Quote:

Original post by Kest Of course not. No offense at all intended, but it is possible you're on the 'other' side. I'm not trying to draw any lines, but there is a pretty heavy distinction between the builders and slayers. Before I got into game development, I was a pure builder. I played fighting games, but other than that, it was all RPG or strategy. Game development absorbed most of my creative energy, so I started enjoying mindless blasting a lot more. But I'm still a builder. Even though I like mindless death and chaos a lot more now, I still get bored with it pretty quick.

First things first, no offense was taken. Rereading my post, I can see where it could be taken slightly aggressive. It was all tongue-in-cheek.

You also shouldn't get the impression that mindless death and chaos is all I enjoy. I love cultivating an empire in 4X games, immersing myself in the world of an RPG, etc. I also make a distinction between being immersed in the gameplay and being immersed in the game world. RPG's I tend to immerse in the game world, FPS's I tend to immerse in the gameplay, 4X's and adventures I find myself somewhere in between.

Quote:

Yep. That was my whole point. The majority of gamers are not builders. But in this forum (and all of GameDev), they most likely are. So it might not be the best place to seek game design advice, depending on the game type. If RPG or complex strategy (nearly all WIP indie games), then this is the place.

Quote:

Quote: I also think it's misleading (although possibly technically correct, especially depending on definition of "indie developer") to say that most indie developers don't want to make a quickie experience. There seems to be a large and healthy indie community making flash games. Everything I've stated are my own theories. I have no numbers to back anything up. Sorry if I made anything sound like a fact.

Like I said, I think "nearly all" is misleading and (since it's a strong statement) more likely incorrect. "Quickie" games are large in the indie world and, if nearly all work-in-progress indie games are AAA rivals, I'd say nearly all completed indie games are quickies. But, like you, I have no numbers.

Quote:

I wasn't targeting you. I'll just revert back to my original theory that most indie developers want to make a truely wicked game. Not just something interesting or something to make quick cash. They may resort to such games to learn or climb a ladder, but they're probably aiming much higher. I definitely want to make players forget they are playing my game. That's the whole point of it all for me. To make them lose themselves in my game world. It's fine to make a small and simple enjoyable tetris like game. But I doubt I would ask for advice on quality with such a game. But that's just me, and I'm totally off-topic, so I'll shut up now.

Assuming you wanted to make a quickie, why wouldn't you want it to be of high quality? I would think a builder wouldn't be satisfied with a half-assed job (not meant as an attack).

As might be obvious, I think your theory is wrong (basically assuming everyone thinks like you, a mistake I make all too often). I think there are plenty of developers who only intend to make quickies, and that not all developers want to make what you would consider a "truly wicked game".

And, I didn't feel you were targetting me. Again, no offense was taken and no offense was meant.

Quote:

You really need to experience the good and bad of games for yourself if you want to infuse it into your game. It's a pretty complex question.

Absolutely. There are very few good authors/painters/musicians/actors/etc. who only look at their own works.

Quote:

Assuming you wanted to make a quickie, why wouldn't you want it to be of high quality? I would think a builder wouldn't be satisfied with a half-assed job (not meant as an attack).

Well, the quickie games are usually built around something fun. If you know what you're trying to make, you most likely have it all.

Ehh, to be perfectly honest, I don't follow the original question completely. Features, graphics, story, replay value, flexibility, etc. All of these things make games good. Which being the most important depends on what kind of game you're making. But that wasn't mentioned.

The only way the question makes sense for me is if TechnoGoth is referring to the type of game that I [perhaps wrongly] assume everyone is trying to make. In which case, all of the above mentioned aspects are very important to the game, and he's asking which is the most important.

If so, my choice would be flexibility. It's the easiest way you can win over the big companies, who seem to love limiting the player's choices. But yet again, we're falling into that builder/slayer thing. A slayer player may prefer a solid direction to move in, with less confusing choices.

Quote:

As might be obvious, I think your theory is wrong (basically assuming everyone thinks like you, a mistake I make all too often). I think there are plenty of developers who only intend to make quickies, and that not all developers want to make what you would consider a "truly wicked game".

Maybe so. I don't see many around here, though. I can't imagine anyone spending several years of their life learning the complexities of this line of work without some heavy inspiration to build something really freakin amazing.

I think that a game is good if, to the player, the game is "larger than life." That is, if the game is about something greater than just itself in the eyes of the player, it will be considered good. This is most certainly not universal among all players, particularly those that want more simple games as a diversion-- but I think the majority of players are very forgiving of a game which engages their subconscious needs for wish fulfillment and taps into their desires at a subconscious level. The game doesn't have to be perfectly polished, nor employ the latest technology, so long as its presentation, style and gameplay fulfill (and don't get in the way of) the desires/fantasies the player wants to see rendered in an encompassing fashion (that is, made "larger than life" or large enough to rival--at some deep level-- the concreteness of life itself for a time).

All games have flaws, but the degree of wish fulfillment a game grants determines whether or not we notice them, and whether or not we deem the game good. If a game is successful at granting wish fulfillment, it will stir up the right emotional mix (say, of competitiveness, or mastery, or nostalgia, etc.) that will allow us to wrap ourselves in fantasy. We then say to others that we were "entertained."

There are many different factors which help shape the fantasy a game offers. For example, the user interface, learning curve, and/or thematic presentation often ultimately help determine whether or not the player's thoughts are submerged in the fantasy or focused on a game's flaws. If the user interface inspires ire and frustration, or the learning curve is too steep or shallow for the target market, or the thematic presentation makes the player protest or think of absurdities, the illusion is lost. The player's mind is then left to wander, become bored, or nitpick the game's presentation, gameplay or content.

I think this somewhat helps explain the vast differences in how "good" is defined among players. Take MMOs for example. The grind is something that tens of thousands of players happily endure (a flaw) because the wish fulfillment of social cooperation, acknowledgement, fame and a simplistic good/evil view of the universe are enormously satisfying. To me, however, no MMO can be good-- despite features, graphics, story, or replayability-- unless it taps into the wishes I have (complex problem solving, worldbuilding, cooperating with friendly/respectful people, strategic trading, etc.)

Well there's been some good answers so in summary these are what people consider to be "good" in a game.

1) Pick up and play - The game is easy enough to play that it requies no manuals, or tutorials. In additon the player is playing almost from the time they double click the exe. Auto loading of the last save would facilitate this.

2)Mutable - The game changes as results of the players actions, decisions, and play style rather then remaining static.

3)Easy Catch up - The player can easily find out what they where doing and where they left off last time they played.

4)Thematic Elements - The theme, setting, story, and characters.

5)Challenge - The game should challenge the player without hindering weaker players or removing the sense of acchomplishment for overcoming the challenge.

6)Longevity - Multiplayer support, addons, and modding support

Does that about some up the general aspects people think go into making a game good?

I'd add something like 'pace' or 'addictiveness' to that list. Whatever wording you think best to measure the ability of the game to hold a player's attention.

I think the 15 minutes of fun rule is a great one. Halo 1 had it and Stubbs the Zombie: In a rebel with out a pulse has recaptured it. Its just 15 minutes of the same fun OVER and OVER again... sounds tedious, but its not!