Top Worst games that a Game Designer can learn from
- Thread starter DaMullet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, that's a prime example of /thread here.Irridium said:
Daikatana is EVERYTHING a game developer shoud never do, from PR to actual gameplay, from the graphics to the story. I thought the game didn't deserve the hate it does, but, after watching a few LPs, let me take that back.
It's bad.
Don't promise A LOT and actually add almost nothing of that to the real game.
(yes, I am looking at you; Peter Molyneux)
(yes, I am looking at you; Peter Molyneux)
I sort-off liked Daikatana
I don't think ET is anything more than a curiosity and doesnt have any learning value attached to it.
Try to play good games with hints of bad so that you can actually learn what was wrong rather than just a pile of mess.
Metal Gear Solid 3 is a good example of annoying camera. I loved the game but it felt a bit unwieldy at times.
A good idea would be to play games that got like 7/10 and try to see what held them back, like Dante's Inferno. What was wrong with it exactly?
Play a game that does the basics right so that it highlights what can be a problem.
Edit: Want a good MMO or RPG what not to do? FFXIV is great example of a game with great graphics and a huge world but a lot of crap and boringness to learn from. Little things like how it takes too long to sell things and how unfun fighting.
Metal Gear Solid 3 is a good example of annoying camera. I loved the game but it felt a bit unwieldy at times.
A good idea would be to play games that got like 7/10 and try to see what held them back, like Dante's Inferno. What was wrong with it exactly?
Play a game that does the basics right so that it highlights what can be a problem.
Edit: Want a good MMO or RPG what not to do? FFXIV is great example of a game with great graphics and a huge world but a lot of crap and boringness to learn from. Little things like how it takes too long to sell things and how unfun fighting.
Ultima IX.
Angry Dragon Age fans who want to see what it *actually* looks like when a beloved franchise is violated should look into this game.
Angry Dragon Age fans who want to see what it *actually* looks like when a beloved franchise is violated should look into this game.
It's not a bad game at all, but Brutal Legend. For the simple lesson that, if you're going to give your game new, interesting, creative gameplay, you'd better damn well redouble your explanations and tutorials. Because it doesn't matter how well the mechanics fit together, or how fun it is when you play it right - if you can't get players on the same wavelength as you, they're going to think that the gameplay just plain sucks - as a lot of people did.
Which is why I think it's kind of sad how Double Fine put so much effort into designing Brutal Legend's stage battles to blend the action and strategy genres in a way that keeps the epic battles of RTS games but has the player-focused combat of action games - and not only did they try but they succeeded, brilliantly - only to trip up at the last hurdle: explaining this to the player. Which caused so many people to claim how much they hated the "rts sections" when in reality this was generally because those people hadn't thought to use most of the mechanics available to them. Because the game didn't make it obvious enough that they should.
By the way I am not in any way saying that games shouldn't "genre mix" or do stuff differently. Quite the opposite - once I struggled up its learning curve, I thought Brutal Legend's gameplay was fantastic, and generally I think that if we can get past the established ideas of "genre A does this, genre B looks like that" and make games as individual products, rather than "like X game but with a minor difference" then we'll see far better, more diverse games overall. But deviating from the trend and not telling anyone how to play your game is just suicide.
Which is why I think it's kind of sad how Double Fine put so much effort into designing Brutal Legend's stage battles to blend the action and strategy genres in a way that keeps the epic battles of RTS games but has the player-focused combat of action games - and not only did they try but they succeeded, brilliantly - only to trip up at the last hurdle: explaining this to the player. Which caused so many people to claim how much they hated the "rts sections" when in reality this was generally because those people hadn't thought to use most of the mechanics available to them. Because the game didn't make it obvious enough that they should.
By the way I am not in any way saying that games shouldn't "genre mix" or do stuff differently. Quite the opposite - once I struggled up its learning curve, I thought Brutal Legend's gameplay was fantastic, and generally I think that if we can get past the established ideas of "genre A does this, genre B looks like that" and make games as individual products, rather than "like X game but with a minor difference" then we'll see far better, more diverse games overall. But deviating from the trend and not telling anyone how to play your game is just suicide.
Are we talking PC or Playstation? They were essentially different games.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Fortunately, Konami realised there mistake and Subsistence apparently solved all that. Unfortunately, it's incredibly hard to get your hands on these days...AugustFall said:
-.-
H&D is bugged as hell, but is fun. Reminds me of Operation Flashpoint 1 somewhat.GiantRaven said:
Yeah, subsistence is a ***** to find. People seem to be selling it upwards of triple digits its so rare.
OT: I'd say 2 games: Gods and Generals and Big Rigs.
PC.GiantRaven said:
The illusion of sheer gloominess, marked with the idea that 1 shot meant death for a "real" person gave it an air of realism that few games since have managed to capture. Ammo was limited and you fought for every last foot of ground.
But yeah, glitches galore.
Even in the sequel
<- Game Designer In Training
Most bad games don't stem from really bad design choices but more on budget cuts and time constraints. Even making a game with the most basic software takes time and patience. Having less time and being forced to find compromises has only ever hurt the finished product. Though those who do nothing but TRY and create a bland shooter or horribly mix game elements have no excuse.
As far as games to learn from I'd say pretty much everything. Designers learn from the good and the bad...Okay, fine. Mirror's Edge.
Most bad games don't stem from really bad design choices but more on budget cuts and time constraints. Even making a game with the most basic software takes time and patience. Having less time and being forced to find compromises has only ever hurt the finished product. Though those who do nothing but TRY and create a bland shooter or horribly mix game elements have no excuse.
As far as games to learn from I'd say pretty much everything. Designers learn from the good and the bad...Okay, fine. Mirror's Edge.
Something tells me this thread should be called "Worst Games that a Game Designer Can Try to Emulate/Copy". It's actually a good idea to occasionally play and learn from bad games, since that way you have a good idea of what NOT to do.
Anywho, as for games that should never be copied, I'll just quote a fellow who already took my answer:
Anywho, as for games that should never be copied, I'll just quote a fellow who already took my answer:
Irridium said: