Game Theory 101
Nil_IQ
Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15520Members
<div class="IPBDescription">What makes a good game?</div> This <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=67286' target='_blank'>thread</a> (more specifically page 5) inspired me to create a new topic in discussion, as I have a feeling this could become a little "heated".
What makes a good game? Many people would suggest difficulty, e.g Ninja Gaiden, but a frustratingly hard game is no fun to play. I personally don't mind a game being genuinely <i>hard</i> as long as it's the GAME that is causing me difficulty, not some obscure bug, stupid physics glitch, or unfair/poorly thought out feature, e.g "OMG I WAS 2 FEET FROM THE SAVE POINT" or "I WAS ON THE GROUND AND HE HIT ME AS I WAS GETTING UP, THIS IS BS!!!!11ONE".
Others might argue that a game's difficulty is irrelevant, and how well the game tells a story is more important, e.g, pretty much any FF game (this is not a thread about how much FF-enter-number-here sucked, just agree with me). While I would agree with this to some extent, a game with too much story and not enough action can be dull at times, e.g, MGS2 (did ANYONE sit through that 20-minute codec conversation near the end?).
Others cite factors such as realism, depth, replay value, and value for money (it could be argued are one and the same), but overall I think it's pretty much down the the individual.
Example; I completed PoP Sands of Time recently. I found it to be a great game, but fatally flawed by it's lack of difficulty and length. If I'm going to pay ?40 for a game, I want to get a fair amount of use out of it, which is why recently i've been playing planetside. Hour-for-hour i'm paying way less than for prince of persia, although it would be unfair to try and compare the two since they're completely different formats.
Sure, PoP was fun, especially the fights, but they weren't HARD. PoP has one of the best combat engines i've ever seen; you can block on the ground, eliminating the "OMG NO FAIR" factor, and you can switch between opponents smoothly and rapidly, thus eliminating the "OMG STOP HITTING THAT GUY HIT THE BOSS YOU STUPID CHARACTER *bashing buttons frantically*" situation.
I <i>did</i> feel the story was good, I <i>did</i> feel it was fun, but in the end completing the game seemed pretty empty.
I would like to contast this with Ninja Gaiden, but not being an X-Box owner I wouldn't know. From what i've heard, the difficulty makes it worth playing. For the first few hours of enter the matrix I felt the same way; I was getting beaten but I didn't care because it meant I got to do it again! Yes, I am one of the few who thought ETM was actually not that horrible, apart from the AI on the driving missions.
So what do YOU think makes a good game (I suddenly get the feeling someone is going to respond with "A fully immersive experience)? Feel free to quote examples of games to argue your case, and also feel free to invent your own little "laws-of-gaming".
For example; Nil_IQ's first law of gaming:
Any sequel made using the same engine as the original (or an only minimally modified version of the engine) will ALWAYS re-cycle parts of the original game to the point where it is painfully obvious. Coders are lazy.
Examples of this law in action: Bauldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale I/II (all built off the BG engine) and most recently FFX-2. Yeah, the "Princept's guard" from X-2 doesn't look anything LIKE the "Spectral Keeper" from FFX. And he definately doesn't look exactly-the-freaking-same and almost comically out of place seeing as it's body is actually passing through the FLOOR in X-2. Re-using Bosses sucks hard.
O.k so I rambled. Feel free to make up your own laws (i'm sure i'll think of more myself), and tell me what YOU think makes a good game. And don't just say "all of the above", there must be one defining feature you look for in a game.
What makes a good game? Many people would suggest difficulty, e.g Ninja Gaiden, but a frustratingly hard game is no fun to play. I personally don't mind a game being genuinely <i>hard</i> as long as it's the GAME that is causing me difficulty, not some obscure bug, stupid physics glitch, or unfair/poorly thought out feature, e.g "OMG I WAS 2 FEET FROM THE SAVE POINT" or "I WAS ON THE GROUND AND HE HIT ME AS I WAS GETTING UP, THIS IS BS!!!!11ONE".
Others might argue that a game's difficulty is irrelevant, and how well the game tells a story is more important, e.g, pretty much any FF game (this is not a thread about how much FF-enter-number-here sucked, just agree with me). While I would agree with this to some extent, a game with too much story and not enough action can be dull at times, e.g, MGS2 (did ANYONE sit through that 20-minute codec conversation near the end?).
Others cite factors such as realism, depth, replay value, and value for money (it could be argued are one and the same), but overall I think it's pretty much down the the individual.
Example; I completed PoP Sands of Time recently. I found it to be a great game, but fatally flawed by it's lack of difficulty and length. If I'm going to pay ?40 for a game, I want to get a fair amount of use out of it, which is why recently i've been playing planetside. Hour-for-hour i'm paying way less than for prince of persia, although it would be unfair to try and compare the two since they're completely different formats.
Sure, PoP was fun, especially the fights, but they weren't HARD. PoP has one of the best combat engines i've ever seen; you can block on the ground, eliminating the "OMG NO FAIR" factor, and you can switch between opponents smoothly and rapidly, thus eliminating the "OMG STOP HITTING THAT GUY HIT THE BOSS YOU STUPID CHARACTER *bashing buttons frantically*" situation.
I <i>did</i> feel the story was good, I <i>did</i> feel it was fun, but in the end completing the game seemed pretty empty.
I would like to contast this with Ninja Gaiden, but not being an X-Box owner I wouldn't know. From what i've heard, the difficulty makes it worth playing. For the first few hours of enter the matrix I felt the same way; I was getting beaten but I didn't care because it meant I got to do it again! Yes, I am one of the few who thought ETM was actually not that horrible, apart from the AI on the driving missions.
So what do YOU think makes a good game (I suddenly get the feeling someone is going to respond with "A fully immersive experience)? Feel free to quote examples of games to argue your case, and also feel free to invent your own little "laws-of-gaming".
For example; Nil_IQ's first law of gaming:
Any sequel made using the same engine as the original (or an only minimally modified version of the engine) will ALWAYS re-cycle parts of the original game to the point where it is painfully obvious. Coders are lazy.
Examples of this law in action: Bauldur's Gate II, Icewind Dale I/II (all built off the BG engine) and most recently FFX-2. Yeah, the "Princept's guard" from X-2 doesn't look anything LIKE the "Spectral Keeper" from FFX. And he definately doesn't look exactly-the-freaking-same and almost comically out of place seeing as it's body is actually passing through the FLOOR in X-2. Re-using Bosses sucks hard.
O.k so I rambled. Feel free to make up your own laws (i'm sure i'll think of more myself), and tell me what YOU think makes a good game. And don't just say "all of the above", there must be one defining feature you look for in a game.
Comments
--
[...]
How then, should one entertain ones audience? My answer, my premise to the design of a game, is this:
<i>The best way of providing entertainment to a player is to make him experience an adventure while playing.</i>
What does one remember about any given game? That time when I shot a guy, and another guy, and the guy who popped up when the other two had hit the floor, and one more, and one after that, and then my HP hit zero and I had to quickload? Or the time when I had only four bullets left and was kept alive by a few funny looking pills; suddenly, I heard a door creak, spun around and emptied my clip, only to find that I had put the lead in the doorframe while the cat that had bumped into the door sped away - but now, I heard voices asking each other about the noise of my gun; I ran for it?
Any given situation of a game should bear the potential of developing into a memorable experience. A player will feel the most satisfied - and thus motivated - by a gamescene if it allowed him to take part in the games world and experience a situation that could have occured in a play, movie, or novel of a similiar setting.
This is in my opinion the secret behind any good game: From the textbased <i>adventures</i> of the first days of gaming over the struggle between Link and Ganon or the 'lone stranger' stories of the 'Fallout' games to the adventures of Max Payne, Gordon Freeman, or JC Denton, we cherish those games that offer the player memorable and interesting experiences. Even multiplayer games or not plotdriven singleplayer games are at their best when they become background to 'small stories': We forget the two hundred rounds of Counter Strike that are decided by an AWP, but we remember when the lone guy with the empty USP managed to defuse the bomb. Sportsgames do even supply replay functionality for their small stories - such as virtually impossible passes or impressive and unexpected maneuvers.
The wide scope I'm applying to the word 'adventure' makes a definition necessarily unspecific. This is in the very nature of the device: A memorable experience is not a simple assembly of conditions that, if met, will make the player like the game, on the contrary; surprise and unpredictability are often fundamental to the experience. For now, I'd simply like to define an 'adventure' as 'any kind of situation that immerses the player so far that he is willing to take the games world as given and takes the happenings within this frame serious'. An adventure is thus not bound to any scale, genre, or degree of action: A suspenseful but encounterless walk through the manor in 'Clive Barkers Undying' can be as immersive as an intense level in 'Max Payne 2', can be as immersive as a whole match in 'NBA 2003', can be as immersive as the exchange of two bullets in 'Counter Strike'.
In the ideal case, a game would consist of an assembly of adventures of different sizes: The whole of a roleplaying games plot, for example, would be an adventure consisting of a number of smaller interconnected adventures called subplots, chapters, or quests, consisting of an indefinetely stretchable chain of smaller and smaller interconnected adventures down to single short scenes such as enemy encounters, dialogues, or simple movement through the games world.
[...]
--
Following that definition, I'll consider any game good that made me live through a number of sufficiently immersing experiences - as I pointed out in the earlier thread, game length is neglectable to me; I felt that SoT was more than worth its money.
I think you hit the nail right on the head there Nem.
Taking Planetside as an example; no-one remembers the time they ran out of base straight into a landmine. The times I remember are the ones like the time we did a galaxy drop whilst playing "Ride of the Valkyries", or the beautiful 15-minute, 8-person last-stand on top of an air tower in which I personally killed 8 guys and was the last to die.
Both of these examples are stories; your counter-strike exaple probably says it best. People want to be involved in the story which makes for an (ironically) "fully immersive experience".
I'm going to play planetside now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Erm... Well, EA also published a number of really good WW2 singleplayer games (not that I'd play a game based on the war, but they got pretty much prime grades for their narratives throughout the press). Your actual example for a 'no-brainer' game, UT2K3, wasn't published by EA, but by Atari.
It's also important to note that DX & co. did actually sell pretty damn well. That they were financial losses is a common myth based on the assumption that 'smart stuff won't sell', when in fact, it does.
--
Thanks for the flowers, Nil <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I think you hit the nail right on the head there Nem.
Taking Planetside as an example; no-one remembers the time they ran out of base straight into a landmine. The times I remember are the ones like the time we did a galaxy drop whilst playing "Ride of the Valkyries", or the beautiful 15-minute, 8-person last-stand on top of an air tower in which I personally killed 8 guys and was the last to die.
Both of these examples are stories; your counter-strike exaple probably says it best. People want to be involved in the story which makes for an (ironically) "fully immersive experience".
I'm going to play planetside now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Having played Planetside for two months, I can say I felt the same way, but you always must remember that people will remember what's WRONG with the game more then they'll remember what's RIGHT about it. Ask someone who played Planetside what they think: They'll tell you about some cool moments, but then they'll go on and on about what a damn CHORE the stupid game is to play. Same for Deus Ex. Oh it has a great story, interactive single player, and non-linear flow of play, but they'll be able to tell you all the bugs, all the exploits, and all the little flaws with it.
Erm... Well, EA also published a number of really good WW2 singleplayer games (not that I'd play a game based on the war, but they got pretty much prime grades for their narratives throughout the press). Your actual example for a 'no-brainer' game, UT2K3, wasn't published by EA, but by Atari.
It's also important to note that DX & co. did actually sell pretty damn well. That they were financial losses is a common myth based on the assumption that 'smart stuff won't sell', when in fact, it does.
--
Thanks for the flowers, Nil <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never meant, nor should you have assumed, that EA games made Ut2k3/4, I know they didn't. But look at The Sims. Okay, a neat game. But seriously, 8 or so expansion packs that just feature stuff you can download on the internet for free?
What else.
How about their big seller: Battlefield 1942. It had all the MAKINGS of a good game, but in the end, it was stupid, because it was made for people that didn't want to actually think. There was little teamwork required, games were usually based around who could get the highest kills then who could actually, you know, help the team the most. I saw a review that gave decent props to BF42, but in the end, they said it felt too 'deathmatchy'. Join any random pub of BF42 or BFV and you'll see who that attracted: People fling racial slurs left and right, TK everything in sight, whine, and cry. NS pubs aren't like that. Splinter Cell Pandora pubs aren't like that. But CS servers, UT2k4 servers, and BF servers ARE. What do those games have in common? NO learning curve, mindless fragging, and nothing that actually takes thought...
Example 1: Final Fantasy 8. Do I remember the probably 8 hours in total I spent levelling? Nope. Do I remember the landing at Dollet, or the Battle of the Gardens? Hell yeah.
Example 2: C&C generals; do I remember crushing random tank #572 with my Commanches? Nope. Do I remember jacking an entire armour column as GLA? Hell yeah. Small story right there.
Example 3: Call-of-Duty, about half of the missions are small-stories in themselves. Pegasus Bridge, the car chase, Red Square, you get the idea.
There are some exceptions to this rule; I don't remember any one fight in PoP or Devil May Cry that stood out (o.k maybe the Angelo fights), but I know both games were good.
I think you shoud call this "Nem0's small-story theorem" and submit it to the international board of games research. If it doesn't exist, found it!
I think that in order to have one of these "adventures" you have to believe you are prevailing against near impossible odds. And not just near impossible in real life, it has to seem like the event is unlikely in the game as well. Although some games seem to ignore this law and proceed to keep immersion with scripted events (Half-Life) or a sitiuation that is not neccessarily intense (Morrowind), So I'm probably wrong.
I can agree that memorable moments make a great/good game, but what makes a memorable moment in a game?
As I said before in the other thread, what makes a game fun is it's difficulity (sense of acheivement, without it, the game feels empty, and a waste), and of course, a fantastic enviroment (graphics, exploration, sound, etc. etc. etc. ).
To put it in your terms from my terms, however, would mean that I classify these specifications from making a game fun, to making the game memorable. Does this clear anything up?
Difficulty and enviroment make memorable moments. Too much of one and not enough of the other ends up with a poor game.
It's like a ratio. People may prefer different scales of these ratios, however.
I myself, would tolerate say something along the lines of 70% difficulty and 30% enviroment, and 50% difficulty and 50% enviroment. Increasing enviroment for makes a dull game. I like the skill because yes I play competetively and for the challenge of winning. That is important to me.
On the other hand, nem0, you say that you are a not the biggest fan of overly difficult games, so say you would take something along the lines of 40% difficulty and 60% enviroment on one extreme, and 60% difficulty and 40% enviroment on the other. But any other ratio's you would probably dislike.
Keep in mind, my ratio's do not mean great games can have crappy execution; of course in all of my examples flawless execution is already included. (Great graphics, cleverly designed bosses, good AI)
As a game developer, you would feel pressured to be as close to 50/50 as possible, in order to appeal to as many types of gamers as possible.
However, this is not entirely true. Popular games such as "The Sims" is almost entirely enviroment, I'd say it's ratio is something like 5/95.
On the other hand, I have seen some games which appeal mostly to skill based side of things. Case in point - almost every FPS in existance. Most FPS start with around 70% difficulty, and 30% enviroment. Of course, the enviroments of most FPS are VERY important, and the future of FPS are looking very promosing indeed, as next generation technology is allowing the enviroments to become truely engrossing. Of course, if it's just gonna be a pretty game these next generation FPS's are gonna fail, but we will see.
Anyhow I hope I could clarify by what I originally meant by game theory 101 in the other thread posted.
Any sequel made using the same engine as the original (or an only minimally modified version of the engine) will ALWAYS re-cycle parts of the original game to the point where it is painfully obvious. Coders are lazy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, I'm not quite catching what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that Thief 2 or BG 2 are somehow worse, because they are similiar to their older counter parts? In my humble opinion, both of those games are better than the first versions, and both of the games are just enough different, to make me able to enjoy both version 1 and 2.
On the matter of multi vs. singleplay, I think I'm standing behind a well made singleplayer game. Sure, they both have their good and bad moments, but a long and well made singleplayer campaign with a touching plot, always beats playing over net. Singleplaying game, if done right, has no flaws. You can always come back and feel like being the master thief Garret or the spawn of Bhaal or Cutter Slade saving the world again. You just need several games. When you've finished the last of you 10, great and long singleplaying games, you feel like playing the first one again.
While playing over the net, with people, you surely have your moments. It's fun every now and then, but the weakest link of multiplay is also its supporting force: people. They can make and also effectively break the game. With singleplayer, this problem just doesn't exist, and even less so while AI is getting constantly better and better. I dare to claim, that even now we have bots that can fully replace other people on mp deathmatches. Also, when game designers are making a multiplaying game, they have to concentrate on it just working and being balanced. Hence most of the multiplaying games are just shooting with a twist: you are shooting humans. On singleplaying games, designers can use their full resources to make an immersive world for you. Just you.
If you can get over the part that you are actually shooting AI opponents instead of other people on their computers, sp will win mp hands down.
Any sequel made using the same engine as the original (or an only minimally modified version of the engine) will ALWAYS re-cycle parts of the original game to the point where it is painfully obvious. Coders are lazy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, I'm not quite catching what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that Thief 2 or BG 2 are somehow worse, because they are similiar to their older counter parts? In my humble opinion, both of those games are better than the first versions, and both of the games are just enough different, to make me able to enjoy both version 1 and 2. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O.k, I guess this was a bad "first law" since yes, BG2 is way better than the first.
Another theory I noticed in action is the "inherent capturability theorem", if a game features a main character, they have a 90% probability to get captured at some point in the game.
Examples? Oooooh, Half-Life, SiN, Deus Ex, Fire Warrior, Baulder's Gate, Baulder's Gate 2, Final Fantasy 7, Final fantasy 8, Final Fantasy 10 (I can't speak for 9 having not played it), Elite force and Duke Nukem 3D to name the ones which spring instantly to mind. *edit* And Goldeneye, and Ocarina of time <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> *edit*
There is also the "badguy aim crapification theorem" which states that all bad guys must be incapable of hitting a barn from 40 paces. This phenomena can also be witnessed in many action movies, most notably bond films.
One thing though is multiplay gaming... the draw is that it's a shared experience and that people are infinitely less predictable than AI no matter how hard you try ^^
While I see where Dread comes from, perhaps the flaws lie not in the division between SP and MP but rather in the implementation of MP. Most MP aren't really plot driven so while they provide competition or memorable experiences they don't have the uniqueness of a full blow, plot driven, adventure.
Diablo, Phantasy Star Online and the last patched version of System Shock 2 break the mould somewhat on this one however. The problem in these games is that the premise perhaps isn't taken far enough. While Singleplayers often end up being one play then you never go back, multiplayer is based more around replay to continue the social atmosphere. Therefore to really work the story-bound MPs would need to have a slow but constant in-flow of new adventures and experiences of reasonable quality =o
That's my take on it at least.
While playing a roguelike game called dungeon crawl, i stumbled upon a horde of orcs at dungeon level 3 as a Demonspawn Air Elementalist. I was so shocked i sat back in my chair and nearly sh*t myself because once you die in a roguelike you often dont come back... never the less i knew that demonspawns = faster then orcs so i was able to outrun them and all the while blasting them with electricity (dont ask me why, but somehow air = electricity in dungeon crawl) and i eventually killed them all off gaining lots of levels in the process.
The levels are randomly generated with random sorts of items placed throughout the levels, so i NEVER know what i can expect when i have "one level left to go" in the dungeon. scrolls and potions have randomized names, so i never know what i'm reading and drinking until it's too late. items are randomly spread throughout the dungeon levels with random effects anywhere from "freezing" to a "cursed -9" and some enemies can pull out skills and pickup items and USE them, as well, so you NEVER know what's going to happen...
Though the story is shallow with a "go through the dungeon, get 3 runes, get the orb of Zot by placing the runes in a door, escape" sort of plot, it's still fun to freeze jellies in the slime pit or mutate by eating something wierd in the swamp...
You just simply never know what will happen next; just like in real life. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oops! I can't. You all make good points (except EEK - UT2K3/4 for idiots? Try harder), I agree with most of them but I'm unable to pin down what makes me play a certain game for hours on end. I almost went with 'any game that relies on a storyline is a failure by default' - after all, if I wanted a plot, I'd rent a movie. Wario Ware is an overlooked gem for providing unrivalled, quick fire amusement for hours on end. No story there, right? Of course, most games aren't dependent on their plot, and so aren't applicable to this radical idea. However, sadly, I can't back this (excellent!) principle up, as games like the Lucasarts adventures and Skies of Arcadia are far too brilliant to consign to mediocrity. I'd hardly class them as 'games,' but hey, who cares? They're fun!
Wait! No, I can back that up! I'd infinitely prefer those games if they were films! Self running! Autonomous! Just play the script back to me, thanks, that'll do nicely!
Note: remember, this obviously doesn't mean games that <i>include</i> stories - only ones that rely on them. Most RPGs and adventure games, I suppose. Shenmue breaks the rule as exploration is always its number one concern, so it's more interactive and therefore perfect for game-oh.
You poor little man. I'm praying for your salvation.
There is also the "badguy aim crapification theorem" which states that all bad guys must be incapable of hitting a barn from 40 paces. This phenomena can also be witnessed in many action movies, most notably bond films. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try playing Operation: Flashpoint
The infantry will often shoot you from 400-600 meters away and the tanks will shoot you from over a kilometer away
You know... Almost half the people i know that play UT2k4 say that the bots are hella funner then playing the people.
I take it back, EEK. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What makes a good game?
The obvious answer is what a person is looking for. I'm not talking about genres either, I'm talking about the aim of the game. I'm been trying to come up with a classification scheme for these games types, and as I see it, there are three main categories:
1. <b>The Beefing Game</b>, also related to this game type is the <b>Collecting Game</b>. Like the name sake, all you do is power-up (Diablo), or collect crap (Pokemon). It's a relatively shallow experience and described in words, one wonders what in the hell can be so fun about it, but when you actually give it shot, it can be quite addicting. Back in elementary school, I got hooked on Simcity 2000. Obviously, an apthetic oberserver would think, "Build cities, Big deal." But one of the things that kept me addicted was seeing the special commercial buildings pop up. I played to "collect" these new types of cities. I also played because I wanted a super-sized city "beefing", I can understand that there may also be some artistic merit to this game as well, but that's not really what I played it for.
Come to think of it, most games employ the "collection" scheme to a certain degree, even though that's not main point. For example, with Planescape: Torment, a game that is focused on the story, you can't help but wonder what the next kickass spell will look like, or playing Castlevania: SOTN again just to see the Sword Familiar in action (missed it, damn! In fact, all my familiars were barely leveled up, so I didn't get to see any of their special moves - which is what faintly draws me back to the game).
2. <b>The Challenging Game</b>.
StinkoMan: <b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>DO YOU WANT A CHALLENGE?!?!?!?!</span></b>
These types of games are fun in that you feel you've accomplished a difficult task of some sort, and it feels great when you do. It can be as basic as beating your sister's score in Tetris and games of Solitare, to things of more complexity such as Super Punch Out!
For single player games, it's a great experience when you first accomplish this feat, but unfortunately, these sort of games do not have as great a replay value as Beefing/Collecting games. The only way to extend these types of games come in the form of high-scores (points or time).
However, when applied to the multiplayer scheme, this opens up numerous new opportunities, with new opponents and new challenges. Still, the element of a "challenge" may become lost in such games as well, eventually degrading into the same issue of score - "I HAVE MORE KILLS THAN YOU <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->".
Now that I think about it, obtaining a higher score is just a different form of "beefing". What's extremely irritating is when they intertwine the element of score with collecting, (i.e., finish such and such game within a certain period of time/score to receive such and such item/cutscene... those SOBs know how to keep a scmuck addicted)
3. <b>Game of Experience</b> - Well, we most associate this with adventure games, though Nem put it nicely in showing that this element can be found in multiplayer fragfests as well. The only thing though is that with singleplayer "experience" games, you're more likely to really experience something new, rather than the monotonous fragfest, which may or may not be dotted with some hilarious/satisfying moment.
Good games of experience are just what they are, you experience something cool, a cutscene, an amusing dialogue; it's no different than reading a good book/watching a movie. They also have the potential of being more meaningful than the previous two game types. The biggest disadvantage to such games is the simple problem of replay value. Generally, I don't feel any large reason to buy fiction books when you can just borrow them from the library. You've read it once, you know the experience, reading it again won't have the same effect. Perhaps this is why adventure games suffer greatly. I can only recall two solutions to extend the life of such games, (though none of these elements have yet been extensively implemented into the adventure genre):
a. Offer so many choices/decisions/secrets in the game that there is no way a player can experience all of it in one go. Planescape: Torment did an excellent job with this. However, it had the advantage of just telling the story with text. In adventure games today, voice acting is basically mandatory. Can you imagine the file size of applying voice acting to ALL the text in PS:T. Not going to happen any time soon.
b. Create a hybrid game. Three words: <a href='http://sc2.sourceforge.net/' target='_blank'>Star Control II</a>. This game was simply... amazing. It too had the many choices/decisions/secrets element weaved in, "WHERE THE **** DO I FIND THE BLACK SPATHI SQUADRON?!?!?" But I have to say that back when I was in elementary school, (before I would of been able to comprehend the story in SC2) my favourite game was SC2 Melee - damn it was fun blowing up all the different types of ships. Heck, they've updated the game NOW (more than 10 years later) to allow multiplayer. How about that! Yes, it is a shallow approach to extend the game, but hey, it gets the job done.
I realize there's a lot of flaws in this categorization theme, but that's just my 2 cents for now.
You know... Almost half the people i know that play UT2k4 say that the bots are hella funner then playing the people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the rest play against people only because they get their fixes for thinking that they killed something that actually cares. And insulting humans is presumably more satisfying than insulting bots <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The abillity to improve yourself is also VERY important for MP games, if the game just feels so random that you don't think it is possible for you to improve your skills in this game it is no longer amusing.
Suspension is something which is also much appreciated, you might just be sneaking around alone but there may allways be someone waiting for you in a dark corner or sneaking up from behind. This is one of the more interesting elements of CS and NS(probably applies more to NS).´
The feeling that you have something too lose(unfortunately, in CS this is to wait until the next round if you die which can be rather frustrating) is quite important for keeping the adrenaline levels up. If you can just respawn instantly and not have lost anything it feels less motivating to win.
One of the big reasons NS players mostly disslike CS players might be the exhilaration when team work really really pays off and you manage to work togheter without a hitch even though your a bunch of random people with different nationalities that never met or spoke to eachother.(a rare but very possible scenario in CS. I distinctly remember beeing part of a team of 16 CTs on a full 32 player server playing cs_estate and the CTs had lost several rounds in a row and someone came up with the suggestion of just rushing the front door. So the
entire team mostly bought shotguns and mp5's and just poured through the front door at once and managed to completely demolish the Ts with barely any loses on cs_estate. This was one of those moments you have to suffer a serious head injury to forget).
I think the ratio is supposed to represent which is more noticable. So while the lift battle in PoP did technically have a good environment, I'll remember it more because of its difficulty - whereas I'll remember the end boss more for the environment, because he certainly wasn't hard. :/
as for 'what people want' our course actually had a module dedicated to this stuff... it's kinda interesting really. I can't find the notes but I'll just throw out what I remember ^^
People have 6 'needs' or 'wants'. These vary in levels in each person but they often effect the enjoyment of our activities. These are competition, challenge, fantasy (better classed perhaps as escape), socialising, control and adventure (exploration if you like).
Competition is inherent in games like Deathmatch types or the ever-present counterstrike, though Teamdeath matches also inherit parts of socialising. The main drive of competition is to prove yourself or just 'be the best'. Though it's most evident in males, females also have this in personally varying degrees ^^
Challenge is somewhat like Competition though the aim is more the betterment of yourself or merely breaking barriers. The two traits are often combined in such elements like high-score based games. Alone, challenge is more evident in things like the challenges in perfect dark or many 'old skool' single player games, or even trying to beat your own personal best =3
Fantasy is essentially escapism. Life's great and all but to some degree or another everyone likes a vacation from reality... the chance to be something or someone else or be somewhere else. MMORPGs somewhat allow this particular need but it's evident in just about all games to some degree; the ones that focus on it are the ones that perhaps allow more freedom to 'live' in the world than anything =P
Socialising is pretty self-evident; it's the drive behind multiplayer gaming for many people. Socialising sub-divides a lot however, but at it's purest it's probably seen in cooperative games or 'gathering' games such as MMORPGs where a lot of time is spent interacting with the other players and communicating.
Control is an odd one as far as I'm concerned; it's the thing that appeals to the control-freak in all of us. Things like sims and god-games massage this part of our ego; the game where you are free to do meddle with things as you see fit without too much fear of things getting out of control unless you really let it. Supposedly this appeals to older gamers more, though like every other trait it's present in everyone regardless though to varying levels.
Adventure is perhaps a subset of fantasy, but I'll describe it seperately as it is somewhat different. Adventure is the food for your curiousity. That niggling part of you that always wants to explore. Rather than escapism adventure/exploring is more about seeing new things than getting away from the old.
That's really rough and i probably got parts wrong but I think it's a sorta half-decent summary. Few other notes that were the 'levels' of said traits not only seemed to change slightly based on age and gender but also culture!
Western gamers are more likely to have higher competitive drive while eastern tended more towards challenge =o
Anyway:
<b>Pulse</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The short stories that nem is talking about simply cannot work if the event is supposed to happen. Call of Duty failed here, because everything was scripted to hell and back. I can definitely remember the time my Warthog flipped over and crushed two Covenant elites, or the time my team successfully defended against a jp rush and went on to win the game in NS 1.04 better than I can remember defending pegasus bridge against a zillion germans who all came from the same 4 or 5 spawn points and ran to the same places over and over and over for 10 minutes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your description of the problem you have with scripted sequences makes me assume that you are not so much bothered by pre-programmed sequences in your game, but instead repetitions created by badly done scripting. I'll agree that repetition, and the inevitably following predictability of the games happenings, are the quite possibly most severe danger of game design, because a game will just not be memorable if I know what's going to happen, or, even worse, if I already lived through the same or marginally different situation for multiple times.
Interestingly, I'd argue that the problem is bigger for big parts of the multiplayer games: While the human factor will make exact repetitions unlikely, most such games reduce themselves to certain standard situations that will essentially decide upon the matches outcome and which the player will <i>have</i> to be able to predict to have any kind of success.
This is one of the reasons I like NS, by the way: While it's forced into the same pattern of standard situations, there are at least so many so diverse of them that it kind of alleviates the predictability of the next move.
<b>Maveric</b> basically offered a very good example for what I've just been describing: Dungeon crawl seems to be based on the avoidance of repetitive situations.
<b>Forlorn:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Memorable times are nice and all, but it just dances around the meat of the subject matter.
I can agree that memorable moments make a great/good game, but what makes a memorable moment in a game?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, as I said, I'm working on a little something <i>bigger</i> <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I said before in the other thread, what makes a game fun is it's difficulity (sense of acheivement, without it, the game feels empty, and a waste), and of course, a fantastic enviroment (graphics, exploration, sound, etc. etc. etc. ).
To put it in your terms from my terms, however, would mean that I classify these specifications from making a game fun, to making the game memorable. Does this clear anything up?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does, but I'm sorry to say that I still can't agree with your assertions.
You basically took your favorite device of game design, challenge, and put it into one category, and took the <i>whole</i> of the other devices, be they based on gameplay, narrative, or presentation, and put them into a second, equally important category. See what I'm getting at?
Challenge is one of a vast number of devices, and it is, in my opinion, a very dangerous one as it basically opens the door to repetitions: Even the most intriguing game scene will lose its appeal if I'm forced to play through it for multiple times. If a designer is to include challenges into his/her game, an endeavour I'm not opposed to as I can see the merits of the sense of achievement a player gets from mastering challenges, saftey measures have to be included. An initial failure must not force the player into the old fashioned quicksave-quickload routine (similiar can be said about MP games, but let's don't complicate the picture needlessly).
As an example, let's say that the designer plans on offering a truly challenging boss fight. From the outset, it's clear that the player will get his backside kicked the first time. In that case, and there's numerous such throughout the history of gaming, the designer has to include a 'safety net' that allows the player to continue without of breaking the games flow. Say, the hero gets captured and has to work himself through a miniquest to face the boss yet again, or a cutscene is included after which the player gets a second chance. The sense of achievement you put such great value on prevails, but repetitions are being avoided.
<b>On the topic of SP and MP:</b>
We should keep in mind that multiplayer as we experience it today is the significantly younger of both gamestyles, and that a large part of multiplayer gaming shouldn't be considered a game in the same sense most SPs are thought of, but a sport. I elaborated on the distinction in the originial thread.
In any case, we see the advent and implementation of more difficile, less 'in your face' gameplay elements in multiplayer: Natural Selection is such an example, PSO, which Gem tends to cite on every possible or impossible opportunity (<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), seems to be such an example, and Pandora Tomorrow is also such an example: Multiplayer gaming has just entered its first not mainly technology based era of development: Multiplayer games are no longer valued alone after the amounts of weapons, gamemodes, maps, and maxplayers included, they are starting to differentiate themselves into formats more fit for memorable experiences - take the 'goodbye whistles' in Pandora Tomorrow. In so far, I'd suggest to keep a keen eye on the immediate future of multiplayer gaming. Well possible that my evaluation of it being 'repetitous' will soon be incorrect.
There's an abundance of other interesting points to pick up on, but I doubt anyone will read everything I typed already, so I'll save the rest for another day.
The controls have to be moderately simple, and either customizable, intuitive, or explained well. For example, the new Prince of Persia, while there are very few different types of enemies, and the fights are all basically one of three kinds, and the game is short, it is an excellent game. Why? Because the controls are simple and easy, and there is a large variety of gameplay. You can quickly and easily do a lot of different moves, and this adds interesting variety to what would otherwise be boring, repetitive fights.
Variety of gameplay for me is the most important factor in what makes a good game, with controls coming in a fairly close second. In an action/adventure, variety includes different moves, abilities, weapons, or powers, in addition to plenty of different stuff to do, as well as different environs and enemies. For example, let's compare 3 different action/adventure games which I think are all great games. First, take Half Life. You have a fair variety of weapons, but no real variety of moves. What makes the gameplay great and varied is the large number of different enemies and friends, and the ways you can interact with them. Also, you have lots of very different places, and different things to do. Next, look at Prince of Persia. Here, there is a lack of variety in the environment and enemies, but there is good variety in the moves you can do, and in the puzzles to solve. Additionally, it includes (at least) two other completely different games that you can play. Third, consider Kirby Super Star, for the super nintendo. This game is a fairly simple sidescroller, but made great by the huge variety of powers and abilities. When Kirby eats certain enemies, you gain their powers. There are about 20 different powers you can have, each with about 10 different moves. In addition to that, you can make helpers with one of the different powers. That's a lot of combinations. Also, there's a variety of different gameplay modes giving you lots of things to do.
Difficulty, story, and graphics aren't that important, but they do factor in. A game needs to be at least reasonably challenging, have reasonably good graphics, and have a reasonably good story. Having crap graphics, a crummy plot, and the difficulty being either way too low or just impossible can ruin a game, but having great graphics, an engaging story, and a perfect level of difficulty doesn't necessarily make a great game. Take FarCry for example. Beautiful graphics. Difficulty was almost right (some parts were just unnecessarily hard, like on the freighter when it requires that you climp up a ladder into the line of fire of about 20 guys and a helicopter.) but the game wasn't that great. Why? The gameplay was dull. It had potential, but the execution left something lacking. The story also was mediocre at best. "Kill these guys and these monsters." The characters were shallow and one dimensional. A lack of a good story combined with boring gameplay can really kill a game.