Hi, Lately I've been getting into non-hobby programming. I have to create a web application to finish school, some small things for my portfolio (well, I want to have a solid base to say: I /know/ SQL. I /know/ how to use .NET feature XYZ). When programming, Every now and then I take a break, and play a game, mostly Warcraft 3, or a short run of World of Warcraft (open European beta). That's nice, but it often simply takes to long. That made me wondering, what makes a fun game that can be played with a few people (online, lan, or splitscreen/shared screen), for anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes? I'm thinking mostly about windowed 2D games here. Do you know such games? If so, what makes them so simple and fun to play? For myself, I don't really know. I like Castle Attack though (an old Stronghold minigame), which is very simple and short, but not multiplayer.

Check out Tactics Arena Online. It is a small chess-like game which can be played against another person. You have multiple units available to you with unique abilities. It is very simple to learn, but great fun to play (which is probably why it is so fun).

Look at "Bust a Move" by the company Taito. It's an awesome game. Simple gameplay. Easy to learn. Good short-term reward for the gameplay.

Another good multiplayer game is "Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory." In that game, everyone has to work as a team.

The thing that makes multiplayer games fun if the sensation that each player is doing something. When each player contributes something meaningful to the gameplay, each player enjoys it. In a games where newbies can participate (while still providing strengths for experienced players), you will find the most success because it allows new players and return-players alike to enjoy the game.

Quote:

Original post by ishpeck Look at "Bust a Move" by the company Taito. It's an awesome game. Simple gameplay. Easy to learn. Good short-term reward for the gameplay.

Hmm, to be honest, I really don't like that game, altough I cannot describe why. It has all the elements, but I guess it's not my style.

Quote:

Another good multiplayer game is "Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory." In that game, everyone has to work as a team.

Yes, I love it! However, it falls under the category Real Games You Need To Sit For, IMHO, not the kind of games I'm trying to flesh out here.

Quote:

The thing that makes multiplayer games fun if the sensation that each player is doing something. When each player contributes something meaningful to the gameplay, each player enjoys it. In a games where newbies can participate (while still providing strengths for experienced players), you will find the most success because it allows new players and return-players alike to enjoy the game.

I think you are right. Let's sum up what you describe:
- Each players does something meaningfull
- Easy to learn
- Difficult to master

If that's about right, how can these parts be fleshed out? I think the following questions might be raised:

- When does a player do something meaningfull?
Prolly, I think this is a very difficult question. Any comments?

- What makes a game easy to learn?
A simple control scheme, and an easy to use interface, so the game is easy to get into. It should be obvious what an items does, and it must not be too difficult to find a good 'rythm' of gameplay.

- When is a game difficult to master?
Somehow, a very complex system must be able to build itself on simple rules. How this is done, I don't know.

So, these questions remain:

- When does a player feel he's doing something usefull?
- How to make a solid basic ruleset on which a complex system builds itself? (like chess)

Quote:

Original post by Sijmen - How to make a solid basic ruleset on which a complex system builds itself?

The complexity behind chass stems from the fact that although moving the pieces is easy enough, the possibilities for that movement as well as the possible interaction between the different pieces is quite large. This is how you make a game which is easy to use yet hard to master. Simple interface, many possibilities (choices, interaction, etc...)

I still recommends you go look at TAO and see what it does. It work on exactly the same principle.

Quote:

Original post by SijmenSo, these questions remain: - When does a player feel he's doing something usefull? - How to make a solid basic ruleset on which a complex system builds itself?

These, my friend, are the fundamental questions of game design. While we're at it, we could ask: "Why do we exist?", "Where do we go after we die?" and "What's your favorite food?" Because these questions are about of the same complexity to answer. Sure, everyone has an opinion on the matter everyone has an answer. But nobody can ever come up with an answer that satisfies everyone. :)

Ishpeck's Ansewrs (Which seem to work for him)

Multiplayer games are extremely difficult to do -- especially when trying to satisfy the ideals we've listed in this thread. Making a multiplayer game that works at all is hard. Quake is not an overnight project but in my opinion, it's a lousy multiplayer game.

One easy way to provide all players the feeling of being useful is to make players work together as a team. Cooperative play provides the new/casual players an opportunity to display their skill while allowing their mistakes to be made-up-for by the more talented players on his team. This is why I mentioned WolfET. Someone who is incredibly talented with first-person shooters can shoot people where someone who is less talented can serve as an engineer -- who's usually critical to the success of a mission. So the l33t-marksmen can protect the n00b while the n00b wins the mission. That way, although the newbie hasn't really done anything, he satisfies a formality that provides the feeling that he's somehow contributed. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that WolfET is not the kind of game that you're trying to flesh-out.

Mario Kart provides a slightly more vulgar solution to the "newbie needs his pacification" idea by giving the powerful destructive toys to the racer who is in last place. I don't approve of this sort of thing -- but it makes for a good party game because even the slightly inept can blast his way to the finish line first.

Another thing that makes multiplayer games successful is making them fun to watch (when you're not playing). Providing interesting turn-arounds and surprise come-backs makes spectating (waiting your turn at the game) an enjoyable part of the game. I absolutely love doing round-robin games of SoulCalibur because the rampant displays of carnage are as entertaining to watch as they are to do -- and anybody can mash buttons to yield some interesting results in that game.

Designers flirt with a delicate balance in trying to capture this idea: On the one hand, you don't want the player's skill to be meaningless. On the other hand, you don't want the obsessive players to invariably dominate everyone else. Sometimes, you must throw-in some random elements to smear-out the skill difference between players. Sometimes, dice (or other random numbers) are used for this. The "Chain Reaction" factor in Bust-A-Move tends to lend itself to this sort of effect.

My approach has always been to take a sort of "Paper, scissor, rock" mechanic and torture it into a more elegant and rewarding gameplay. Blizzard's "Star Craft" came close to this approach in the way they balanced the units of the game. Theoretically, every faction had a unit that was more effective at destroying another type of unit. So, if you knew the game well enough, had solid reconn., and had quaffed enough espresso, you could build a counter-army to confront the enemy with. With such a method, every player can make choices that will maximize his effect in the game's environment.

But as I said, zero-sum games make it extremely difficult to accomplish this goal. When one player's success directly detriments another player, the loosing player may become frustrated and fail to find the fun in the game.

Quote:

Original post by TheWanderer Check out Tactics Arena Online. It is a small chess-like game which can be played against another person. You have multiple units available to you with unique abilities. It is very simple to learn, but great fun to play (which is probably why it is so fun).

Amazing Game

I quite like bolo. It's a multiplayer tank game for the mac, and it is quite old. I've always planned on creating a new version possibly with 3d and physics. The game wouldn't really involve any difficult programming, and the graphics don't need to be great.

It's easy to pick up, and fun. I'm quite sure a clone would be well recieved. Of course it doesn't have to be the same, I can think of a lot of cool additions and modifications you could make.

I've always enjoyed bomberman or the various clones.

Bomberman seconded, and a vote for Micro Machines. I once played it with three people on a single pc, and it was one of the most fun experiences I can remember.