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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsSLASH'S PROFILE
Close
I make video games that'll make you cry.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Criticism, your audience, and putting your foot down; the concept of saying "That's too god damn bad."
There are two points to consider:
POINT 1: Is it CRITICISM or OPINION?
For example, the common complaint "Your game is too hard" can be either.
As a Criticism: If it's a legitimate criticism, it may be because your game doesn't teach the rules very well, your game is full of cheap or unfair tricks, you have a terrible sense of balance, you haven't had enough people playtest yet.
As an Opinion: This could be because the player doesn't have the patience for your game, the player doesn't like dying, the player likes to whine, the player is in a bad mood, the player doesn't like that genre/theme/skybox.
It's your job to be a good listener and weed out the legitimate criticisms (which should be looked at) from the whiny complaints because if you listen to everyone, your game will be shit, but if you ignore everyone, your game will be shit. (THE LAST PART IS TRUE YOU ARE A TERRIBLE JUDGE OF YOUR OWN WORK)
POINT 2: How much do you need audience approval?
While we should all strive to make the game we want to and not give in to whims of our consumers, pride doesn't cook you dinner. This probably doesn't apply to as many people here, but if you are actually working for a profit, it's worth considering making your game more accessible to the masses by conceding on a couple points - if they will actually make the game better. If you prefer super-difficult games but your audience wants an Easy Mode, well, it comes down to priorities. This is what's known in the biz as SELLING OUT.
If you're in the games biz to pay rent, get internet famous, or impress the ladies, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THIS.
Otherwise, fuck the haters and make the best damn game you can. I'm sure there will still be someone who likes it :)
POINT 1: Is it CRITICISM or OPINION?
For example, the common complaint "Your game is too hard" can be either.
As a Criticism: If it's a legitimate criticism, it may be because your game doesn't teach the rules very well, your game is full of cheap or unfair tricks, you have a terrible sense of balance, you haven't had enough people playtest yet.
As an Opinion: This could be because the player doesn't have the patience for your game, the player doesn't like dying, the player likes to whine, the player is in a bad mood, the player doesn't like that genre/theme/skybox.
It's your job to be a good listener and weed out the legitimate criticisms (which should be looked at) from the whiny complaints because if you listen to everyone, your game will be shit, but if you ignore everyone, your game will be shit. (THE LAST PART IS TRUE YOU ARE A TERRIBLE JUDGE OF YOUR OWN WORK)
POINT 2: How much do you need audience approval?
While we should all strive to make the game we want to and not give in to whims of our consumers, pride doesn't cook you dinner. This probably doesn't apply to as many people here, but if you are actually working for a profit, it's worth considering making your game more accessible to the masses by conceding on a couple points - if they will actually make the game better. If you prefer super-difficult games but your audience wants an Easy Mode, well, it comes down to priorities. This is what's known in the biz as SELLING OUT.
If you're in the games biz to pay rent, get internet famous, or impress the ladies, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THIS.
Otherwise, fuck the haters and make the best damn game you can. I'm sure there will still be someone who likes it :)
Death and Antagonism: Cool Villains
author=Dudesoft
I don't really like RPG villains. They're usually some really lameass anime guy who wants to destroy the world. Easy to make fun of, but really not interesting.
Doho but sephiroth has a long sword so powerful no one else can wield and he becomes a god Dohohoho fapfapfap
See, that's why I liked Kefka. Yea, he was cliche and wanted to destroy the world and became a god and all that, but at least he didn't half-ass some lame story about his mom, he was just like "Man maybe it'd be fun to commit genocide today" and then he did it.
Death and Antagonism: Cool Villains
Dr. Fetus (From Super Meat Boy!)
Granted, this is a villain in a platformer, which means his storyline and motivation is about as well-developed as a fat turtle, but his personality - he's a dick - is amazingly well enforced throughout the game. When you beat a level, he punches your girlfriend. When you beat a world, he reacts like a baby, punches you in the face, and then runs off with your girlfriend again. His ferocity is unmatched. You can't help but love him.
A super-simple villain with super-simple motivations, and yet he remains amazingly memorable. I dig it.
(P.S. I had a link to the website, but they just finished a "draw the developers nude" contest and... well, you can google Super Meat Boy if you want)
Ban Rick Perry
I Can Delve for Miles: What Draws you to Dungeon Crawls?
author=NewBlack
Urgh, character progression is the lowest common denominator of incentives.
I mean sure, it has its place.. But that place isn't "driving force of game".
It's a major factor in a ton of games though. D&D obviously, but even The Legend of Zelda is hugely about character progression - getting extra Heart Pieces, bottles, the best sword, items from dungeons. It's not outright spelled out for you in XP and Gil but from the start of the game to the end you have a completely different character.
I like seeing my character improve! Mostly because I like the new game mechanics and power-ups. In World of Warcraft, every 10 levels or so you would hit a milestone in your talent tree and you could learn a special ability meant for that tree. They always had some of the coolest abilities and I would work my ass off to earn 'em and afterward, damn did they feel good.
Attention
author=Solitayre
The other thing that attracted me was the articles on gameplay design, but I assume I was an unusual case in that regard.
The articles on game design make me come back once in a while, because they're usually quite solid. Maybe I should write some myself, but my advice tends to come off in unfiltered bullet points instead of long discussions on a single topic.
Anywho, there's been a recent trend in indie games in general (the big, for-profit ones) that has created a 1% in the indie community (hint, there's large contributor for that and its name rhymes with "Shteam"). Not that I blame Steam or any indies who get on there, but for those who don't, well, good luck. As indie games are a dime a dozen not only do you have to rock out, you have to rock out hard to get people to even look.
As far as suggestions go, I think a forum board for newly released/demoing games would be appropriate. Yes, each game has their own blog for this purpose already. But I can say for certain that the informal forum-style would encourage me to look at more games (each game with its own topic if the creator makes one), because it's integrated into what I already do. It's not perfect, but maybe it'd help.
author=Craze
I might be wrong on that number, I don't have spyware tapping into RMN yet. Still, 200 people aren't going to magically download your game 8,000 times.
I wonder if there's any way to increase this, then...
I Can Delve for Miles: What Draws you to Dungeon Crawls?
author=Max McGee
Restricting myself to tabletop gaming, and then further to GMing, what I like best about dungeon crawls is designing and then awarding treasure (and secondarily the challenges guarding it).
I've just realized an odd phenomenon about RPGs related to this. In non-RPG games, the player faces challenges and the reward is that they can continue to play the game. A simple example is Mario, where you beat a level so that you can get to the next level and beat that one too. It's completely recursive. Yea, there is the end goal of beating the game and saving the princess, but for the most part, you're there to play more levels - and if the gameplay is fun, well then this makes complete sense.
In an RPG, there's two reward paths going on simultaneously. Like above, when you beat a boss and emerge from a dungeon, you are rewarded with the ability to continue the game, but you're also rewarded with tangible personal rewards, like XP, money, and equipment. Often this is tied in with the first reward, as you wouldn't be strong enough to continue without it, but it also allows for constantly changing player states, and *possibly* more solid, material proof of progress.
This is getting really theoretical and I'll shut up now, but I think this is part of why Zelda games are so great. Not only are you rewarded with story and more areas to explore, but you're also rewarded with more strength, capabilities, and a clear and obvious sense of achievement that you can see any time you open up your inventory.
To tie this into the topic, if you're making dungeon-crawl-esque game, and there's a lessened importance on story or continuance, you should highly emphasize the player's growth and progress in another way, be it tangible rewards or something unique.
I Can Delve for Miles: What Draws you to Dungeon Crawls?
Some kind of interesting mechanic mixed with fun gameplay. If we're talking roguelike here, there has to be something drawing you into each dungeon. Usually they're just hard enough so that sometimes I die, but as I play more I have more confidence in my success rate.
The Binding of Isaac managed to suck me in for 25 hours, and the dungeon itself is only ~45 minutes long (if you survive the whole thing). Everything is randomly generated, from enemies and levels to the power-ups and character progression, but it's so well-balanced you rarely rage about how screwed you got (and you will get screwed), you just attempt another dungeon dive.
Also, if you're gonna be in dungeons a lot you better have some fucking good music.
The Binding of Isaac managed to suck me in for 25 hours, and the dungeon itself is only ~45 minutes long (if you survive the whole thing). Everything is randomly generated, from enemies and levels to the power-ups and character progression, but it's so well-balanced you rarely rage about how screwed you got (and you will get screwed), you just attempt another dungeon dive.
Also, if you're gonna be in dungeons a lot you better have some fucking good music.
WaveStation, the videogames music marketplace
http://incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/
but yea i mean i guess you could pay for it too
because a good majority of us are selling these games for a profit
but yea i mean i guess you could pay for it too
because a good majority of us are selling these games for a profit
Stats are for Sissies: Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics
If you're going to add character customization to your game, make it meaningful. It can add a lot of fun, or it can be boring and useless.
Player Stats or My Numbers are Bigger than Yours:
If you have six stats, make them six meaningful stats. Make the player choose between most, if not all, of them. It's always struck me as kind of dumb that some games allow a Warrior class to put points into Intelligence when he can't gain any benefit from it. Both Dungeons and Dragons and Diablo II do a pretty good job of stat selection. There's usually a main stat you know you gotta invest in, but there's always other options that look pretty tempting as well.
Talent Trees and Skill Choices: You Are Not A Unique Snowflake
If you're adding talent trees, perks, or whatever you want to call them, you need to create choice. If you have a talent system, but there's a build that is vastly superior to any other, it will brutally screw your balance, and upsets players who want to choose "inferior" builds.
One of the best, more "powerful" ways to create a talent-tree is to allow Playstyle choices. For example, give the player a choice between a defensive or offensive ability, or the choice between a direct heal and a support ability. If your numbers are well-balanced, the abilities will both be very useful, but give the player a chance to experiment and play the way he wants.
Honestly, talents that inspire you to actually change playstyle are way more fun than talents that are simply +2% damage. It gives the player a huge sense of growth and makes them feel like their choice makes a difference. A +2% damage boost most likely won't even be noticed, especially if your game has random damage rolls.
Final thoughts
I was gonna make a crack at Craze for his huge opening post, but then I started ranting about game design theory. Oops.
Player Stats or My Numbers are Bigger than Yours:
If you have six stats, make them six meaningful stats. Make the player choose between most, if not all, of them. It's always struck me as kind of dumb that some games allow a Warrior class to put points into Intelligence when he can't gain any benefit from it. Both Dungeons and Dragons and Diablo II do a pretty good job of stat selection. There's usually a main stat you know you gotta invest in, but there's always other options that look pretty tempting as well.
Talent Trees and Skill Choices: You Are Not A Unique Snowflake
If you're adding talent trees, perks, or whatever you want to call them, you need to create choice. If you have a talent system, but there's a build that is vastly superior to any other, it will brutally screw your balance, and upsets players who want to choose "inferior" builds.
One of the best, more "powerful" ways to create a talent-tree is to allow Playstyle choices. For example, give the player a choice between a defensive or offensive ability, or the choice between a direct heal and a support ability. If your numbers are well-balanced, the abilities will both be very useful, but give the player a chance to experiment and play the way he wants.
Honestly, talents that inspire you to actually change playstyle are way more fun than talents that are simply +2% damage. It gives the player a huge sense of growth and makes them feel like their choice makes a difference. A +2% damage boost most likely won't even be noticed, especially if your game has random damage rolls.
Final thoughts
I was gonna make a crack at Craze for his huge opening post, but then I started ranting about game design theory. Oops.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
