Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
[POLL] ALTERNATE GAMEPLAY
Poll
The best game approach? - Results
|
Full character freedom. Wise open world, sidequests, etc. (Elder Scrolls)
|
|
5
|
31%
|
|
Some character freedom. You can move freely, but some paths are blocked (Final Fantasy X)
|
|
9
|
56%
|
|
Some character freedom. Puzzle RPG, no battles (You Are Not The Hero, for instance)
|
|
1
|
6%
|
|
No character movement, choices (Visual Novels)
|
|
1
|
6%
|
|
No gameplay (Maranda)
|
|
0
|
0%
|
Posts
Pages:
1
bulmabriefs144
View playlists
CloseDo we have more games like With His Father's Sword and Maranda? Also, what's the general opinion of stuff like that? Do people generally enjoy games with no gameplay? And is there a way to tweak gameplay so it's more like a movie?
In general, my experience with RPGs is that grind is not only annoying, but generally in terms of the storyline, it reads like a commercial. The author is trying to convey how peaceful the game world is, for instance, and you have battles. Or the nature of these battles is such that it doesn't really mesh well with the plotline (the exception I've found is Final Fantasy X, where the puzzle battles fit nicely with the sense of fatalism). On the other hand, if you have no battles, challenge must be introduced some other way.
You could also go visual novel approach, where movement is limited, but choice selections aren't. Or you could have a puzzle game. What amount of user control is so much that they lose sight of the point the game is trying to express? And is your vision more important than character freedom?
Also, what is the longest you think people could stand a game with no gameplay, if it was set up like a movie?
In general, my experience with RPGs is that grind is not only annoying, but generally in terms of the storyline, it reads like a commercial. The author is trying to convey how peaceful the game world is, for instance, and you have battles. Or the nature of these battles is such that it doesn't really mesh well with the plotline (the exception I've found is Final Fantasy X, where the puzzle battles fit nicely with the sense of fatalism). On the other hand, if you have no battles, challenge must be introduced some other way.
You could also go visual novel approach, where movement is limited, but choice selections aren't. Or you could have a puzzle game. What amount of user control is so much that they lose sight of the point the game is trying to express? And is your vision more important than character freedom?
Also, what is the longest you think people could stand a game with no gameplay, if it was set up like a movie?
This is such a painfully loaded question. The short answer is that we need more of each. Lots more of each. Give me all of the games!
Games are, at their core, about decision-making with consequences. You're given a prompt by the game and you act upon it, and then the game tells you what happens as a consequence of your selection. Say thing A or thing B, and the game tells you how the listener responds. Use attack A or attack B, and the game tells you how much damage was dealt. Move left or right, and the game tells you if you dodged the projectile. Media without meaningful decisions aren't games. Movies don't accept input. It doesn't matter what you, the viewer, does--Wendy still hides in the bathroom in The Shining. Games accept input. If you make a movie that accepts input and changes course depending on that input, you haven't created a movie. You've made a (rudimentary) game. "Games with no gameplay" is an oxymoron. Maranda is a visual novel in that it is a novel (well, novella) that is animated, but it is not a game.
I think, on the whole, people enjoy movies.
Games are, at their core, about decision-making with consequences. You're given a prompt by the game and you act upon it, and then the game tells you what happens as a consequence of your selection. Say thing A or thing B, and the game tells you how the listener responds. Use attack A or attack B, and the game tells you how much damage was dealt. Move left or right, and the game tells you if you dodged the projectile. Media without meaningful decisions aren't games. Movies don't accept input. It doesn't matter what you, the viewer, does--Wendy still hides in the bathroom in The Shining. Games accept input. If you make a movie that accepts input and changes course depending on that input, you haven't created a movie. You've made a (rudimentary) game. "Games with no gameplay" is an oxymoron. Maranda is a visual novel in that it is a novel (well, novella) that is animated, but it is not a game.
I think, on the whole, people enjoy movies.
I'm guessing the purpose of this thread wasn't meant to discuss the taxonomy of games but I do feel like I have to point out that games require certain elements to be games. If I were to put it very simply a game requires Rules, Goals, a Win Condition and some Player Effort. Using those guidelines, the last 2 poll options are not games. I'm not diminishing them but they shouldn't be included in a poll about Alternate Gameplay when they don't have any.
Traditionally, games take a Progression approach to gameplay. The player progresses through the game along the path the designer laid out for them. Games with storytelling ambitions tend to be games of progression. Even open-world games like Elder Scrolls have a main quest line to follow. Games that have more focused storytelling ambitions are more linear like a Final Fantasy X and have less player agency.
I don't think either approach is best but the linear, progression games are the most common. I enjoy open world games but I also enjoy linear games where I'm more or less moving along a set path. As a designer, I find games with more Emergent elements to be more interesting but as a player I enjoy Progression games more. I generally approach my own games as more linear with emergence in the mechanics rather than the world itself.
As for combat versus puzzles that's really up to what kind of game the designer wants. I put combat in one of my games that probably didn't need combat and would have been better served as an adventure, puzzle game rather than an action RPG. I've seen lots of games on here that had combat tacked on that didn't really need it. It's really something you need to consider when first planning a project.
Traditionally, games take a Progression approach to gameplay. The player progresses through the game along the path the designer laid out for them. Games with storytelling ambitions tend to be games of progression. Even open-world games like Elder Scrolls have a main quest line to follow. Games that have more focused storytelling ambitions are more linear like a Final Fantasy X and have less player agency.
I don't think either approach is best but the linear, progression games are the most common. I enjoy open world games but I also enjoy linear games where I'm more or less moving along a set path. As a designer, I find games with more Emergent elements to be more interesting but as a player I enjoy Progression games more. I generally approach my own games as more linear with emergence in the mechanics rather than the world itself.
As for combat versus puzzles that's really up to what kind of game the designer wants. I put combat in one of my games that probably didn't need combat and would have been better served as an adventure, puzzle game rather than an action RPG. I've seen lots of games on here that had combat tacked on that didn't really need it. It's really something you need to consider when first planning a project.
I concur wit the above posts... In one hand I can understand the appeal of telling stories in "videogame format". We're 'creative' people, we have tons of ideas, many of which may not translate well to gameplay; and we're already familiar with the software -say rpg maker instead of flash, for example-. But we really should understand that the software does not make the videogame.
And frankly, I resent that people often conflate the two. Because it sucks when you're under the impression that you're about to play a full-fledged game just to find out that the only interaction you can have with it is: "press X to keep watching" or something like that... Now, if the story and execution are actually good, I may stick for a while: say 15 to 30 minutes? But considering that most "games" that attempt this feel more like watching a play than a movie, I find it unlikely that they'd catch my attention longer than that.
_
That being said. FFX didn't feel like you could move all that freely to me. Going from one place to another was like walking on a straight path most of the time, and the story was pretty linear too (albeit all with good reason). So perhaps FFXII is a better option for that poll...
But anyway, what really matters is what you get to do in that world, regardless of how it is set up. In theory I prefer open worlds, but when the only difference between one place or another is a change of scenery, it becomes boring. Give me a reason to do things, to go places... The formula that I like the most is the one found in "Metroidvania" style games. It's really fun to explore and backtrack in those games. Whether is to find hidden rooms/passages, get to previously out of reach places, look for specific monsters/items, or even try to "break sequence", I spend hours running from one place to another and planning what's the best route to get there. =P
And frankly, I resent that people often conflate the two. Because it sucks when you're under the impression that you're about to play a full-fledged game just to find out that the only interaction you can have with it is: "press X to keep watching" or something like that... Now, if the story and execution are actually good, I may stick for a while: say 15 to 30 minutes? But considering that most "games" that attempt this feel more like watching a play than a movie, I find it unlikely that they'd catch my attention longer than that.
_
That being said. FFX didn't feel like you could move all that freely to me. Going from one place to another was like walking on a straight path most of the time, and the story was pretty linear too (albeit all with good reason). So perhaps FFXII is a better option for that poll...
But anyway, what really matters is what you get to do in that world, regardless of how it is set up. In theory I prefer open worlds, but when the only difference between one place or another is a change of scenery, it becomes boring. Give me a reason to do things, to go places... The formula that I like the most is the one found in "Metroidvania" style games. It's really fun to explore and backtrack in those games. Whether is to find hidden rooms/passages, get to previously out of reach places, look for specific monsters/items, or even try to "break sequence", I spend hours running from one place to another and planning what's the best route to get there. =P
author=LouisCyphre
This is such a painfully loaded question. The short answer is that we need more of each. Lots more of each. Give me all of the games!
Pffft!
So, Louis would you be okay with a visual novel that had choices with impact? Or would you insist gameplay must include character movement?
author=ArtBane
I'm guessing the purpose of this thread wasn't meant to discuss the taxonomy of games but I do feel like I have to point out that games require certain elements to be games. If I were to put it very simply a game requires Rules, Goals, a Win Condition and some Player Effort. Using those guidelines, the last 2 poll options are not games. I'm not diminishing them but they shouldn't be included in a poll about Alternate Gameplay when they don't have any.
The last one, mebbe not ArtBane. But I'm pretty sure makers of dating sims would rage at your assessment that gameplay with choices is not a game. The choices you make constitute effort on your part. Make enough choices in a certain direction, and you move towards/away from a certain path. The issue I was getting at with Elder Scrolls is... suppose I want to teach about Zen Buddhism. Unless I made the message all-pervasive so no matter where you wandered, someone, somewhere is going to wander in such a way that they completely miss the plot. Rather than finding out about the Eastern Sage of the Desire Realm, they instead spend the entire time gathering mushrooms. Okay, I collected enough mushrooms. Time for a new game. I have never successfully finished any Elder Scrolls game.
My point was, if you limit player control, you allow the player to learn about your world and what it's about. But at what point do you stifle the gamer? And how much freedom is so much that they wander off and ignore your purpose entirely?
author=alterego
That being said. FFX didn't feel like you could move all that freely to me. Going from one place to another was like walking on a straight path most of the time, and the story was pretty linear too (albeit all with good reason). So perhaps FFXII is a better option for that poll...
But anyway, what really matters is what you get to do in that world, regardless of how it is set up. In theory I prefer open worlds, but when the only difference between one place or another is a change of scenery, it becomes boring. Give me a reason to do things, to go places... The formula that I like the most is the one found in "Metroidvania" style games. It's really fun to explore and backtrack in those games. Whether is to find hidden rooms/passages, get to previously out of reach places, look for specific monsters/items, or even try to "break sequence", I spend hours running from one place to another and planning what's the best route to get there. =P
I don't have a PS3 so I've only played up to FF12.
Final Fantasy X opened up late in the game, and there was actually a crapload of hidden material. But the game was genius in that it opened up when the plot did. When you started to decide "maybe there is some other way than the Final Summon" you got the airship. When you started out, on the other hand, the game was strictly linear, kinda a path to your doom. Right now in Final Fantasy X, I'm grinding on monsters to collect creatures for the arena, and then collecting massive amounts of gold so I can buy some blank armor. Maybe I'll try chocobo racing, and maybe try to do the Rikku-only challenge at some point. Of all games, I like that one most because it starts out being about your duty, but then you realize what you want.
And yea, I think you're right, there should be a sense that you can do what you want, but that you can also find your sense of purpose, that there are secrets and wonders to the game, and not just the same old stuff.
I wonder if I should add a profession system to any of my games. Anyone can help me with how to get jobs set up in the game? I probably want gardener, tailor, artist, smith, doctor, shopkeeper, and entertainer.
author=bulmabriefs144author=LouisCyphrePffft!
This is such a painfully loaded question. The short answer is that we need more of each. Lots more of each. Give me all of the games!
So, Louis would you be okay with a visual novel that had choices with impact? Or would you insist gameplay must include character movement?
I'm making one!
I do need to amend my definition of "game," though. It needs to have decisions and a goal. Even something as simple as a branching book (the "if you pick the lock, turn to page 97," kind) is a game if the first page says something like "Get out of the haunted house alive!" because your actions have differing degrees of success or failure.
I'm probably derailing at this point. :v
edit:
author=bulmabriefs144
I don't have a PS3 so I've only played up to FF12.
XII is 12.
So like two or three smart guys posted smart stuff in the first three posts.
I agree with what they said.
I agree with what they said.
I thought about it more and I want to amend my earlier post. I don't usually use the term gameplay because it's so vague. I usually separate it out into mechanics and story. But if I was going off of Sid Meir's definition of gameplay which is "A series of interesting choices" then visual novels would most certainly fit the bill. There are a lot of different definitions of gameplay which is why academics don't tend to use it.
Create a life simulator and put no cap on the things that you can make objects do. Simulate the entire universe and all its properties. People will love playing real life while living real life.
author=LouisCyphreauthor=bulmabriefs144I'm making one!author=LouisCyphrePffft!
This is such a painfully loaded question. The short answer is that we need more of each. Lots more of each. Give me all of the games!
So, Louis would you be okay with a visual novel that had choices with impact? Or would you insist gameplay must include character movement?
I do need to amend my definition of "game," though. It needs to have decisions and a goal. Even something as simple as a branching book (the "if you pick the lock, turn to page 97," kind) is a game if the first page says something like "Get out of the haunted house alive!" because your actions have differing degrees of success or failure.
I'm probably derailing at this point. :v
edit:author=bulmabriefs144
I don't have a PS3 so I've only played up to FF12.
XII is 12.
Oh, I read XIII by mistake. ^_^;
Got some silly people here. Cashmere, don't you know? You're playing a game right now (gets hauled off by the Adjustment Bureau).
Pages:
1
