Slashdot Mirror


Gameplay: the Missing Ingredient In Most Games

An anonymous reader writes "Game designer Tadhg Kelly has an article discussing the direction the games industry has taken over the past several years. Gaming has become more of a business, and in doing so, become more of a science as well. When maximizing revenue is a primary concern, development studios try to reduce successful game designs to individual elements, then naively seek to add those elements to whatever game they're working on, like throwing spices into a stew. Kelly points out that indie developers who are willing to experiment often succeed because they understand something more fundamental about games: fun. Quoting: 'The guy who invented Minecraft (Markus "Notch" Persson) didn't just create a giant virtual world in which you could make stuff, he made it challenging. When Will Wright created the Sims, he didn't just make a game about living in a virtual house. He made it difficult to live successfully. That's why both of those franchises have sold millions of copies. The fun factor is about more than making a game is amusing or full of pretty rewards. If your game is a dynamic system to be mastered and won, then you can go nuts. If you can give the player real fun then you can afford to break some of those format rules, and that's how you get to lead rather than follow the market. If not then be prepared to pay through the nose to acquire and retain players.'"

53 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. No silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gameplay is what happens when you play the game.
    Duh.

    1. Re:No silly by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gameplay is what happens when you play the game.
      Duh.

      Sure but the article was about that there should also be more to a game than just "doing stuff".

    2. Re:No silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I thought most games these days were just ego wankery of some shape or form where you press E to win because you are the toughest hardest space marine that ever lived.

      To be honest this has been coming for a long while. Gameplay has been sorely lacking, especially around the switch from 2D->3D games. My own personal definition of "gameplay" is the extent and delay at which the user's physical input has direct relevance in the game.

      So a game like gunstar heroes would have more gameplay than contra because the characters in contra have no ability to throw enemies or use hand to hand combat.
      A game where character animations take a long period of time to execute after player input also would have less gameplay, in my opinion, since my input can not change the state of the game whilst this animation is being played.

      In this respect although Super Mario 64 was probably the 3D game I've played with the most gameplay, it still has less gameplay than Super Mario World. I don't think anyone has been able to replicate the feeling of jumping on 6 koopas in a row whilst holding a red shell in a full 3D playing field.

      I would like to see that though.

    3. Re:No silly by robthebloke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure but the article was about that there should also be more to a game than just "doing stuff".

      Nope. You use metrics to analyse your freemium game to graph tedium against profit. If you make it just tedious enough, people will hopefully pay some money to avoid actually playing your game. Welcome to the modern approach to game design :/

    4. Re:No silly by Jetra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to post a couple of very interesting links

      http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/beyond-fun
      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.necessarygames.com%2Fmy-games%2Floneliness%2Fflash&ei=qP-xUJWwF-m6yAHEhIAw&usg=AFQjCNF2Ja0DJ6wMb55AkI_4DPdjLDZU1w

      He makes some very interesting arguments against making games purely for the sake of "Fun." Does the game really have to be about fun? Look at Indigo Prophecy (PS2) or Heavy Rain (PS3). Even Metal Gear Solid, without the guns, stealth, and violence, could have been a very good interactive movie. I would have payed money to watch as snake goes to battle, only to die a little inside. We should really break this habit of making games fun and start exploring other aspects like engaging narrative. We could free the market, setting new standards for better games.

    5. Re:No silly by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The sentiment behind the OPs comment is accurate. Difficulty != why people play games. Difficulty != fun. Just look at the stats on http://www.trueachievements.com/ and you'll see this article is completely bunk.

      The Sims 3: http://www.trueachievements.com/game.aspx?gameid=3183 17k own it, less than 9% have completed it.
      Wanted Weapons of Fate: http://www.trueachievements.com/WANTEDWeapons-of-Fate/achievements.htm 17k own it, more than 21% have completed it
      LEGO Rockband: http://www.trueachievements.com/LEGO-Rock-Band/achievements.htm 17k own it, just over 1% have completed it.

      Similarly if you look at games with similar difficulties (by completion %) you get a range from 72 copies to ~60,000 copies.

      If you look at the actual top adoptions for games you see a theme: Great storytelling with great graphics and relatively bug free games. Difficulty is all over the map in the top selling games.

    6. Re:No silly by GuldKalle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Completed" means doing all achievements, not "playing through the story". To me it seems quite natural that if it's the story that carries a game, people are not going to play through it multiple times to unlock every achievement.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:No silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The irony of this is the Notch quote. Minecraft is just a toy sandbox and has the least gameplay of any game I've ever played.

      Now watch as this gets buried into oblivion by the Minecraft apologists.

    8. Re:No silly by lattyware · · Score: 2

      The Rock Band titles have insane achievements - completing all of them doesn't mean you have completed the game, it means you have mastered it entirely. Completely different.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    9. Re:No silly by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you're talking about aren't games, they're more simply interactive art pieces to enjoy.

      Games should be fun.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:No silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ProSiebenSat.1 Eu publisher (the fuck sort of name they chose?)

      FYI thats a concatenation of two german (crappy) television channels (operated by the same company).
      The sort of crap channel only the barely educated idiots will watch voluntarily.

    11. Re:No silly by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ProSiebenSat.1 Eu publisher (the fuck sort of name they chose?)

      "ProSiebenSat.1" is just the concatenation of the identifying parts of the names of two TV companies which merged: "Pro Sieben Media AG" and "Sat.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH" ("Satellitenfernsehen" is just German for "satellite TV"; "AG" and "GmbH" are the legal type of the corresponding company). Those again were named after their main (German) TV channels: Pro 7 ("Sieben" is the German word for "seven") and SAT.1.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:No silly by ryzvonusef · · Score: 2

      Holy google link, batman :D

      Here is the actual link:

      http://www.necessarygames.com/my-games

      And damn, that was depressing. (parent had linked to the game "loneliness") But I see what you are getting at.

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    13. Re:No silly by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but they should be fun FIRST. I'm with you on the 'exploring the use of the medium for artistic expression' point, but just as a painting exists to be viewed (and thus should, on some level, be visually pleasing) and music exists to be heard (and thus should, on some level, be audiotorially pleasing), a game exists to be played (and thus should, on some level, be FUN to play).

      Paintings which break this rule and are not visually pleasing are little more than novelties that are soon forgotten (see any number of pieces in abstract art). Same for music (who actually listens to the things Cage did to pianos?). If I want engaging narrative alone, I've got any number of superior novelists and film directors, who do a far better job than any game I've ever played on that single aspect.

    14. Re:No silly by somersault · · Score: 2

      I didn't say "only". It's a combination of other elements that make a game fun.

      But if it's not fun, what's the point in playing? Computer games are entertainment. They allow for pleasant passage of time, leading you to your death with minimum hassle. Games can have purpose, but they also should be fun if they're to be worth your time.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    15. Re:No silly by dadioflex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you're doing a good job of showcasing that gameplay, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. From your point of view gameplay is missing compared to older games. From my point of view, and I say this as someone who died a million times playing Jet Set Willy, the gameplay was missing from the older games. I actually WANT easier games where I can stroll through them, see everything, collect everything and then move on having felt I got my money's worth. Basically I want a game that rewards perseverance without demanding skill. I skew older on the gamer age chart, but I'm trending towards the norm.

      Super Mario World used about half a dozen buttons and was, to an extent, a skinner box that drummed patterns into your head. I appreciate that you have every right to think that it has better gameplay than, say, Darksiders 2, but I really can't share that opinion.

    16. Re:No silly by dadioflex · · Score: 2

      Some people's idea of fun is to look at art. You're making the mistake of assuming everyone is the same. You might like Psychonauts, say, a colourful platformer with a wacky story and some quite challenging puzzle jumping. I might enjoy the Walking Dead game which is little more that an interactive movie interspersed with some quick time style events. We both have fun from our game of choice, but may hate playing the other game. We have many points of similarity, but also many differences. Also, I am a basset hound.

    17. Re:No silly by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically I want a game that rewards perseverance without demanding skill.

      How is merely putting in time rewarding? In RPGs that's derisively called "grinding". There's no sense of accomplishment when you finish such a game, as there was never any doubt you could do it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:No silly by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Games should be fun.

      Games should be *satisfying*. Making them fun is one way to do that, but it's not the only way.

    19. Re:No silly by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      First of all, Metal Gear is fun and famous precisely because of its gameplay innovations that tend to break the fourth wall. In fact, I think the story has always been quite ridiculous and made very little sense. But that's a matter of personal opinion, I guess.

      While I think games could be more, I wouldn't turn then into mere movies where you have to merely press a button to go forward. And I would never eliminate challenge, because it's not a game if you can't lose, regardless of what we say to children. A good example of a game that isn't about fun is Amnesia. It's still driven by gameplay and has its challenges, but the focus is obviously on immersion, and it can evolve to a very unpleasant experience, if you let yourself be carried away.

    20. Re:No silly by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Am I the only one who recognizes this as the first volley in the Wii U hearts and minds campaign?

      For years, I've heard Nintendo fanboys ranting about gameplay gameplay gameplay. Because their system never offered anything beyond gameplay.

      Now that news has surfaced about the Wii U being weakly incapable hardware, I feel stories like this are going to be more commonplace.

      It's not just about gameplay. Sometimes there's more than just gameplay. Sometimes a new mechanic placed on an old style of gameplay is enough.

      Sometimes being gorgeous is enough. Sometimes being immersive is enough. And once in a while, you get all of those things together and it makes a truly spectacular game. But those are rare, and I want it to stay that way.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    21. Re:No silly by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He'd probably just as much watch a movie.

      People who like hard games and puzzles like to be challenged. They are not discouraged by failure or if they are their competitive nature takes over.

      You can divide the world into two kinds of people those who watch and those who like to do, only the ones that do things can fail or succeed.

      The MMO world ~10 years ago showcased the difference. Everquest was really listening to it's hardcore players. Not willing to stay online and awake 36 hours straight? Then you won't get the boots that let you run a little bit faster. Not will to try 100 differnt approaches to a raid? The your guild won't get the prize. I knew people who were really into this, who actually collapsed from exhaustion while playing. The were unafraid to drive off the casual gamer.

      WoW came along with "how about we do the same game without the grueling, annoying parts?". In the abstract, the gameplay of the two games was similar: same sorts of in-game objectives, same basic idea about the stuff you would do in game, but WoW was carefully tuned to be appealing to the casual gamer, unafraid to drive off the hardcore gamer.

      The results of course were well know - EQ peaked at 3-400K subscribers, WoW at what, 12 million? 15? Everyone making games for money learned that lesson! For each person looking for a true challenge in a game, there are 30-50 people just looking for some entertainment.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    22. Re:No silly by lgw · · Score: 2

      SOE has seen this comment, and banned you from all SOE games. What an amazing bunch.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    23. Re:No silly by war4peace · · Score: 2

      I've been playing on Miller, the worst affected server, and last night was as smooth as butter. ProSiebenSat only own the servers, SOE are the ones actually running them. That's like blaming Amazon AWS for the Minecraft Login Servers having a bug in them.

      Untrue. ProSiebenSat-whatever is the game publisher for EU. You need one of their accounts to play the game if you're from EU. In the US, SOE kept publishing ownership.

      Also, You like World of Tanks? That's the definition of Pay-to-win. You're directly paying for things that improve your power - like the best Ammo - that you cannot unlock through normal play.

      Untrue. It used to be true (premium ammo for gold only) until patch 0.8.1 - which came out two months ago. Now everything except premium tanks can be obtained without paying a dime.

      In Planetside 2, yes, you can buy weapons, but you can't buy the upgrades, or the utility slots, for cash, you need to play the game and get Certs - which can also be used to unlock all the weapons.

      Untrue :)
      Last time I checked (yesterday night, EU time) pretty much ALL upgrades I could find could be bought for cash. Especially weapon attachments, which I was interested to obtain, e.g. 100 certs or 75 credits for this, 1000 certs or 750 credits for that and so on. I was yet to see ONE item that you could only get through certs only.

      Are you in an outfit? Are you just rushing the Crown to try and farm, and just getting mown down? Dying every 20 seconds? Are you hacking terminals, or pushing capture points? or are you hanging back and sniping people?

      No, I'm just trying to understand the game. The problem I have is inconsistency in performance. I get a flying thingie (sorry, can't remember names off the top of my head) and go for an enemy aircraft, then it disappears, only to plop back into existence a couple seconds later in a different place. I see a dude zipping by in an ATV, now he's on the road, boom, he's 20 feet in the air, bang, he's on the road again. These issues will keep me from throwing as much as a dime at the game as long as they're visible. Maybe your server is great; mine (Cobalt) is only good when there's less than 10 players around. Bring more and you're in for a lagfest.

      And yes, i am bad at twitch FPS games, but that's not the problem. I know I'm pretty bad and there's no rush; in all honesty, I didn't even know you could upgrade stuff until two days ago. The problem is that this game, because it was rushed into existence, feels half-baked.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    24. Re:No silly by Kjella · · Score: 2

      There's a pretty big difference between games that have a hard skill requirements, like you failed mission X so try again - it'll be just as hard next time - and those where you can just gather more XP, get some better gear and so with perseverance the mission will get easier. You're in principle always making progress, there's no hard fail but you choose you own level of challenge. Grinding on the other hand typically describes doing something with no challenge, for the sake of gathering resources or equipment to use later.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    25. Re:No silly by loufoque · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of role-playing games are simply based on storytelling, and do not require skill. That's true even for table-top role-playing games.
      It's not grinding either, you're just enjoying exploring and interacting with an imaginary world.

    26. Re:No silly by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're post is correct except you are missing two key definitions:

      1. In MMO's grinding is just another form of gambling, aka, The Skinner Box. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber

      2. Definition of a game: Unless you have a winning state then your game is really a toy, at best.. Interestingly enough, conversely a game doesn't need a losing state. A winning state is necessary, a loosing state sufficient.

      i.e. MMOs are NOT games, they are toys. There is NO WAY to WIN at a MMO. You don't "win" at WoW or another MMO (although some people would joke that the only way to "win" is when you quit playing, but I digress. :-) )

      Also, people want closure in movies, books, and games. That is not say an open-ended sandbox ala Minecraft, WoW, aren't fun. They are, but once you remove any sense of closure they have stopped becoming games and have become toys where you play. They are more about the journey then the destination. THAT is the key difference between a game and a toy.

    27. Re:No silly by Nostromo21 · · Score: 2

      At last, a topic we're all passionate about! :)

      Ok, who plays a game to 'win' anything any more? Oh wait, kiddies and mouth-breathing console cretins I guess...? <EG> *duck*

      GW2 is one example of a near grindless mmo, which as IGN aptly put it, "actually respect your time". Almost everything you do in the game is for fun, and you get XP almost as a side benefit, I shit you not. But I'm a casual carebear, so perhaps it's different for the gankers & power-gamers, bleh. I also have alt-o-holism, so play a half dozen or more chars concurrently, which means I rarely get bored, but I also never see the endgame in most mmos.

      Gameplay *quality*, per se, has been on the stready decline, since gaming went mainstream & online/mulitplayer became a fate accompli for most commercial games. I don't think we'll again see incredibly cerebral/challenging/interesting games of the likes of BG/PST or other older adventure/rpgs, except as the rare indy title. Hell, even flight sims, which came with 400page manuals, are long gone, sadly (or thankfully? ;). I guess 'gameplay' is a very loose term & means different things to different folk. For my money, if I'm not grinding or just playing to see the end or 'win', AND having a good time, if I forget to look at the clock for 2+ hrs, or play a game way past my bedtime, THEN I know the game has good, solid gameplay most of the time. This doesn't include mmo grinds & hamster-wheel games which are more an OCD than games really. Horses for courses...

      The other problems with mmos, even great ones, is they can easily devolve into a grind, from what seemed so much fun at the start. Some recent-ish mmos that turned out that way for me were AoC, CoH, LOTRO & SWTOR, as well as D3, which though not a mmo, is certainly a pure gear-grind in its mid-end game. This is not to say those mmos aren't fun for a while after I put them down for a few months & come back to them, which thankfully you can do with the F2P model, but they do tend to lose their luster & gameplay after a while I'll concede.

      One could argue that shooters are more about good gameplay, as they are often shorter or have a completely different paradigm to mmos/rpgs (assuming they are half decent). But, there isn't a lot of depth to most shooters these days, unless you count hybrids like Borderlands & Dishonored to some extent.

      I'm rambling so will stop before I get to a TL;DR number of chars :).

    28. Re:No silly by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cordially disagree. Minecraft's gameplay (i.e. the rules that dictate how something is played) is subtle, but very present. And it's definitely a game, not just a toy, though it's hard to tell from the outside (I would know, I was a doubter).

      The problem with many pure sandbox games is that they are simply too open-ended. Left with so many possibilities, many players face a paradox of choice and oftentimes cease playing the game before they accomplish anything much. Effectively, there is no "game" to it. It's just a toy, as you said. Kinda like Legos with no instructions. For some people, that's all they want, but there is no gameplay provided in that since there are no rules dictating how you put things together or for what purpose.

      In contrast, Minecraft provides some initial gameplay to get people started, then gives them a structured and intelligently designed path to help them discover their own "emergent" gameplay. By adding hostile monsters to the game, Notch established a basic purpose for the player's actions: build things to survive. Establishing that as the basic rule acting on the player forces the player down the path towards creating a structure to keep them safe from the monsters. Stuck in that place, players naturally expand it and embellish it, which forces them to locate additional resources. To do that, they need to explore either outwards or downwards, either of which will involve challenging the thing that has kept them in their safehouse. And as they explore and find additional resources, they find new things that they don't understand, which forces them to experiment. In all of that, the player's actions have a foundational purpose of survival, but as the game goes on, additional forms of gameplay begin to emerge as players discover and create new rules to guide their actions and purposes for doing what they are doing, be it to create the best city, live for as long as possible, or find the most awesome pieces of terrain.

      The genius in Minecraft is that it naturally leads the player down that path without the player realizing they are being led. To the player, it feels like a set of open-ended decisions in an open-ended world, rather than that they are being led down a path. In reality, their choices were guided by some excellent game design and a subtle application of simple rules to drive the player's actions in a certain direction. From the outside, it just looks like a box of Legos without instructions (and early versions of it were indeed just that), but it's much more than that. The game actually has exactly as much gameplay as it needs, which is to say that it has enough to prevent the paradox of choice but little enough that it allows for a lot of creativity.

      As a quick aside, I don't believe that game difficulty correlates to good gameplay. There are plenty of examples of easy games with good gameplay (Minecraft, Okami, Super Mario Galaxy) just as there are plenty of hard games with great gameplay (Demon's Souls, Ikaruga, Super Mario Bros.). Instead, I believe that gameplay should be tweaked to make a game as difficulty or as easy as is warranted by the game itself. Were Okami frustratingly hard, the Celestial Brush would have become a chore to use, rather than being the charming and exciting gameplay mechanic that it is. Were Demon's Souls too easy, the oppressive environment and epic bosses would have felt trite and unsubstantial, leaving the game hollow.

      I do believe there has been a recent trend to make games easier than is warranted, but that's another topic entirely.

    29. Re:No silly by Nostromo21 · · Score: 2

      Ok, this can only be solved with a /. poll. I nominate the following categories for qualities game must have:

      - fun
      - challenging
      - entertaining/enjoyable
      - interesting/thought-provoking/educational
      - rewarding
      - good value for money
      - commercially viable/successful, even if free...?

      Those are very broad & not all will apply to all games, but let's get a reasonable top 10 list & start a poll: 'Essential qualities and anatomy of a game".

    30. Re:No silly by Nostromo21 · · Score: 2

      Yes, covering oral orifices with fists, or baseball bats, or genitals solves the 'failure to communicate' issue 99% of the time. >8^D

    31. Re:No silly by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      You may not find any sense of accomplishment, but I am positive that some players do. Every player is different. Some just want to come home from the office, turn off the brain, and enjoy a game. Other players can't have fun if things are mindless though. Thus there is room for two different games, or two different styles within the same game, as long as one group isn't bashing the other group. (sadly, some players find the most enjoyment from mocking others)

    32. Re:No silly by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      That is why I like sandboxes like Just Cause II and Saints Row III, while they are open as hell and you can just ignore the missions if you want there is still a story with a beginning, middle and end. That explains why I also have never been able to get into MMOs, I like having something other than a hamster wheel as a goal. But thinking of it as a toy rather than a game? something I haven't thought of, but makes sense.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    33. Re:No silly by cduffy · · Score: 2

      This is what Bioshock was like to me, a movie that required input. Games that are too easy are not fun.

      Whereas when I played Bioshock, I was usually scared out of my mind. "All I'll lose if I die is some inventory, so why not treat it casually" didn't enter into my head -- dying was still, well, dying, and avoiding it was benefit enough.

      There's room for player-generated motivation.

  2. It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matters by Anonymous+Cowherd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article claims that these games are popular because they are hard but it seems that nobody every talks about how challenging they are but instead they always talk about how creative you can be within the game. Both Minecraft and The Sims allow you to be infinitely creative in the way you approach and what you do in the game, and that is what has made these games so popular.

  3. Challenge needs to be fun, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree that games need to be challenging, but the way in which making things more difficult is implemented matters a lot. For example, I remember that there was a mod for Battlefield 1942 where you could fly modern airplanes and helicopters which was actually kind of challenging. I got a great kick out of making tricky manouvers in those things. Then EA/DICE release Battlefield Vietnam, where the helicopters were basically auto-hovering and required barely any skill at all to fly around - extremely boring and lame. The earlier mod with the helicopters is a good example of something that's challenging and fun, but they could've also just made it harder by giving the vehicles fewer hitpoints for example, which wouldn't make it any more fun at all.

  4. Notch is not a God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can we please stop circle jerking Notch already?

    Notch made a great concept and everyone bought into it, with promises of much much more, but after about 6 months the updates just stopped, he was too busy doing everything possible but working on Minecraft until he finally gave up the ghost and let Jeb take over, who is trying to keep promises Notch refused to. Notch made a lot of enemies because he went from working with his community to make the game what he promised it to be to going on vacation constantly. The game is not a shadow of what it was promised to be and he just got extremely lucky to take off as it did.

    Notch is not some Indie Diety who knows all about gaming. He is just a guy who got picked out by 4chan to make his game huge, then when he was expected to keep his promises he fled into the night. Several months after this he announced 1.0 and released the beta with minimal changes (He added a bad boss fight at the end and a Livejournal quality poem for "the end of the game").

    If you enjoy Minecraft that is great, but please look into the history of it before you start listening to Notch. All he will teach you is to take people's money, break promises and when people call you on it to run and hide among a bunch of ass kissing children.

    1. Re:Notch is not a God by lattyware · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What promises were broken? The Notch hate just seems to be people who imagined a minecraft where you could do literally anything, and were never going to be pleased unless he worked 24/7 on it forever.

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    2. Re:Notch is not a God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://i53.tinypic.com/r73yps.png Try reading that image. It will explain a lot of things.

      No one expected unlimited things, but there are a bunch of things promised and missing. Modding, torches burning out, Sky worlds. People aren't out to hate Notch because he is popular, they are annoyed they payed for a game to be developed and then once enough money rolled in he stopped developing it.

  5. Re:It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matte by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    Most players I know get tired of singleplayer quickly - but once they join a multiplayer server there's a social aspect. Also, Tekkit greatly extends the novelty.

    I'm working on an HV solar panel to power my mass fab on one server. Three MVs down, seven more to go! The HV is the most resource-intensive item in IC2, perhaps in any mod. I've got a whole factory dedicated to processing a stream of input from quarries and producing fuel to keep them running, almost entirely automated.

  6. Tomorrow-morrow Land! by Infestedkudzu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few of us still believe in the old prophecy. Some day there will be The One, and he will find a way to take grinding out of video games. And the old times will come back. and we will have games like zelda (nes) and metroid again.

    1. Re:Tomorrow-morrow Land! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2
      Zelda - grinding for rupees. Let's play money making game!

      Metroid - grinding for energy. Those boxes don't fill themselves.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  7. Re:It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matte by Umuri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can shed some insight here.
    Minecraft and The Sims are not "hard" in the sense that you will fail a lot.
    Merely that they are hard meaning you start the game with very little understanding in how it works, and then have to master those systems to do what you want.
    As you are placing blocks, you have to deal with resource management, your own life, etc.
    A game does not have to be hard to be challenging. Nor does being hard make a game challenging.

    My favorite example from recent games is one called Demon Souls. Many people say it is hard, and challenging, yet It has one aspect that I love because it perfectly demonstrates the difference between the two, because it is a perfect example of something that is hard, but not a challenge.
    It has what used called an arcade coin-trick. A piece of gameplay put in purely to eat your quarters and lengthen time playing, without adding an equivalent value of fun or different playstyle.

    The challenging part of the game is learning each individual enemy, how they fight, how you can react, etc. You develop actual skills as the game goes on and your proficiency goes up.
    The coin trick is the death and respawn limit. While you can argue it adds a sense of urgency and being careful to the game, one could have done this without such a harsh penalty (loss of all exp, plus time wasted attempting to regain it only to fail at the end). This is an example of a piece of a game that is hard, but not challenging. It is hard because it punishes failure, without adding much extra fun.

    So with this in mind, you can see why minecraft and the sims can be considered challenging in that they engage the mind and thought, without being hard.

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
  8. Exhibit A: by FridgeFreezer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Chess. The graphics aren't great but it's still just about the ultimate game of champions. Beaten only by Gravity Power on the Amiga.

    --
    There is no music - home taping killed it.
  9. Re:World of Warcraft by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    An MMORPG needs to be crafted in such a way that the players feel challenged, but never actually like they are losing. They need to always be progressing to greater things, higher levels, better gear. And never going backwards.

    Contrast to, say, EVE Online. How many players do you think ragequit forever after spending their fortune on an utterly awesome ship, only to then lose it all due to a mistake or sheer bad luck?

  10. PCs are too powerful. by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes, I said it: nowadays, the CPU and GPU are too powerful, and game designers are hell-bent on 3D and other graphical gimmicks, instead of focusing on gameplay. That's why you'll find much more creative ideas among Android and iOS games. Yes, there's a ton of copy-cat games on the Androis marketplace, but there are a lot of interesting gems.

    Most of the games I play nowadays are 5-10 years old, or they are Android games. It's why I also installed BlueStacks on my PC:

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:PCs are too powerful. by Dunge · · Score: 2

      Like most people. you simply say that because you are afraid and never try new stuff or you don't have the hardware/time to do it. Gameplay is still better in "hell-bent on 3D and graphical gimmicks" games than cellphone games.

  11. Re:It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matte by Jiro · · Score: 2

    It depends on how the game is designed. A game that doesn't have checkpoints can still have situations that can't be passed without using trial and error. Demon Souls has several bosses like that. It even has one situation where you need to kill a character who doesn't attack you and sits vaguely near the boss room, before the boss will die. Congratulations on figuring that out first time around except by luck. It's also quite possible to survive to a boss and then find you don't have the equipment needed to defeat it reasonably, so you have no option but to die. That is not rewarding cautious gameplay, that's screwing the player over no matter how cautious he is.

    Demon Souls also has two endings, but you're probably not going to see both of them without going to Youtube, because they depend on one decision made at the very end of the game, but since you can't save and reload your game there's no way to try again with the other decision.

  12. Re:A really fun game... by Black+LED · · Score: 2

    I read something about games a while back (I don't remember where) in regards to risk versus reward. As you say, there is a balance to be struck to make a game challenging but not unfair or mindless.

    Doom did this well where you would come into a pitch black room with a weapon sitting right in the middle, in the only lit section. Obviously it's a trap, but is it worth springing that trap for the weapon? Smash TV is another game that I think of as a good example, with the prizes appearing everywhere but the hordes of enemies are too.

  13. Re:It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matte by lgw · · Score: 2

    I would argue that a lack of checkpoints rewards cautious and skilled game play rather than "punishing failure" but that's just me. If a game gives you a checkpoint every 5 minutes there's absolutely no reason not to brute force your way through a problem by throwing corpse after corpse at it.

    I won't play an action game unless I can save anywhere, at any time. After every successful jump or shot, if need be. You can see how much tastes differ here: I have no interest in repitition.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  14. Agreed. by ultrasawblade · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The pinnacle of game design is the old arcade game Robotron 2084. Here's why:

    - Put in a quarter, game starts. No bullshit story, no waiting 5 minutes for the game to let me do something. Gimme gimme now.
    - Everything is constantly flashing colors. You never saw an 4-bit indexed RRRGGGBB pallette worked so hard. I love that. Fuck realism. Reality sucks.
    - Objective is simple but has an element of depth to it. Shoot anything that moves except humans.
    - This game has two joysticks, one for movement and one for fire. You have unlimited ammunition and can shoot many fast-moving missiles in any direction. Instantly. I don't have to turn around to shoot backwards. Yes.
    - The balance is that you have anywhere from 10 to 100 enemies surrounding you trying to run into you and/or shoot you. So you get to blow up a lot of things. You HAVE to blow up a lot of things.
    - So the game is HARD. The unlimited ammo does not help you as much as you think. You are constantly needing to move and keep one step ahead of everything.
    - Because there are many things attacking you, and shooting at you, you will die a lot. So you HAVE to rescue the humans to earn extra lives.
    - A multiplier is at work when you rescue humans. So the first is 1000, 2000, etc. up to 5000. Starts over when you die. Gives you a LOT of incentive to not just shoot absolutely everything that moves, but keep maneuvering through this always changing morass of robots trying to kill you and humans needing to be saved. Also, due to this, you are always forced to evaluate whether it's better to try to rescue a human or simply let them go. But you must keep an eye on your lives.

    It's really the most engaging game I've ever played. Nothing else comes close to it.
     

  15. Re:It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matte by Jiro · · Score: 2

    It's true that once you've "killed" the boss and been told that he won't die, you can leave, but you'll have used up your resources in fighting the boss (particularly healing items, also weapon/armor damage to some extent) and you have to go back to grind for some more of them. Same effect--you need to use trial and error to win the fight, but you can't just restore from a save from before the fight to do the trial and error.

    Also, the fact that you can't save means that any sane player would be very reluctant to kill non-hostile NPCs during the process of trial and error--for all you know, killing the NPC could permanently affect your game, and you can't just think "well, I'll kill the NPC and see if it lets me defeat the boss, if not I'll restore from a save from before I killed the NPC".

  16. Re:It's not difficulty, it's creativity that matte by aXis100 · · Score: 2

    Gee, I wonder why people play them then...

    Maybe it's because sandboxes, lego and dollshouses have emergent gameplay which can be really fun!