🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
What makes you play?
This is a spinoff of all this morning''s threads.
What makes you play?
People have argued back and forth endlessly here lately, and I was probably one of the most active participants. However, I have reached a horrible conclusion.
After all the ranting on story-based games, improving writing, games as art, here''s what I think:
All the things that have come up are just personal preferences, and we''ve continued to ignore the central issue. [for the most part, I think some of us have seen some of the light at times.]
The first revelation:
1. Games Should Be Fun.
The second revelation:
2. Interactivity Sets Apart Games.
The First Inference:
3. Interactivity In Games Should Be Fun.
The Second Inference:
4. Everything Non-Interactive In Games Is Peripheral.
I hope you see what I''m getting at. The artwork, the music, the story, all peripheral. What matters is, which buttons to press, how to press them, and what effect it has.
If you have the best story in the world, and two buttons, unlabeled and one randomly set to "reboot", while the other is "next page", you''ve just made the model for a lot of the ideas that have been floating around. ( There could be more buttons, and sometimes you might skip pages or chapters in the book. )
The model is flawed. The interactivity of clicking the button doesn''t work. It isn''t fun. If, instead of clicking the button, you have to win a space war, you now have Wing Commander. That WAS fun. The interactivity has just made it worth playing. The story had nothing to do with making it fun.
I hope this post will turn a few stomachs, and generate a lot of comments...
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
quote: Original post by MadKeithV
I hope you see what I''m getting at. The artwork, the music, the story, all peripheral. What matters is, which buttons to press, how to press them, and what effect it has.
If you have the best story in the world, and two buttons, unlabeled and one randomly set to "reboot", while the other is "next page", you''ve just made the model for a lot of the ideas that have been floating around. ( There could be more buttons, and sometimes you might skip pages or chapters in the book. )
The model is flawed. The interactivity of clicking the button doesn''t work. It isn''t fun. If, instead of clicking the button, you have to win a space war, you now have Wing Commander. That WAS fun. The interactivity has just made it worth playing. The story had nothing to do with making it fun.
Yes, but it''s more fun to win a space war when you see it in rendered 3D than as simple text. But, it''s not any more fun to see rendered 3D space ship than character ''a'' act stupid (bad AI).
So, it''s really all about gameplay, "peripherals" can just enhance the gaming experience, not make one.
-Jussi
quote: Original post by Selkrank
Yes, but it''s more fun to win a space war when you see it in rendered 3D than as simple text. But, it''s not any more fun to see rendered 3D space ship than character ''a'' act stupid (bad AI).
It''s not necessarily more fun to win the space war in 3D. What if in the 3D version you have to type in text commands? What if the text version is rudimentary 2D graphics ( Nethack etc. )? The interactivity makes it fun, not the candy.
Carmack can shout about his technology all he wants, but he knows in his heart that he''s just perfecting the interface. Gaining more reaction speed when you twist the mouse, and adding some bells and whistles so people will buy the game. The interactivity of the game hasn''t changed - the only way it can become "more" fun now is by either improving the controls ( hard to do ), or providing more candy. That''s all they''ve done, and a lot of us around here have shot it down because of the lacking story. However, the story would have just been more candy, and Carmack saw early on that the "stories" in quake were pretty much not contributing to the enjoyment of the game. He chose the exact right direction by not wasting development time, effort and money on it.
quote: Original post by Selkrank
So, it''s really all about gameplay, "peripherals" can just enhance the gaming experience, not make one.
Exactly the point I was trying to make...
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
quote: Original post by MadKeithV
So, it's really all about gameplay, "peripherals" can just enhance the gaming experience, not make one.
Exactly the point I was trying to make...
I thought I was trying to make the same point in my first paragraph, too.
Anyway, I'm waiting for the flamers.-Jussi
Edited by - Selkrank on September 7, 2000 4:28:16 AM
Hehe good, one person on MY side of the ball... waiting for Landfish et al to disagree.
( I have a lot more up my sleeve from that really simple model I suggested in my first post, by the way. )
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
( I have a lot more up my sleeve from that really simple model I suggested in my first post, by the way. )
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
I agree, but I think that is partially because I can''t draw so if I try and make art and all that stuff important, then I will fail miserably =) That said:
I think the example you gave was very extreme, although it makes the point very nicely, rarely do you see anyone who has made a game that poor and passed it off as a game? What I am trying to say (I''m trying very hard) is that some games fail gameplaywise because of their poor graphics (sorry to harp on the graphics side of things, but they are the easiest to pick on). Since the graphics are what is showing the player what is going on (usually), so if for some reason, in your next game which is about gangsters or some other dark force =), you made everything lime green with little bits of yellow as detail, and the odd black pixel, what would happen to the game?
The player would look at it, and after grabbing some sunglasses, they wouldn''t be able to accept that they are a mob boss, instead of commanding gangsters, they will be moving blobs and trying to convince themselves that they are lean mean gangsters.
So the immersiveness is gone, and the player isn''t playing a game, they are just messing around with a few blobs.
Imagine your favourite game, done with dodgy sound and graphics. Does it hold it''s appeal? Try and play it with the brightness up. You get to a scene that is supposed to be scary, and all you can do is think about the colours. Part of the gameplay is about touching the player, making them feel emotions that they wouldn''t normally feel.
That said, it isn''t impossible to make a good game with bad graphics, after all, games took off even when pacman was the latest.
So after much contradicting myself, I will go =)
"Only a fool quotes himself"
Andy Owen
My Homepage (Non games related)
My Current Project (Games related... I think)
I think the example you gave was very extreme, although it makes the point very nicely, rarely do you see anyone who has made a game that poor and passed it off as a game? What I am trying to say (I''m trying very hard) is that some games fail gameplaywise because of their poor graphics (sorry to harp on the graphics side of things, but they are the easiest to pick on). Since the graphics are what is showing the player what is going on (usually), so if for some reason, in your next game which is about gangsters or some other dark force =), you made everything lime green with little bits of yellow as detail, and the odd black pixel, what would happen to the game?
The player would look at it, and after grabbing some sunglasses, they wouldn''t be able to accept that they are a mob boss, instead of commanding gangsters, they will be moving blobs and trying to convince themselves that they are lean mean gangsters.
So the immersiveness is gone, and the player isn''t playing a game, they are just messing around with a few blobs.
Imagine your favourite game, done with dodgy sound and graphics. Does it hold it''s appeal? Try and play it with the brightness up. You get to a scene that is supposed to be scary, and all you can do is think about the colours. Part of the gameplay is about touching the player, making them feel emotions that they wouldn''t normally feel.
That said, it isn''t impossible to make a good game with bad graphics, after all, games took off even when pacman was the latest.
So after much contradicting myself, I will go =)
"Only a fool quotes himself"
Andy Owen
My Homepage (Non games related)
My Current Project (Games related... I think)
quote: Original post by ragonastick
I think the example you gave was very extreme, although it makes the point very nicely, rarely do you see anyone who has made a game that poor and passed it off as a game? What I am trying to say (I''m trying very hard) is that some games fail gameplaywise because of their poor graphics (sorry to harp on the graphics side of things, but they are the easiest to pick on). Since the graphics are what is showing the player what is going on (usually), so if for some reason, in your next game which is about gangsters or some other dark force =), you made everything lime green with little bits of yellow as detail, and the odd black pixel, what would happen to the game?
The player would look at it, and after grabbing some sunglasses, they wouldn''t be able to accept that they are a mob boss, instead of commanding gangsters, they will be moving blobs and trying to convince themselves that they are lean mean gangsters.
So the immersiveness is gone, and the player isn''t playing a game, they are just messing around with a few blobs.
Imagine your favourite game, done with dodgy sound and graphics. Does it hold it''s appeal? Try and play it with the brightness up. You get to a scene that is supposed to be scary, and all you can do is think about the colours. Part of the gameplay is about touching the player, making them feel emotions that they wouldn''t normally feel.
Yes, immersion is important, especially in games that somehow, even vaguely, resemble the real world. But Nethack is immersive, you just have to use your imagination. It''s not about how good the graphics are, it''s about if they are proper for the game.
-Jussi
hmm...
What about the response?
The games response to the users interaction also makes it
worth playing to the user.
Take a childs game of "army men" for example. You get these
little plastic figurines and march them up and down your sand
pit and knock them over and stuff. Its reasonably good fun.
But strap a firecracker to one army man, melt another with a
magnifying glass, and put a third into a blender and you have
MORE fun. Why? Because the result is more spectacular.
The more spectacular the result, the more rewarding the
experience. And the candy is the result (or the story, or
whatever).
So there are now at least TWO elements that make a game worth
playing. The interaction & the reward.
Come to think of it, because the media that is displayed is
directly dependant on the interaction of the player, could
it not be said that the media is interactive also?
in a good game, nothing is on the periphery. The experience is
total.
----------
Erick: i think that all this talking and such is paining my head to astounding annoyance
Disco Love For Everyone
What about the response?
The games response to the users interaction also makes it
worth playing to the user.
Take a childs game of "army men" for example. You get these
little plastic figurines and march them up and down your sand
pit and knock them over and stuff. Its reasonably good fun.
But strap a firecracker to one army man, melt another with a
magnifying glass, and put a third into a blender and you have
MORE fun. Why? Because the result is more spectacular.
The more spectacular the result, the more rewarding the
experience. And the candy is the result (or the story, or
whatever).
So there are now at least TWO elements that make a game worth
playing. The interaction & the reward.
Come to think of it, because the media that is displayed is
directly dependant on the interaction of the player, could
it not be said that the media is interactive also?
in a good game, nothing is on the periphery. The experience is
total.
----------
Erick: i think that all this talking and such is paining my head to astounding annoyance
Disco Love For Everyone
Yes, reward is important, but it''s still peripheral. Succeeding in a hard task should be enough of a reward, or else the game is too shallow.
I''m repeating myself, but additional rewards, like experience points, extra ammo, NPCs'' congratulations and CGI animations just enhance the reward, they don''t make it. I''m not feeling awe if there''s no challenge in the game, be there animations or not.
-Jussi
I''m repeating myself, but additional rewards, like experience points, extra ammo, NPCs'' congratulations and CGI animations just enhance the reward, they don''t make it. I''m not feeling awe if there''s no challenge in the game, be there animations or not.
-Jussi
What you call "reward" is simply nothing more than the backend of interactivity.
Nothing is interactive if it doesn''t DO anything. If you have a button on the page that you can click, but it doesn''t actually DO anything if you click it, then it''s not interactive. However, if it then melts the screen spectacularly in thousands of colours, it IS interactive ( and you probably have a virus
).
The "reward" is nothing more than what kind of interactivity you allow. The reward in tetris is seeing the blocks move when you press the buttons, and then seeing a secondary result when you fill a row and they disappear. You might also have secondary results by having "levels" and changing the music, the background and the speed of the game. These are all results of interactivity, though most of them aren''t direct.
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
Nothing is interactive if it doesn''t DO anything. If you have a button on the page that you can click, but it doesn''t actually DO anything if you click it, then it''s not interactive. However, if it then melts the screen spectacularly in thousands of colours, it IS interactive ( and you probably have a virus
).The "reward" is nothing more than what kind of interactivity you allow. The reward in tetris is seeing the blocks move when you press the buttons, and then seeing a secondary result when you fill a row and they disappear. You might also have secondary results by having "levels" and changing the music, the background and the speed of the game. These are all results of interactivity, though most of them aren''t direct.
Give me one more medicated peaceful moment.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~
ERROR: Your beta-version of Life1.0 has expired. Please upgrade to the full version. All important social functions will be disabled from now on.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement