THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF A GAME

I play games for gameplay. If I want to read or write a story, there's a better medium for that, if I want to watch or create a movie there's a better medium for that, etc. 'Tis truly unfortunate that these days many think that gameplay can serve by just being average, with little to no focus on it.

post=83877

Every time I see the phrase "instant gratification" uttered, I want to run towards the nearest living thing in killing. This is probably due to my former stay in the just WONDERFUL mmorpg community.

Pacing is an important aspect to get right. If the player is bored right at the start of the game, why should he continue in the hopes it gets better? Whether the player is bored at the beginning or the end, what can't be denied is that the developer failed to reach that particular player in that time span. Instant gratification has little to do with it.

Sure it does. I would have missed out on a LOT of good games if I went with the first 'I'M NOT HAVING FUN RIGHT NOW' impulse I had. Hell, a lot of my currently favorite games are because I sat through them and gave them a proper chance. It's one thing if a game blows ass from jump street, but you have to remember that sometimes things take buildup. This is not only true in games, but all sorts of mediums, from movies to books.

"Buildup" would fall under proper pacing, but ok. So you stuck with some games that you found boring in the beginning and it turned out you liked them. That's great, but that's still no excuse for a badly made or uninteresting introduction to the game itself.

A lot of my currently favorite games are because I sat through them and gave them a proper chance. It's one thing if a game blows ass from jump street, but you have to remember that sometimes things take buildup. This is not only true in games, but all sorts of mediums, from movies to books.

I don't know Feld, there is a reason why you stuck to those paticular games, some kind of element that made you THINK that the game might get better later on, something that made you go "hey this game had good reviews, I want to find out exactly why" or "this game has potential" I really don't think you have stuck to every game possible, because there was the "this isn't going to be worth it" or bad game design that you know will be consistant throughout the whole game.

Really from a game maker perspective, if you can 'hook' the player, you win. Thinking back to my last post, I will gladly play through a game that gets almost everything I have listed. These feats are not very hard to obtain in this bright era of gamemaking.

post=83627
Fun. Nothing else matters if the game isn't fun to play.

You're right, but TooManyToasters is also correct that this can be a little broad. If anything, I think amateur game makers need to focus less on story and more on solid game mechanics that make the game fun- complex dungeons, challenging but fair combat, etc. Although it's anathema to me because I myself prefer writing stories to designing dungeons and combats, I think an amateur RPG with a crappy story and fun gameplay is still fundamentally good, while another RPG with a great story but boring-as-hell gameplay is undeniably bad.

And as for what I feel is least important- the graphics. I think graphics can make a great first impression and get people to play the game, but if the game sucks otherwise, all the custom sprites in the world won't redeem it.

post=83887

post=83882
Of course, there's never any excuse for poor or shoddy work. I'm just saying I think there's this 'I'm not being blown away right now how come I'm not having the time of my life yet' *shuts off and deletes* and it's unfair and asking too much. I think at leas the player needs to come halfway and invest some patience.

You're exaggerating. Nobody (reasonable) asks for these things

Of course I'm exaggerating a bit to make a point, but all I'm saying is that the player invest a little bit more time to appreciate a buildup. There are times where this doesn't happen and I've been guilty of it myself at times.

post=83885
I don't know Feld, there is a reason why you stuck to those paticular games, some kind of element that made you THINK that the game might get better later on, something that made you go "hey this game had good reviews, I want to find out exactly why" or "this game has potential" I really don't think you have stuck to every game possible, because there was the "this isn't going to be worth it" or bad game design that you know will be consistant throughout the whole game.

This is true, though!

"Fun" is a cop-out answer, because the question is already asking what makes games fun. It's like someone asking what the most important part of preparing a great meal is, and someone answering "food". Come on guys, you can do better than that.

What makes games fun? As in all games, not just video games or RPGs specifically? A transparent and consistent ruleset. When the player understands the rules of a game and can place his trust in it, he is free to have as much fun as he likes. Good controls, crisp visuals, solid gameplay feedback, a sense of challenge and accomplishment, fair conflict resolution. Once those elements are in place you can do pretty much anything and end up with a fun game.

Going to modify my stance a little by agreeing with DFalcon. I now have lost all faith in the term "gameplay". First of all in a language sense, you certainly don't don't say "Hey that book had good bookread." No you say "That was a good book." like "That was a good game."

If you want to make it so the player can chop an enemy's arm off, you're going to need graphics to convey that, you're even going to need sound to convey that, you're going to need coding to convey that, you're going to need design to convey that, you're even going to need a story to lead up to that. All that makes the game. I don't think games can be measured in such a way that they are completely divided into pieces, because it's not as simple as a stupid tier list.

I agree with Brickroad. "What makes a game fun" is a much clearer question than what the best aspect of a game is.

That being said, what makes a game fun has many answers, although Brick puts it nicely when he says, "a transparent and consistent ruleset." Indeed, this can be applied to all games (it's part of what defines a game as a game). Some games try to broaden the scope of what can and cannot be done (i.e. sandbox games), but there is still a very clear purpose behind each push of a gamepad button.

To take the point further (developing Brick's point of challenge and accomplishment, as well as an article he wrote about rewarding the player), to make a game fun, the most important thing, to me, is not giving the player the most options, abilities, actions, or any other suggestion that is interpreted through player input. The thing that is needed to make all of that work is a scale, or a reference, or some other clear measurement of success. The more options you give to the player, the more difficult it is for the game to acknowledge the player's actions and reward them appropriately.

This is why simple games, like puzzle games, are so popular and fun. If Tetris was a game where you would try to prevent the blocks from stacking to the top, but there were no levels, no increase of drop speed, no points, no timer, or any other measurement of any kind, the fun factor would be reduced dramatically. It would be akin to spinning a basketball on your finger. The magical thing is, even without these measurements programmed in, people would create their own. They would have friends with stopwatches nearby as they spun basketballs or widdled down rows of blocks, or have people keep score. The game is in the score!

This is something that is much harder for people to do with more complicated games, such as the ones we create and the ones we go to the store and buy. Each game has such varying rules and appeals that we as game creators need to be the ones to create the measurement of success for the player and help them keep score. Give them clear ways to understand how well they are doing, and if there is room for improvement (anyone play a game with a score system like DDR or DMC and got an A after a kick-ass round instead of an S? Yeah, apparently we can do better!).

Tangent? Maybe? Just stuff I think about.

post=85263
If we're talking about RM* games, there is no important aspect. Either your game is not downloaded and not played or it is downloaded and not played; it's just luck.

Are you still spiteful about V&V? =P

You do realize it got far more downloads than any other RS game, right?

I'll talk to you later, I'm at work right now.