quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

(From the Psycological Persective)

A game can be designed so "as you play" then you learn more about "how to play". It can be done in such a way that the player is barely aware of the fact that he or she is actually learning.

Its also a proven (scientific) fact the games were and are the natural way to learn. Games have passed the test of nature as being the best way to learn. So if you were to make a game, why would you want to include a manual that explains to the player how to play your game when you already have access to the best meduim for learning anyhow?

Isn''t this a just a tad backwards? I think game designers spend way to much time trying to configure the mechanical aspect of their game rather than working out and understanding the psycological power of "The Game".

So tell me, what do we understand out the Psycological Aspects of Game Design? Is it possible to "Construct a Learning Curve" based around your brilliant ideas for a game?

Last but not least how can we Value Ideas (for game design) with in the Learning Curve?

Note: Don''t hesitate to ask your own question/s either, they''re all welcome.

I got into this late... but, when you first start UO (3 years ago for me) there is a simple but nice presentation that explained how to control your character, in later releases they had an offline demo with a guide that instructed you to do something (questing). It was nicely done.



Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

I''ve definity got to get Ultima, the latest one. There must be a lot to learn from this game as everyone mentions it one way or another here. Is there any critisms about this game that someone would like to briefly share with me?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

I''ve definity got to get Ultima, the latest one. There must be a lot to learn from this game as everyone mentions it one way or another here. Is there any critisms about this game that someone would like to briefly share with me?

I have some criticisms... as I''ve said (numerous times , I''ve been playing for almost 3 years. I''ve seen the good the bad and the ugly of UO. The game is fun, especially when you get involved with other players... The worst thing about UO is the lagg. I played for several years using a 33.6 and then 56K modems, about 4 months ago I got a cable modem... I thought the speed of UO would be faster, it''s not. Aside from that issue, the game is a joy. The interface is intuitive and learning how to do things is a breeze due to the informative instructions in the offline demo. You can get it for around 19.99 US and play for a month free, you can also play (for free) on many of the user ran shards thanks to UOX3 and the like.



Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

I was just reading a bit on one of the programmers for UO and he said

"Ultima Online suffered from a lack of clear vision as well, although not quite as badly. The vision of the game was never well described, and was different in the minds of different team members. Some people were making a virtual world simulation, some were making a quest-based adventure game, and then there was the pressure to be Diablo. However, the game suffered more because its requirements changed from an experimental test (of) 100 players per world to 2,500 per world. Unfortunately, the deadlines didn''t change, forcing the code to evolve out of necessity rather than design. The end result af all this was a late, buggy game with no clear direction for players to follow; code that was extremely difficult to maintain; and all of the original programmers leaving."

The programmers name was Ragnar Scheuermann. This does make it a little bit difficult for myself. Does anyone know much about Ultima Ascension. Like is it better or what? And what about Diablo 2, is there still the lag problems that there was with D1?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!