8 ms·

For me there are 4 properties that make a game great. Number 1: breadth of options. Games like rollercoaster tycoon are fun because you have an incredible rang

by jules 12y ago

For me there are 4 properties that make a game great. Number 1: breadth of options. Games like rollercoaster tycoon are fun because you have an incredible range of options. There is no linear progression from start to finish with only a few choice points in between that have little impact. There are choices everywhere. The opposite is a game like mario, where there are almost no choices. Number 2: reflexes. Games like pong and mario are fun because they require actions at the right timing. Turn based games do not have that. Number 3: collection. You collect items or upgrades or in game currency that help you later. Although I have never played it myself, an example is World of Warcraft. You collect items, money and levels. There is something satisfying about this. Game designers often exploit it to make a game addictive. Number 4: human adversaries. Playing against AI or against some in game metric (e.g. get X amount of people in your rollercoaster park) is not very fun. Playing against human opponents is much more fun because they are unpredictable and intelligent. It's not enough to just compete, there has to be interaction. If you put 2 games of tetris next to each other where the players compete for the highest score that's not good enough. First person shooters have this point right. The decisions of the players influence each other, rather than only competing via a score. Chess & go are the epitome of this. The games that come closest to hitting all these points are real time strategy games. You have a large amount of options. Not as much as in a sandbox game like rollercoaster tycoon, but still far more than in the average game. You need reflexes to react to threats. You collect resources, upgrades and units. Last but not least, you have human opponents who also have a large amount of options that you need to react to. Not as strategic as chess, but far more so than your average game. Sadly rts appears to be a dying genre...

Vektorweg 12y ago
I made a list about the properties a game should have: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/58847/32928 http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/58847/32928
Vektorweg 12y ago
Actually, i don't like RTS much, because i often forget to do something important and quickly lose the game. It requires a good training in time and task management, which is a bit stressful. And the unit movement is often a micromanagement skirmish.
- jules 12y ago
  This I consider a positive. The skill gap between an average player and a good player is vastly higher in RTS than in other genres. A 10th percentile player usually has a basically negligible chance to win against the top player. A 20th percentile player has a negligible chance to win against a 10th percentile player, etc. I personally like the competition. If a game is not stressful that usually is just another way of saying that there is little skill involved. That is fine too, the point is to have fun after all. It's just a personal preference.
  - Vektorweg 12y ago
    FPS can be really difficult too, but there is always some time between the challenging parts of the game. Just a moment to take a breath, which you don't have in a modern RTS. I think, FPS aren't stressful, but RTS are and FPS are still highly based on skill. RTS have more factors, making the game more random, because a human can't control all factors well. Therefore, less advanced players have better chances to win once.
    - jules 12y ago
      The second paragraph is not true at all. It is far more likely to get a lucky kill in a FPS than in a RTS. For example in Forged Alliance if 100 average players play against a top 10 player I'll bite my nose off if even one of them manages to win.
      - Vektorweg 12y ago
        Sorry, i counted in matches instead of turns. Of course, there is always a luck shot. But in a usual match with at least 5 turns, its extremely difficult to win for a less advanced player.
  - DaFranker 12y ago
    >If a game is not stressful that usually is just another way of saying that there is little skill involved. For some definitions of "stress" and, most particularly, of "skill". I take rather great pride in my GMing skills when playing a tabletop RPG game, but if there's any amount of "stress¹" involved in the same sense that there is stress¹ when I play RTS games, then I'm definitely doing something wrong. Of course there's "stress²", but that's the tension and uncertainty in the events of the game I run, or the uncertainty relating to my players and what their reactions are going to be. So "skill" here can't be used as a scalar measure, and there's definitely no single one measure of "skill" across different game genres. Declaring a linear correlation between "skill" and "stress" seems rather premature and, IMO, detrimental to the discussion.
prawks 12y ago
Those are the 4 properties that make a strategy game great, which is completely fine. But you're kind of proposing that the best games are strategy games, which is like saying that oil is the best painting medium. Those aren't necessarily the same properties that can make a platformer, or narrative-driven adventure game great. Or a puzzle game. Or an FPS. And those games are great (Mario, Half-Life 2, the Monkey Island series). In the end, everyone has their own set of properties that make the artistic mediums they enjoy "the greatest", and the same applies to games.
ekianjo 12y ago
> Number 3: collection. You collect items or upgrades or in game currency that help you later. You mean you like hoarding? That's one of the most annoying parts of many games, managing endless inventories and collecting stuff for the purpose of having more. It distracts you from whatever goal the game might have. > Number 4: human adversaries. Playing against AI or against some in game metric (e.g. get X amount of people in your rollercoaster park) is not very fun. Playing against human opponents is much more fun because they are unpredictable and intelligent. Really ? You have a strange conception of gaming then, because your world of gaming has basically started only with online games. There's tons of great solo games out there that require absolutely no one else but you to appreciate their depth. If you subject the definition of great gaming to human adversaries, then the issue is that you don't always find worthy opponents to play against, and the necessity to have people to play with. That's why great solo games never get old while MMORPGs and online games come and go and disappear forever. > Sadly rts appears to be a dying genre... Well RTS have been about micro-management for far too long, and that's just grinding when it lasts forever. There's not so much you can do about it unless you make the genre evolve, and it did not evolve much.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > You have a strange conception of gaming then, because your world of gaming has basically started only with online games. Chess. Go. Tag. Oh, sorry, games don't exist off the computer?
  - splawn 12y ago
    There is an idea floating around out there that boardgames are becoming more popular recently because of the social gap left behind when multi-player video games went online, removing the need to physically be in the same room as your friends.
    - saraid216 12y ago
      Seems plausible, though there's no way that's the only reason.
  - 12y ago
data_scientist 12y ago
Minecraft online also have all the properties you cite, and there are even more options, collectiond, and human interactions. Think about it: the other players can be adversary or allies, and that can change whenever you want.
protonfish 12y ago
I think you have described 4 separate types of games. Any game that tried to do more than one or two of those would probably just be a mess. I'd also say that adventure, action and multiplayer are all valid genres, but #3 just works its way into games like a disease that panders to our baser desires and turns games from a fun pastime into drudgery.
revscat 12y ago
I just erased a moderately long reply and am going to offer up as rebuttal a single title. Myst.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  To anyone approaching Myst for the first time, I suggest picking up Real Myst on Steam.
joshvm 12y ago
I think the issue is expectation. If you let people pick up loot, why can't I steal cups and pillows? The Elder Scrolls capitalised on this. Even if there's no ingame benefit to pinching a cushion, it's certainly possible. As long as the interaction is in line with the genre, no problem. In Mario, I don't expect there to be another route to the castle so I don't look for it. In Call of Duty I don't expect to be able to loot the corpses for money. However, if you raise expectations to the point where your audience thinks they can do anything, then they'll attempt things you never even considered. When they don't work, they get annoyed or frustrated and your game is now tarnished to them. Minecraft is so popular in part because the world is simple enough that you can do virtually anything, within reasonable expectation.

by jules 12y ago

Vektorweg 12y ago

I made a list about the properties a game should have: http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/58847/32928 http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/a/58847/32928

Vektorweg 12y ago

Actually, i don't like RTS much, because i often forget to do something important and quickly lose the game. It requires a good training in time and task management, which is a bit stressful. And the unit movement is often a micromanagement skirmish.

jules 12y ago
This I consider a positive. The skill gap between an average player and a good player is vastly higher in RTS than in other genres. A 10th percentile player usually has a basically negligible chance to win against the top player. A 20th percentile player has a negligible chance to win against a 10th percentile player, etc. I personally like the competition. If a game is not stressful that usually is just another way of saying that there is little skill involved. That is fine too, the point is to have fun after all. It's just a personal preference.
- Vektorweg 12y ago
  FPS can be really difficult too, but there is always some time between the challenging parts of the game. Just a moment to take a breath, which you don't have in a modern RTS. I think, FPS aren't stressful, but RTS are and FPS are still highly based on skill. RTS have more factors, making the game more random, because a human can't control all factors well. Therefore, less advanced players have better chances to win once.
  - jules 12y ago
    The second paragraph is not true at all. It is far more likely to get a lucky kill in a FPS than in a RTS. For example in Forged Alliance if 100 average players play against a top 10 player I'll bite my nose off if even one of them manages to win.
    - Vektorweg 12y ago
      Sorry, i counted in matches instead of turns. Of course, there is always a luck shot. But in a usual match with at least 5 turns, its extremely difficult to win for a less advanced player.
- DaFranker 12y ago
  >If a game is not stressful that usually is just another way of saying that there is little skill involved. For some definitions of "stress" and, most particularly, of "skill". I take rather great pride in my GMing skills when playing a tabletop RPG game, but if there's any amount of "stress¹" involved in the same sense that there is stress¹ when I play RTS games, then I'm definitely doing something wrong. Of course there's "stress²", but that's the tension and uncertainty in the events of the game I run, or the uncertainty relating to my players and what their reactions are going to be. So "skill" here can't be used as a scalar measure, and there's definitely no single one measure of "skill" across different game genres. Declaring a linear correlation between "skill" and "stress" seems rather premature and, IMO, detrimental to the discussion.

prawks 12y ago

Those are the 4 properties that make a strategy game great, which is completely fine. But you're kind of proposing that the best games are strategy games, which is like saying that oil is the best painting medium. Those aren't necessarily the same properties that can make a platformer, or narrative-driven adventure game great. Or a puzzle game. Or an FPS. And those games are great (Mario, Half-Life 2, the Monkey Island series). In the end, everyone has their own set of properties that make the artistic mediums they enjoy "the greatest", and the same applies to games.

ekianjo 12y ago

> Number 3: collection. You collect items or upgrades or in game currency that help you later. You mean you like hoarding? That's one of the most annoying parts of many games, managing endless inventories and collecting stuff for the purpose of having more. It distracts you from whatever goal the game might have. > Number 4: human adversaries. Playing against AI or against some in game metric (e.g. get X amount of people in your rollercoaster park) is not very fun. Playing against human opponents is much more fun because they are unpredictable and intelligent. Really ? You have a strange conception of gaming then, because your world of gaming has basically started only with online games. There's tons of great solo games out there that require absolutely no one else but you to appreciate their depth. If you subject the definition of great gaming to human adversaries, then the issue is that you don't always find worthy opponents to play against, and the necessity to have people to play with. That's why great solo games never get old while MMORPGs and online games come and go and disappear forever. > Sadly rts appears to be a dying genre... Well RTS have been about micro-management for far too long, and that's just grinding when it lasts forever. There's not so much you can do about it unless you make the genre evolve, and it did not evolve much.

saraid216 12y ago
> You have a strange conception of gaming then, because your world of gaming has basically started only with online games. Chess. Go. Tag. Oh, sorry, games don't exist off the computer?
- splawn 12y ago
  There is an idea floating around out there that boardgames are becoming more popular recently because of the social gap left behind when multi-player video games went online, removing the need to physically be in the same room as your friends.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    Seems plausible, though there's no way that's the only reason.
- 12y ago

data_scientist 12y ago

Minecraft online also have all the properties you cite, and there are even more options, collectiond, and human interactions. Think about it: the other players can be adversary or allies, and that can change whenever you want.

protonfish 12y ago

I think you have described 4 separate types of games. Any game that tried to do more than one or two of those would probably just be a mess. I'd also say that adventure, action and multiplayer are all valid genres, but #3 just works its way into games like a disease that panders to our baser desires and turns games from a fun pastime into drudgery.

revscat 12y ago

I just erased a moderately long reply and am going to offer up as rebuttal a single title. Myst.

nitrogen 12y ago
To anyone approaching Myst for the first time, I suggest picking up Real Myst on Steam.

joshvm 12y ago

I think the issue is expectation. If you let people pick up loot, why can't I steal cups and pillows? The Elder Scrolls capitalised on this. Even if there's no ingame benefit to pinching a cushion, it's certainly possible. As long as the interaction is in line with the genre, no problem. In Mario, I don't expect there to be another route to the castle so I don't look for it. In Call of Duty I don't expect to be able to loot the corpses for money. However, if you raise expectations to the point where your audience thinks they can do anything, then they'll attempt things you never even considered. When they don't work, they get annoyed or frustrated and your game is now tarnished to them. Minecraft is so popular in part because the world is simple enough that you can do virtually anything, within reasonable expectation.