What Should Game Mechanics Be Geared Towards?
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Balance? Atmosphere?</div> Being pretty much the main moderator in the Suggestions & Ideas forum (I'm starting to assume that I was a mass murderer in a past life...), I often stumble over posts stating that 'Game balance is more important than atmosphere.'
Now, I'm playing games because of the feelings they induce in me - because I like to be thrilled, suprised, challenged, and scared. To me, having fun with a game means being immersed in it.
I do therefore believe that a games mechanics have - while balancing is of course something to be considered - to be geared towards presenting a game experience that's as authentic and true to the envisioned atmosphere as possible.
This is, for example, why I hate hopping marines that much - they're the perfect tension breakers.
What do you think?
Now, I'm playing games because of the feelings they induce in me - because I like to be thrilled, suprised, challenged, and scared. To me, having fun with a game means being immersed in it.
I do therefore believe that a games mechanics have - while balancing is of course something to be considered - to be geared towards presenting a game experience that's as authentic and true to the envisioned atmosphere as possible.
This is, for example, why I hate hopping marines that much - they're the perfect tension breakers.
What do you think?
Comments
We play 3d first person shooters to be immersed. Thats why we don't play them top down with the sound off, but right there with sound everywhere. The motion is fluid, you don't hit the up button and move one square up. You are immersed, and that should come before whether or not it takes 12 or 13 shots to down a skulk with lvl 2 carapace.
That said though, I simply won't play a video game if the gameplay sucks or is non-existent. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I consider immersion more important. The only time balance matters is when it detracts from gameplay enough to override any immersion factor.
Example: Hitman 1 was plagued by guard dogs in the last few missions of the game -- they actually made me stop playing, even though I loved the immersion in every last one of the previous missions. Guard dogs in Hitman could "smell" who you really were regardless of what costume you were wearing, and bite you/attract attention accordingly. That makes sense, and adds to the immersion. In addition, you couldn't use the cleanest, best silent weapon against them (the fibre wire was intended for human necks, and hopping on the back of a German Shephard to try to strangle it would have been just plain silly), so the next best option was a silenced pistol (sneaking, especially in the docks mission that made me give up on the game, was not always an option). That makes sense. However, once you'd made a bloody mess of the pooch, you couldn't move the body to a hidden location like you could for dead/unconscious humans. This made no sense AND was "imbalance," and ruined the game for me.
Theif 1 (I haven't played 2) was similarly plagued by zombies. What's the point of a sneaking game that emphasizes hiding in shadows if you introduce a type of enemy that can see you regardless of darkness?
Immersion is far more important. Just make sure that if you do introduce something to one side that makes the other team far more likely to lose, make it a good enough addition that it lets the less-favored team still have <i>fun</i> in the process of losing--and feel extra-special when they do win.
I get wierd looks from the family, but what the hell, it's fun.
The point is, if a feature makes the game fun, then you are going to pay attention to it. If you pay enough attention, then soon enough, it's 6:15 in the morning, and you have to get ready for school/work.
I don't think that a feature should be discredited at all if it makes the game more enjoyable.
Ambience is a different topic, and is generally looked at as a shortcut to immersion. If you add enough dark corners and sounds, then people are going to pay attention, right? Well, yeah, sure, until they realize that 1/2 of the dark corners are uninhabited, and they know the exact location of the sound entity, when it plays, and that it means nothing. Leave ambience for the single player games. My favorite level would be an arena, if it were the most balanced and dynamic level there was, no offense, of course, to the skilled artists who bring us Hera and Eclipse.
A first person shooter is meant to be just that, a shooter. You play, you win, or you lose. Although style will be a deciding factor between 2 equally good plawise games, I play games that I can find fun, and basically it's a matter of personall opinion.
And, finally, in the immortal words of whoever said them first: gameplay>style.
I can't discard balance, because it is also important to the game to a certain degree, however there <b>is</b> such a thing as <i>overbalancing</i> a game and that makes it fun. Removing something spectacular to replace it with something mundane takes out the challenge of being able to take on the user or using such coveted equipment. Peeking in the S&I Forum is somewhat insane, seeing requests for Flamethrowers and Rocket Launchers. I shouldn't think I need to say more.
You CANT have immersion without balance
if a game is:
1)too hard
2)too simple
3)bad contol style
etc
you just can't get into the game, imagine if the marine resource bug (1.0) was still around, or if there was still no auto balance feature NS would blow.
This is why I think that game mechanics must be the first and primary goal in anything, if there are serious issues with any sort of game mechanics then immersion is imposible for me b/c I can't get my head out of RL and into the game.
@injury I also play large amounst of PnP (pen and paper) RPGs, now have you ever tried playing early editions of D&D or shadowrun, the game mechanics were just silly, you had 2 choices, fix em or ignore em so that you could get into the game.
basicaly what I am saying is that game mechanics are only more important b/c I think they are a key part of immersion ;D
With each game you need to balance the atmosphere and mechanics to get the optimal amount of FUN. Its a give and take thing that's gonna be different for every game.
Using AD&D as an example, there are times when fighting is unfeasible and your party most likely should run away, because you are completely outmatched and have the slimmest chance of winning. Would you fight and get annihilated or possibly win or just run away? When you really get involved with a game, it really doesn't matter how hard anything is, the point is to have fun. But some people can't have fun without a massive dose of balancing and that's their personal preference, I have no objections. I have my own.
With each game you need to balance the atmosphere and mechanics to get the optimal amount of FUN. Its a give and take thing that's gonna be different for every game. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
I think its a toss up between immersion and realism. Sometimes realism isnt nessesary for immersion. You have to test and try and see what works.
This has not much to do with the conversation but hey:
I think one very important thing in any game is making sure hitboxes are done right because if they aren't it can be VERY frustration for the player. I've played a few games that were fun but because the hitboxes were al screwing it just ruined it for me.
Oh, I think you slightly missed my idea
I admit there are times when you should LOOSE battles (plot hooks are your friends) however if battle take 12 hours just for each person to swing his sword (ok over exageration) however the game will not be fun
as for realism, never 'needed'
When I see all the skulks with cara rushing and taking out a squad of marines, I cry because skulks (from reading the NS manual) are the hunters in the shadows.
Best game I had was when Terrans were struggling for an hour and a half, constantly facing waves of Fades and with HA/HMG/Welder able to push forward, cap Cargo bay *for the third time in 30 minutes* and then get pushed back to the base because of a sneaky skulk. If you can enjoy it it's funner then if you can't.
my ii cents
BTW, Nemesis has to have the worst karma if there ever was such a thing. Mass murderer big time.
If there was a bug in a game that made is so that, oh lets say aliens could become marines, would you be able to be imursed?
If you had a game that, though most of the game was decently chalenging, the final boss took 2 hits to kill though he was suposed to be god (I refer to final fantasy legends in wich the saw could kill the final boss in 1 shot if it it, which was not to hard), could you still be imersed
If the game was designed so that if one team wins a round it is nearly impossible for the other team to ever make a comeback, could you still be imersed?
basicaly what I am trying to point out is that with out balance/working you will be distracted from the actual game and thus no longer be imersed.
meh what ever
If there was a bug in a game that made is so that, oh lets say aliens could become marines, would you be able to be imursed?
If you had a game that, though most of the game was decently chalenging, the final boss took 2 hits to kill though he was suposed to be god (I refer to final fantasy legends in wich the saw could kill the final boss in 1 shot if it it, which was not to hard), could you still be imersed
If the game was designed so that if one team wins a round it is nearly impossible for the other team to ever make a comeback, could you still be imersed?
basicaly what I am trying to point out is that with out balance/working you will be distracted from the actual game and thus no longer be imersed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No you wouldn't, but were talking about atmosphere, and being impossible would be a terrible atmosphere where you can hardly get into the game because your constantly getting killed etc. You follow me? So by having a good balance its easy to get into the game, thus a good atmosphere. We're not talking perfect balance where the 2 teams are almost identical, then its boring and lacks atmosphere. You understand?