SPAGHETTI SAUCE

"In embracing the diversity of human being you'll find a sure way to true happiness"

Ok, what's the mystery here? I don't get it. - That quote sounds pretty 'common sense' to me... Allow me to reference something that came up in one of the most recent of RMN's little dramas: Random encounters vs Touch encounters.

Some people like fights, and other people like exploration, right? Well, obviously you won't release the same game twice, one labeled "Sweet Random encounters" and other "Spicy Touch encounters" (If amateur games are a dime a dozen already, that would only make things worse) So your objective as a game designer is to find a way to accommodate both kind of players into the same game. Pokemon was cited as a game that handles the issue very well. You'll still get random encounters if you step into the tall grass, but is the player the one in control to do so or not. - That's it! That's all you need to do! Nobody reasonable enough will ask more from you regarding these kinds of 'problems'.

The real problem is when people still see this as looking for the "platonic dish" and are reluctant to make even the simplest of changes to improve their games and make them more appealing to a bigger, more diverse audience. (And even encourage others to do the same) And things get yet even worse when phrases like "just for fun" or "artistic integrity" are thrown into the mix. But that's another story.

To apply this to game design requires unfortunately a "community" of taste testers.

It's not that it can't but unless you have a group of beta testers and those beta testers happen to be able to hand your game to a new player like spaghetti, you can't even start.

Don't get me wrong. It's definitely possible and I get the theme but sometimes you have to discuss how to get a Tipping Point first. After that only then can you work on the spaghetti and then after that, you have to be invested to create a guide for that for future generations of you w/ lesser skills but who are willing to stand on your gigantic shoulders.

It sounds like a lot of excuses but take this guide for example:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8795237/Beginners-Guide-to-RPG-Maker-VX-v04

It's a game guide and not a game design but in order for your game design to have a beginning you have to make your game guide chunky enough that everyone follows it and everyone gets a piece of the Bible.

Without this component, it becomes like this thread. You or I can make the thread but it's just tldr even if it has content. No one is going to say, "You know what? Your ideas make sense so even though you haven't made a game, how about you and I and the entire community work together to create a global internet-based double blind test on a game?"

...so nothing happens. In the end it ends up being in the hands of those who accidentally make these things happen or are professionals to begin with.

Sure maybe one of us is inspired to contribute to more threads but how many of us can create the catalyst to create a guide that people will want us to edit and from that guide - using it as an analogy for the pasta - determine the sauce?

I will say this though just so I don't come off like making a useless post that doesn't contribute to the thread at all:

Unlike spaghetti, game design is not in the sauce. It's in here *points to chest

Create a game that targets the heart but then follow it up with images that fills the brain and people will talk.

It's easier said then done especially for rpg maker games because there are so many sub-niches and the common niche for people looking for this simply is not in the design of the databases for rpg maker games.

If something like Minecraft hits the scene, people don't think Minecraft. They don't think games. They just go ooohhh... after giving it enough time and then it leads to videos where other people go oooohhh... and then other people go ooooohhhh....let's make a satirical article for this.

If something like high quality rpg maker scenes, the devs are pressured to take "buzz/votes/viral interest, etc." and that type of cutthroat competitive marketing wrapped around in the concept of greater advertising range is both it's strength and the spaghetti's downfall. Yes, it's kewl and legit that people love your games but then how can you work on heart strings and addiction when you also want people to initially hype it? You're bound to "pander" and suffer for the common goods.

You're bound to add sex scenes if that's your niche. You're bound to add flashy effects and pretty boy melodramas if that's your niche. You're bound to create more Narutos the better you get. I mean just look at the other entertainment mediums.

Mcdonalds sacrifice taste for a certain blandness in their burgers mixed with attractive looking pictures.

Starbucks are not generally considered great coffees but they have tons of whipped cream.

Harry Potter is horrible for a children's book compared to what has come before it but it's that flaw that allows people to treat it like a basic fable like children's version of the Three Musketeers, Disney versions of Beauty and the Beast or even TV versions of Tarzan.

...it's also a regular desk job. Look at how Square constantly go back to Final Fantasy. Once it clicked, you can't let it go or else you will lose your audience. This is the flaw in the video too.

Gladwell sells the story as if it's an outlier having discovered something that wasn't when in the end it's just food in the can. Interesting...but you're not exactly giving everyone five star in a can. With games it's even worse because sometimes it's not the game design that's wrong but the game expectations.

You all know this from TV series and movies. There are smarter and better movies that get rated a 3 even by intellectuals simply because there's a detail that they can't get past on. Lois & Clark was a far better (in an enriching manner) Superman TV series than Smallville but Smallville got all the hype for example where as L&C is consider episodic and light hearted. Joker in Dark Knight Returns is considered dark and great acting even though it ruined the mythos of the character and was just a projection of what people felt Obama type terrorists were mixed with Clown make up.

At a certain point in a game developer's life (even though I'm not one) they get the same difficulties as website owners deciding whether to sell or keep their product or great actors deciding to become Hollywood statues or unknown actor that finally struck it big.

It's very rare to get to that Meryl Streep level. Lindsay Lohan could have done it. She failed. Deborah Kerr could have gotten the same prestige. People barely knew here. Even Meryl Streep could have become more Meryl Streep but she takes up roles like Mama Mia too.

With videogames you eventually have to contend with graphical expectations. Everyone will tell you how much horrible and bland and unoriginal 3d models are for example in rpgs but when you see mainstream 3d games sell, do you fight them or do you join them? Even those who don't join them make the mistake of attacking them rather than seeing what made it work and transposing it to RPG Maker games. Just entering that observation alone requires a certain jerk-faceness to the approach. Where fans and indy devs work on say combat systems, you work on game design. Where you used to be able to just experiment, you now have to be confident that you are pandering to something that will get you fans BUT you know they don't know yet that this is something they will be addicted on.

Then there's your actual support. Are you a cook or are you not a cook? Have your tongue been ruined by cigarettes and coffee or do you still have it? Are you simply avant garde who will sometimes make something like Portal or will you be Cronenberg with a better vision even if it can mean obscurity forever if you fail? ESPECIALLY when you finally strike thunder. Will you have the cutthroat ability to be more of a business man/pioneer or will you be that idiot savant that knows some basic business but your work gets chewed up alive by poorer smaller and mediocre companies while the mainstream rags on your less appealing but richer and more meaningful themes?

Even the ones who say they will always remain the same, they never do once the stakes are high and the stakes ARE high. Give enough fun to your community and they would demand more from you and you until those who are the loudest aren't even your original feedback that gave you the inspiration to make even better and greater games. Friends will become enemies. Enemies will become fanboys. Fanboys will become fat and spoiled and entitled people. Game design articles simply cannot take those into account and address them without a tipping point because game design articles are not game design. Even game design does not gain the respect of the coders "until you prove them wrong" -and then they will copy you en-masse and the thing that strikes lightning will not be televised. It will be hijacked by mainstream games and sold as your innovation + a budget + a heritage title and you just have to trudge on and make those same cross road decisions over and over again the better and better you get.