- for me, by my standards", but asking 'what makes a game universally good, so that everyone will like it' is a dead-end question i think. there's no game that everyone will like, and that's a good thing

[rivon]

J-Snake, I too think your game looks pretty boring, and/or tedious. I also find you and your constant talk about your game boring and tedious. From what I've seen and from what you've said about it, I can't see myself even bothering to download it if it will be free. lord help you if you're putting a price tag on it.

Exactly.

I think you are underestimating how much life and immersion visual art and animation can add. Imagine angry birds or cut-the rope with abstract geometric shapes instead of characters, would be boring aswell, right?

Ok. I'm really interested how it will look in the final release version.

[J-Snake]

trapthem reminds me a little of digdug.

WOW, RESPECT. Now I need to elaborate on how everything started: Some time ago I gave DigDug a shot and I just got a magical flash after watching the trailer. It presented the block-mechanics but didn't provide them. I immediately thought what about a game that actually manages to provide them, how would it play, would it make sense? I initially went the route of A.I.-driven vs gameplay, one is the hunter the other is the hunted. If you are the hunted you should be smart in constructing traps and keeping your opponent away, just by the physics. While that can get very interesting I decided to keep it in mind to be a component of further projects. Instead to make it a worthy game of its own I decided to provide more variety by making a puzzle-game instead, which means the enemies are not based on A.I. but on simple and complementary elements to provide great variety and control over level-design. Now I am here.

The interesting thing is that everyone is reminded of a different game. One of Tetris, another one of Boulder Dash,Dangerous Dave and so on.

[J-Snake]

Ok. I'm really interested how it will look in the final release version.

Here is a concept-sketch replacing the green venus-flytraps. But it will actually be an evil earthworm. Just showing how much life art can add, especially when you see more detail, all current vids are just zoomed out, means further away from immersion.

http://art.jaywestcott.co.uk/trapthem/idea1b.jpg

[rivon]

...One of Tetris...

I used Tetris just as a classic game, the same as Pac-Man, Pong, Space Invaders etc. Not that it would be in any way similar.

[J-Snake]

I wasn't referring to you by mentioning Tetris anyway:P

There are some maps which ressemble some Tetris-similarities. One of them is called "Sirtet", guess how it comes.

[J-Snake]

That is indeed interesting to see how ff13 got that high score in japan. I wonder what the standards are and whether many of them are otakus. Or perhaps they do value the story and the presentation most, which is surely impressive in its own merit.

[Haite]

I wasn't gonna to say it, but because J Snake mention FF XIII again...a quick off-topic:
FF XIII had bad sales everywhere. http://www.vgchartz.com/game/7727/final-fantasy-xiii/
Most of the sales was at the first week, when everyone was hyped and didn't know what kind of game FF XIII is and then almost stoped being sold.
I am not saying that FF XIII is bad as a game itself, mostly because I didn't play it, but as a game of franchise it was a huge deception and made a undeniable bad mark on the series.
So, even it having very opposite opinions, I think it wasn't the best example to this subject.

[J-Snake]

I already felt that final fantasy started to go another route since ff10 on ps2. Since that point I wasn't even slightly interested to play it anymore despite the presentation had its immersive points. The overall style and play just doesn't appeal to me.

[HernanZh]

Um, just to add to this Final Fantasy discussion, I'm surprised noone posted this FF sales comparison yet(Japan only). FFXIII didn't sell that well compared to other titles and XIII-2 had horrible sales. I'd like to see XIII-2's abysmal sales as a reaction to FFXIII's bad gameplay, but who knows what the real reason is.

And I do think FXIII is the perfect example of a bad game.

[baconman]

I think it's because people have finally realized that FF is dead, and not very likely to ever recapture what it once was; much as fans would love for it to. Timing is also bad, because this holiday season was awesomesauce overload, and not only do we still have plenty left to play (regardless of who you are), but not the biggest budgets left after that.


I also think a better question to ask is why each game we enjoy is such fun? Is there something primal and basic about a left-to-right progression that we get and enjoy? Open worlds to explore in all directions? Rhythm and flow? Nifty effects? Unexpected consequences?

What exactly makes these great games we enjoy so great and enjoyable?

And actually, from what I see, we already do ask that a lot around here. We just don't condense it all into one thread like this.
____________________

Going back to the PokeMon discussion for an example, and what made it so fundamentally big. Back when it came out, JRPG's were really set in stone: Very character/story-driven, fundamentally single-player experiences, straightforward character types and moves that corresponded with them, and strategies that don't really change a lot. Water beats the Fire guy, and all of that.

First way PokeMon changed that up was it's party system - it's not a party, it's a set of battling monsters that you can buy, sell, trade, catch, whatever. Secondly, it pretty much streamlined the battle system - none of this "Attack/Magic/Item" crap; you got 4 moves that covered whatever base they were designed to cover.

Secondly was by making it gameplay-oriented, rather than story-oriented. It's not exactly known for it's "expressive narrative qualities," besides the fact that the trainer dialogues were usually quite hilarious and borderline perverse (in that tasteful, "doesn't offend/corrupt kids" way). You didn't go through a set of chapters, aside the Gym Leaders and designed map flow; you were given your quest at the very beginning, and you'd do it the whole way through as you explored the world. Simple as that, and not a big bunch of epic-plotline sugar coating.

Thirdly, while it didn't scrap on the fundamental single-player experience by pretending it didn't exist or matter (JRPG standards and all); it was equally designed around multiplayer experiences as well. Battling and trading was key in the development and it shows in lots of ways (IE: trade-only evolutions and so forth). Silver/Gold even added to it's importance by allowing the "hold items" to trade with the Pokes as well. It's the ideal of what "social gaming" is.


It didn't become great by adhering to standards and limitations of the genre, but it also didn't become great by disregarding them either. And generally, I think that's a big thing that makes noteworthy games so great - it stays a well-polished form of established standards, and still provides a fun experience that isn't necessarily limited by them.