Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kazz]

And for a general rule for any artistic venture:  Plan what you want to create before you create it!

I didn't do this with Potato Gunner and it turned out better than anything I could hope to design and build in sixteen hours.

#9: If you're out of ideas, add colors!  Colors are exciting no matter what is going on.

[MadMAxJr]

#9.1: Stop adding brown. (Quake)
#9.2: Stop adding grey. (Gears of War)
#9.3: Stop adding bloom. (Mirrors Edge)

[Brentai]

#7:  Variety is required.
#7.1:  If there is no variety, either the game is too short to be called a game.  Or it is assuredly no fun.

#7.2: The endgame should be almost completely different than the beginning - if in the content of challenges if nothing else - but changes from segment to segment should be minute.
#7.3: Variety does not mean suddenly switching from a beat-em-up to a racing game.  Stop that shit.
#8: It must be immediately obvious to the player what can and cannot be interacted with at all times.
#8.1: If a certain type of door or object cannot be interacted with in any way, do not add an instance of that same type of door or object that can.
#8.2: Small interactable objects, or interactable objects that blend in with non-interactable objects, must be either highlighted or detectable in some simple way.
#8.2.1: Extremely small interactable objects must be avoided.  With standard resolutions somewhere around 960x720, hunting for pixel quests are approaching the humanly impossible.

[JDigital]

I suppose this all goes down to the core mechanic of every video game, which is performing actions with consequences that the player can understand as interacting with an environment.

A game imitates life in a way by giving the player feedback that feels right. This may be positive (picking up ammo, stealing a car, killing a monster, some minor success), negative (crashing the car, taking a hit, running out of ammo, some detriment to success), constraints which reinforce the player's belief that he understands the game (walls, internally consistent logic), or more long-term building toward a goal where the positive/negative/reinforcement feedback is in the player's mind as he predicts the consequences and sees the game give give feedback to previous consequences (strategy).

The best games are likely to be ones where your actions have effect and consequences. Arguably the most engaging D&D sessions I've had are where my character was very nearly killed, and the worst I've run are where player successes were negated (unkillable NPCs), player failures were negated (unkillable player characters), and verisimilitude suffered (internal consistency breaks down as a result).

[Kazz]

Part of the trouble comes up when GMs have a plot in mind when they design the game.  I tend to be more of a seat-of-my-pants GM (in more ways than one  ).

I come up with a world, and forces in the world, and important NPCs and their motivations and ambitions, and an idea of what would happen in the world if the PCs did not interfere with anything.  Then I dump the PCs into it.

The problem is that my worlds are usually too open and my players don't know where to go or what to do.  Partly this is because a PC is, pretty much by necessity, detached from the world, whereas the NPCs are closely tied to it and familiar with how it works.  You can't just take a player, drop him in a world, and tell him to behave as though he's lived there all his life; he'll just clam up.  And rightfully so.

There are ways around this.  Drop the players into a world with which the PCs are not familiar.  Give them clues to the mysteries out there and let the players discover those mysteries as the PCs do.  They'll find their own way to get involved.

[JDigital]

It's not just character backstory, but game mode. Freedom is good, but players need to go in with some expectation of what actions succeed, fail, and fit into the game world.

Take Eversion as an example. You've played platform games, so you know your goal (make it to the end flag) and your method of progress (jumping between platforms). If Eversion was an endless map, without an end flag, without challenges or rewards, it wouldn't be enjoyable even with monsters. Jumping on a monster's head would be meaningless.

Conversely, that mode of play works well for World of Warcraft because each strike is rewarding as one step toward a definite goal (kill a monster), each kill is one step toward a milestone (level up, gain new abilities to help you gain levels faster), and each level is arguably part of long-term goal to hit very high level.

I guess my point is that simply handing someone a sword isn't going to motivate them unless they value something: gold, XP, story, character development, character abilities, exploration, control, success in combat, or something else. If they have no expectation of which direction the end flag is, they won't know how to reach it.

[MadMAxJr]

It's not just character backstory, but game mode. Freedom is good, but players need to go in with some expectation of what actions succeed, fail, and fit into the game world.

[videogame snippet cut]

I guess my point is that simply handing someone a sword isn't going to motivate them unless they value something: gold, XP, story, character development, character abilities, exploration, control, success in combat, or something else. If they have no expectation of which direction the end flag is, they won't know how to reach it.

I think I see why my players are enjoying my RPG, thanks for bringing this up.

Most of my players are knowledgeable about what is expected of their behavior and action in this game world (Hell, damn near everyone here gets the general gist of 40k.)

My players are starting to drive the game as much as the story is.  Half of them have serious concerns over the development of their character, both in story and in powers.  They are given a task by an authority (An Inqusitor), and they have ultimate flexibility in how they carry it out.  They can't just go wander off and do whatever the heck they want (They don't have a starship, and they're not exactly something you can buy either.), but they don't mind that.  The environments they are given have been rich enough for them to work with to obtain their goals.  I have members of my party who don't really like one another, but they can see past that long enough to work towards their common goal.

Despite the fact they believe their Inquisitor is a heretic, and needs to be burned at the stake in every way imaginable, they still carry on, because the mission they are given still has merit.  There are real enemies out there and they are doing everything they can to learn more about them and destroy them.  There's no real treasure or money.  Most of the equipment is issued to them.  Characters earn monthly pay every so often.  My players have an idea of where the end flag is, and the simple act of getting there seems to be all they need.

My players are more than welcome to correct me if I am in error on this.

[Saturn]

#10: if you give the player an ability/new move, make sure they'll want to use it.

[Brentai]

Man, good luck with that.

[JDigital]

If you give the player an ability, make sure he needs to use it. Also called "Why Snake Can't Jump".

[Zaratustra]

#7:  Variety is required.

Variety certainly is not required. Look at Pac-Man.

If you give the player an ability, make sure he needs to use it. Also called "Why Snake Can't Jump".

Don't give the player a hammer unless you want them to see everything as a nail.

[LaserBeing]

If you give the player an ability, make sure he needs to use it. Also called "Why Snake Can't Jump".

A good point, but I wouldn't take it that far. You don't actually NEED to use CQC in MGS3, but that doesn't stop it from being awesome. It would be more fair to say that every ability the player has should compliment the focus and/or theme of the game. Snake can't jump like Mario, not because he doesn't need to jump, but because jumping isn't sneaky. He does however have a pseudo-jump; his diving somersault has jump-like properties but it's been repurposed into a stealth move. Rather than use it to get around the map, he uses it to quickly get into a hiding position or escape when cornered.

Mario, conversely, is all about jumping, so his abilities are based around that mechanic. The reason he can run is to enhance the power of his jumps. He breaks blocks and defeats enemies by jumping. But there's still room for superfluous powers. You don't ever need the Fire Flower, but it sure as hell is appreciated.

[François]

Well, you can make the distinction between things that you don't need, but are useful, and things that you don't need and never get to use for any reason.

Like in Demon Sword, for example. There's an item you can pick up from dead enemies, the Phoenix. When you fall down a bottomless pit, it calls a bird to lift you up, makes you invincible and able to fly freely for like 30 seconds. The catch? The only bottomless pits in the game are in the first level. Past the first level, all pits are of the "damages you but won't kill you" type, and the Phoenix never shows up again, even if you have a dozen sitting in your inventory. That is terrible.

[Brentai]

Change that word "needs" to "wants" and it works a damn sight better.

CQC is super-useful for, example, defeating The Boss.  Whereas, say, the AMUT spell you literally can't put to a possible use.

Obvious exceptions for shit like Peanuts and Secret Boots, but for the most part things you find in the game should have at least relative use.  Going back to the "if I do this, it's established that this will happen" rule.

[Catloaf]

#7:  Variety is required.

Variety certainly is not required. Look at Pac-Man.

Then look at the remake of Pac-Man for 360.  The new one's a hell of a lot more fun.  I'll admit that it isn't technically required, but it always helps.

And then there's semantics.  One can argue that variety exists in Pac-Man, but it is the player that creates it with their own decisions.  Similarly, Tetris has variety, not only in that it's not all squares or all L-blocks, but have you honestly ever played the exact same game of Tetris?  Or Pac-Man, for that matter?

[Detonator]

#7:  Variety is required.

Variety certainly is not required. Look at Pac-Man.

Then look at the remake of Pac-Man for 360.  The new one's a hell of a lot more fun.  I'll admit that it isn't technically required, but it always helps.

And then there's semantics.  One can argue that variety exists in Pac-Man, but it is the player that creates it with their own decisions.  Similarly, Tetris has variety, not only in that it's not all squares or all L-blocks, but have you honestly ever played the exact same game of Tetris?  Or Pac-Man, for that matter?

At that point you've defined "variety" so loosely that the entire rule is pointless.

[Brentai]

To be fair, I can't really play more than 5 levels of Pac-Man without fucking off to go have a martini/complain about how long my pizza's taking/flirt/play Strider instead, depending on the atmosphere.

[Zaratustra]

if tetris was designed in 2008 it'd introduce a new brick in each level and then have quests and gimmick bricks and shit

...


hold on I had an idea

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Because Tetris needed a Puzzle Quest-type enhancement?

[Bongo Bill]

Tetris DS has a mode like that.