The "Perfect" game elements

[Protomega]

So I "get" to create a game and currently I have about 3 weeks left. I'm not planning on getting the full game out in 3 weeks but I would at least like to have the "Here is the basic layout of the game already implemented" game be built on a good foundation and future improvements.

I've watched many of the videos on here from Zero Punctuation's reviews to Extra Credit's talk on the subject of games in general and specifics of what makes a good game good and a bad game bad. I don't want to assume what I feel I have learned and I would much rather let the actual gaming community influence how I design this game.

With that being said I'm probably going to give this thread until the end of the day at which point I will be taking everything discussed and start writing the finalized ideas and suggestions.

I want to hear arguments for everything you can think of that belongs in a game. Music, Graphics, Storyline, Genre, Weapons, Theme, etc. Just mention one thing and I'm sure due to the interconnection of everything in a game, you will find that the conversation goes beyond that one thing you mentioned.

But please, if you give your opinions make sure you give reasons, and if you start a discussion with others on their opinions, dis/agreeing, please support your side! Even if you agree with someone else, you will still be able to add more to your opinion on the subject.

Have fun and I'll be on here regularly giving my concerns, feedback, and etc.

 

[Phlakes]

Well, the biggest thing is that you make absolutely sure the game is fun. It could have no music or story and terrible hand drawn graphics, but as long as it's fun to play, it's still a good game.

 

[Shade184]

Gameplay is your first and foremost concern. Story, graphics, etc - while they're good to have, they can all be substituted if the gameplay is able to make up for them. Gameplay needs to be fluid - nothing's more annoying than frustrating/clunky controls and bits where you simply have no idea what to do next. And it needs to be engaging. Keep it challenging and interesting, without being frustrating or confusing.

Once you have gameplay down, you can implement other things like story, art, music, etc.

http://www.sakari-infinity.net has a lot of good free game music, btw.

 

[Protomega]

It truly is a challenge to find some good Gameplay that isn't over done and completely worn down. For example I don't really find the FPS Zombie Killing games to be much fun anymore because everyone in the industry seems to be doing that. My concerns are not with art, music, or storyline, they were just examples for you to give your opinion.

I guess the true question right now is, what makes a game fun? What games do you truly love to play and why is it that you love to play them?

 

[Hiikuro]

Gameplay coherence is what I would say is a key element. Look at classical board games: Chess, go, reversi, (and possibly backgammon). All of these have rulesets that are fairly simple and almost perfectly coherent, yet allows for immensely complex strategies and replay value.

Gameplay which has elements that barely change the overall gameplay are often redundant (ex. mini-games), or elements which are added just because they are "cool". These elements often get uninteresting very quickly, and thus get tedious rather than fun. I'd say the KISS principle is fairly relevant for gameplay.

Bottom line is that complexity derived from a simple concept is, IMO, far more enjoyable and long-lasting than complexity derived from a complex concept.

 

[Protomega]

It seems to me that the best games are those of logic and strategy, and not the explosion bullet storm games you see so often.

 

[Hiikuro]

It seems to me that the best games are those of logic and strategy, and not the explosion bullet storm games you see so often.

You can have that kinds of games even as "bullet storm games". Just as long as the core gameplay is coherent.

Shooters tend to abstract gameplay in that the logic gets a lot fuzzier (a lot of variables play in at the same time, like position), and that is not necessarily a bad thing. However, I have experienced a lot of shooters have a lot of elements that seem to lack a fitting purpose.

As for example in Mass Effect 2, I often felt that many of the biotics and techniques (I don't recall the correct names) lacked a proper purpose. In essence they felt redundant. When game elements appear redundant, something must be amiss. Something similar could be said about the spells in Dragon Age, where the system felt very 'unclean' (probably because all spells had their own cooldown-timer). The spells also overlapped a good deal in their purposes, making many of them redundant.

Another example is Half life 2. I think that all weapons had a unique purpose there. That is to me good design. Unfortunately, Half life 2 also did add some physics puzzles that I often felt redundant, and just there to show off the engine. I'm not against the use of such puzzles, but they felt like a 'second game' in HL2, badly integrated in a way.