CREATING CORE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS FOR "STARING CONTESTS"

Quick-time events are a risky area. It's odd that in order to play a game, we all press buttons but we know and choose which buttons to press. When a computer is telling us "press A, press B, blahblah.." we get annoyed and call it lazy development. As gamers I think no one likes being told what to do or how to play. Remember that your game needs to be fun and not get boring. Think of a game where a "battle system" became a chore, and think of one that never got old and try to work out what was so different about them.

I think you should work this into something where you aren't told what buttons to press per se but you're given a choice on certain actions you can take. If you think about a generic turn-based battle then you've basically got Enemy HP and Hero HP. These can be looked at in the same way as Enemy-Eye-Open-ness and Hero-Eye-Open-ness. It would be entirely possible to have your own battle system as such where you have to use "skills" to put the enemy off like, I dunno, "STARE HARDER" or something (as this doesn't seem a serious game) which would deplete the gauge, but also healing skills like "quickly blink off camera" to regain your own gauge.

What would stop this from becoming boring is the ability to level up your own skills as enemies got more difficult. Would you spend your EXP on increasing your own gauge as a safety precaution? Maybe you just wanna go all in and increase your ability to STARE so you can get their gauge to zero before yours. Or perhaps, just in case, that healing skill might need some extra power..

You could even add in new, unlockable skills later on to keep things fresh.

This is just a quick example based off of turn-based systems and generic RPGs, but my advice in the first paragraph is probably the most solid part of my argument here. MAKE IT FUN, make it playable, make it MEMORABLE IN A GOOD WAY. No one wants to dread the next coming battle, people want to show off the new stuff they just learned from the past battle instead of proving they can press buttons when you tell them to like a lab monkey. The players will be the most important part of your game in the end because they'll decide if it sails or tanks, so you need to think about what they're going to see in the overall experience.

author=Caz
Quick-time events are a risky area. It's odd that in order to play a game, we all press buttons but we know and choose which buttons to press. When a computer is telling us "press A, press B, blahblah.." we get annoyed and call it lazy development. As gamers I think no one likes being told what to do or how to play...

Mmh. Yes and No. Think of rhythm games. While there's still some room to play them as you want and succeed (Parappa's "cool" mode comes to mind) The 'correct' way to play the game is to "Press A when the computer tells you" except taken to the next level, and demanding precision and coordination from the players... Of course, doing this without a catchy or well-known song and flashy visuals, may soon make the players aware of the repetitive nature of the gameplay. But if done right it CAN be fun.

In the other hand a standard turn based battle system could be even more risky. I'm getting tired of browsing menus already. -_-;