Sorry, that was a bit harsh. But for a stickied list touting itself as "Games All Designers Should Play", I'd expect a list of games that had interesting design features - revolutionary games rather than successful evolutionary iterations.

For instance, Warcraft III covers the design elements of the 'craft' series, so only it need be referenced. But it doesn't cover Majesty, or Kohan.

Half-life covers Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, UT etc in terms of basic design. But the Mechwarrior series is significantly different in design.

And Fallout is a notable exception from the RPG list, while multiple AD&D party-based games made it in.

In short, the list is at risk of just being a big list of popular games, rather than a list of games which push design boundaries.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 In short, the list is at risk of just being a big list of popular games, rather than a list of games which push design boundaries.

Now that's a very valid concern, which I've actually been thinking about a fair bit. After a while, this thread became more a list of everyone's favorite games rather than those of particular significance. For completeness, I'm trying to do write-ups of as many of the games listed here anyway, but as a way of dealing with the issue of that not highlighting particularly interesting design features, I was considering perhaps adding a spotlight section to the list once it's completed (or at least closer to completion).

This would involve putting a marking of some sort next to specific entries of interest as well as having a seperate post listing them under a couple of different headings - possibly:
-Games with particularly interesting/unique features (or just one game that demonstrates a commonly used feature particularly well).
-Games with particularly bad design.

This could be used to draw more attention to particularly interesting design features, and there could also perhaps be some analysis of why the features did or didn't work included in the section.

I'd be happy to have any input on the idea.

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 Sorry, that was a bit harsh. But for a stickied list touting itself as "Games All Designers Should Play", I'd expect a list of games that had interesting design features - revolutionary games rather than successful evolutionary iterations. For instance, Warcraft III covers the design elements of the 'craft' series, so only it need be referenced. But it doesn't cover Majesty, or Kohan.

Warcraft 3 is considerably different from Starcraft, I don't think it really represents the *craft games as a whole. It adds a whole load of h&s crpg elements to the rts genre, which in my opinion, results in a less enjoyable game, although many disagree. In any case though, Starcraft and Warcraft 3 play very differently, I don't see any problem including both of them.

That's not to say Majesty or Kohan shouldn't get a mention. The Total War games should probably get a mention too. Bear in mind though that the list is a WIP - Kazgoroth may not have gotten around to adding them all yet.

Quote:

And Fallout is a notable exception from the RPG list, while multiple AD&D party-based games made it in.

The fallout series should be on the list. Heck, fallout is recommended in the first post in this thread! My guess is that Kazgoroth hasn't gotten around to adding them yet.

XCOM

Quote:

Original post by Sandman My guess is that Kazgoroth hasn't gotten around to adding them yet.

Indeed. I took a break from updating for a few weeks, but have been trawling the internet for links to various games and writing up summaries again for the last couple of weeks - I'm planning to add a bunch of games in one shot once I've got a reasonable amount written up.

Quote:

Original post by Marmin Quote: Original post by Darkneon I would add: Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts on the SNES. That's a real HARD f*cker of a game!! I can't even get past the first screen. Well this is another 'I like this game best' thread but I would like to add (if anybody actually reads this): Rayman 2 by Ubisoft. My favorite DirectX 3d game of all times, mainly because of the story, game play and level design.

you think thats hard?? try Ghost n' Goblins for the original NES . i STILL cant beat this game and its been who knows how many years..

In no real order:

1) IW2: Edge of chaos - Best space combat game I've ever played, wonderful interface (people say controls are weird however), saddly, it didn't get off the ground. Playing it has made me notice how there is a serious lack of good starfighter games out there, and inspired me to set a goal of making one.
2) Starcraft - Well, we should all know why.
3) Quake (all of them, or just one) - Seen as a groundbreaking FPS, study it's style.
4) Quest for glory 4 - Fun game, would probably be popular today with a graphical face lift even.
5) Desus ex - Reasons have been covered...
6) Commander Keen - popular side scrolling games are good level design.

And I wish I played more games...

i think most of the people in here seem to be younger and dont remember the REAL video games..no shortcuts, no cheats for the kiddies, no savegames..just hardcore style play and you had to be good to finish.

a few in here mentioned Pac-Man, but Ms-Pac Man, Junior Pac Man and Super Pac-Man were spawns of the original. if you have the ability to play Jr. Pac Man i would try it out..the maze is so big the boards side scroll back and forth and the ghosts seem to have a better AI...i.e. like in Mr Pac Man you could go to a certain spot and they would never find you..

so after that blurb here are mine:

Pac-Man(the pac-man series really)
Galaga
Frogger
Centipede
Crystal Castles
Robotron

if you want to REALLY SEE if you have a temper or not you can play:

Ghost N' Goblins on the NES -- as mentioned above
Pitfall - for the atari 2600
Rygar - NES

of course some of the newer games that a lot of us can agree on..

Warcraft
Starcraft
Age of Empires II
Tombraider(at least the first few)

ULTIMA Series-

The whole series (excluding possibly Martian Dreams since it really wasn't ultima just same engine) is revolutionary.

• The story included the PLAYER. (YOU were transported to Britania through the moongate. You were the Avatar.)



• Gameplay based on player choices and virtues, in many of the titles character creation was done through 'the gypsy.' The player gave answers to questions of morality and virtue, which determined some aspects of the gameplay and starting stats.



• Possibly one of the first implementations of sandbox gameplay.



• Underworld series one of the first 3D games



• The Series grew into the first Popular MMORPG.

XCOM Series

The original is possibly one of the best games ever created. Something magical.
There are so many aspects to this game and its design its hard to describe.

• Possibly one of the first implementations of GLOBAL DAMAGE. Anything and Everything was destructable. The Ground, terrian, trees, buildings, vehicles, furniture etc..



• Open gameplay with few static limitations. One way to win, but virtually unlimited strategies to achieve the win condition. A true game design feat!



• Mixture of Strategy/tactical, realtime/turnbased, RPG, Squadbased, Micro/Macro Management. This game included just about everything. And it did it successfully!! Thats the hard part. Every aspect, from the Squad Based Tactical play to the Designing and Building of Bases, was feature rich.



• Really hit home with single player motivations (Exploration and Achievement). The game manual was the game. The player had to discover/research not only game items, but actual gameplay and game mechanics

World War II Online (WWIIOL)

I include this not only becuase this is a game that defines a genre (its the only one like it), but more so becuase I think any game designer should spend a month on the WWIIOL forums and see how the Devs (Cornered Rat Studios) communicate with thier player base. They provide weekly, if not daily and hourly, discussions and feedback to thier player base. Everything from the future of the game design, to gameplay concerns, to Historical Research, to bug tracking. Granted they can afford this as thier player base is small (~20k maybe 50k who knows) but there are things to learn there.

I think Bioware would come a distant second (and thats still good) when it comes to really including thier customers and fans in the game designing process.

• Community Involvment: For an MMO, the game IS the community.



• It defines a genre (can one game be a genre???) It is the Only Persistent World-MMOG-FPS-Alternate History-Land/Sea/Air/Chain of Command Combat SIMULATOR.



• WWIIOL is probably the most hardcore game ever made. Unforgivingly so. Thier player base isn't small just becuase they had a very poor launch and thier game engine is about 3 years behind. It's small mainly due to the fact that the game is unbelievably hardcore. But it is probably the best game ever made when taken in small doses (or for sick bastards that love hardcore games). If you like PvP then you should be playing WWIIOL. Thier motto is 'We PWN PvP.'



• As a game designer this game is a bucket load of wealth. For everything three things done RIGHT, there is something done WRONG. And it is obvious. Now try and think of a way to make them right. Loads to learn from. And one hell of a game to play once you realize how to play it

While Warcraft3 doesn't play in the same way as Starcraft (or indeed, Warcraft1), I can't think of any significant design features that Starcraft has which Warcraft3 does not also have (take away the heroes and the games are not so different). I did play both competitively.

Basically I think the list is going to get more than a bit cluttered unless those kind of overlaps aren't combined in some way. Starcraft is not really an interesting game for design purposes anymore, while Warcraft3 is somewhat.

Similarly, I think the basic shooters should be combined, with one full description and perhaps a one-liner for each individual outlining any interesting differences (eg. the story was quite a drawcard for Half-Life). Is it really useful to point designers to Doom?

On a different note, I think Kazgoroth's idea of noting significant design features (and whether they were successful or not) next to individual games sounds very good, and it would be nice to see notes like that rather than games listed for nostalgic reasons.