Design Choices

If it doesn't fit elsewhere, it should go here
Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 04 May 2013, 22:23

What makes a game fun? What makes a game addictive? What little things annoy you about games (and therefore should be avoided)?

A thread for idea harvesing brainstorming design choices.

User avatar
popcan12
Posts: 592
Joined: 10 Feb 2012, 02:30

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:05

The game is only as fun as the person who made it. If it's made by a person who created the game because he was fed up with life, the game won't be fun, so why would you play it?

Edit: If it's made by a person who enjoys video game making, then it will be a fun game. Sure people say that greed is a reason to make games for profit, but you need to make the game enjoyable for the target audience, for without a good game, then you know it wouldn't have a good design. Basically what I'm saying is that, when you're designing a game, your emotion has a great impact on the design process. Camewel, I know you enjoy making games, so that's why your games are always good, even though most of them get scrapped.

Also, a good gimmick will get people to play the game (Persona 3 had an awesome gimmick).

HAPPYFACES
Posts: 524
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 03:40

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:20

I think what makes a game interesting is an attempt to deviate or change little things about it's genre's normal template
Likesay, Scrappers. Could have been just an ordinary tank-fighting game, right? Could have been, but isn't. There's something there removing it from that kind of distinction: The necessity of collecting the scrap from the destroyed tanks to upgrade your own. That's something I haven't seen yet in that type of game, which makes it something to be interested in.

What makes a game fun (for me) is application of ideas and its pace. If a game is slow, or has you doing many trivial tasks successively, like oh... I dunno. Shooting people constantly? Cutting down trees? that's all well and good for idle, non-serious gameplay, Don't Starve does it well by having a dark theme about it and possible consequences for doing things, but Minecraft... Ugh...
Anyways, if the goal of a game is to give the player a sense of accomplishment by presenting them a series of problems to solve, and things to do while solving those problems, they should be goals that are out of the ordinary. Not entirely so, but to give someone a task they can't possibly do IRL, like explode an entire spaceship ala Halo, then that's what breathes life into a game. Even if the setting is an ordinary place, doing extraordinary things gives the game a kind of flair, a difference to real life.
GTA does that well as well, flying helicopters, blowing up shit in a human city, stealing cars, etc etc etc, that's why people like that game. Because nobody can do that IRL.
But then there's a limit... If the Game's ULTIMATE goal is to kill people, turn around, kill more people. Kill, kill, kill, kill, that saturates it. Makes the goal mean nothing, and therefore has no actual value in completing.

This is also why I have no interest in things like WoW. Just the sight of it makes me hurl, and not because of the MMO-forced graphics, but because of the combat. Like... It's so... Boring. Click, click, click... It's a freaking turn-based system under the ruse of fluent motion. You're standing there and holding a freaking button!

Anyways, that's my first bit of thought. I might update this later with more stuff.

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:21

Camewel wrote:What little things annoy you about games (and therefore should be avoided)?
I see video games somewhat like I see comic books. The less words on screen, the better. Even better if data can be shown like pictures (like how showing an HUD in a fancy image is like seeing "POW!" rather than reading it)
Camewel wrote:A thread for idea harvesing brainstorming design choices.
I'll have to keep an eye on this too :).

User avatar
popcan12
Posts: 592
Joined: 10 Feb 2012, 02:30

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:23

So, you're saying that gaming is fantasy, and if you can do everything you can do that's in a video game, then there's no point to playing it? Probably not.
-To happyfaces

User avatar
TurretBot
Posts: 4399
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:18

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:24

HAPPYFACES wrote:Scrappers.
This is why we can't have nice things.

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:28

What is there even to hold against scrappers at this point anyway?

User avatar
TurretBot
Posts: 4399
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:18

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:31

The fact that he mentioned it is why we can't have nice things.
As you can see by my avatars I 100% approve of scrappers.

HAPPYFACES
Posts: 524
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 03:40

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:37

I can't use a recent development as an example? That seems rather unfair.

And popcan, that's exactly what I'm saying. Would you like to play a game about walking to work? I sure as hell wouldn't.
And I'm off to work! Ta!
Last edited by HAPPYFACES on 05 May 2013, 00:37, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HansAgain
Posts: 1103
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 18:51

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:37

popcan12 wrote:The game is only as fun as the person who made it. If it's made by a person who created the game because he was fed up with life, the game won't be fun, so why would you play it?

Edit: If it's made by a person who enjoys video game making, then it will be a fun game. Sure people say that greed is a reason to make games for profit, but you need to make the game enjoyable for the target audience, for without a good game, then you know it wouldn't have a good design. Basically what I'm saying is that, when you're designing a game, your emotion has a great impact on the design process. Camewel, I know you enjoy making games, so that's why your games are always good, even though most of them get scrapped.

Also, a good gimmick will get people to play the game (Persona 3 had an awesome gimmick).
Totally agreed.

User avatar
HansAgain
Posts: 1103
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 18:51

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:38

HAPPYFACES wrote:I can't use a recent development as an example? That seems rather unfair.

And popcan, that's exactly what I'm saying. Would you like to play a game about walking to work? I sure as hell wouldn't.
And I'm off to work! Ta!
Sims.
EDIT:
EXCUSE ME FOR THE DOUBLE POST. For a second i didn't think that i have posted before.
Last edited by HansAgain on 05 May 2013, 00:40, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:38

There are exceptions to every rule though. I Get This Call Every Day seems to be pretty good for a game about a pretty mundane thing.

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 05 May 2013, 00:57

Breaking rules, doing things you can't normally do, that's fun?

Has anyone here played Super Mario 64? You remember the bomb-omb battlefield level, lots of running around, in fact, the first 2 stars have you run through the entire level. All this running around is fun, because you have other things to do while running around. The controls are also nice, running around is just a fun experience. When you reach the wing cap stage, you get to fly around in that level, and that's pretty good. But when you take the wing cap back to Bomb-Omb Battlefield and fly there, that's really fun. It's ridiculously entertaining to just fly around that level, and that's because you've been running around it, being limited by the terrain for a while, and it's really relaxing to just soar to wherever you want to go.

Also Turret don't say silly things without context that's silly. If you disagree with something, explain why you disagree and whatnot don't just pick out a word and use a cliché.

HAPPYFACES
Posts: 524
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 03:40

Post » 05 May 2013, 09:24

Qcode wrote:There are exceptions to every rule though. I Get This Call Every Day seems to be pretty good for a game about a pretty mundane thing.
And thank you. I was going to come back from work and say that myself.

But then again Sims, despite the fact it's a "Simulator", still has unrealistic things and goals in it. So, yeah. My point is, actually, now that I've given more thought to it, (Because seriously, who really doesn't post in the spur of their thoughts, where everything is rather misconstrued?) The central point of a game is to provide a goal for the player, and on the way to that goal there are smaller goals/obstacles in which the player must navigate/blow to smithereens. That's the idea, but then there are also exceptions to that. There are games like LSD: Dream Emulator that kinda don't have a goal, and yet are interesting and at some points fun. Then there are also games in which the developer gives a framework for a player's own world, no need to name things... But in these cases the player creates their own goals and their own obstacles to overcome, with a little nudging from the framework.

However, there are universal things to consider for ALL types of games to make it good/fun/interesting... I'm not getting into those things, as I am, right now, fucking tired of this damn conversation. It comes up everywhere and everyone always bashes on everyone else for what they say.

Anyways... the possibilities to create a good game are endless at this point in time. There are still a lot of things people haven't tried yet, and most of it boils down to the people you want to appeal to. Do you want people who desire adventure to play your games? Is your audience more of a Gung-ho crowd, with nothing but bloodlust? Are you targeting the artsy types with stunning visuals and free, passive roaming?

And as I know the current audience for this forum are <18 and have no interest in reading an essay...

TL;DR: Opinions. Fucking opinions.

Edit: Thank you for the catch Constinteo.
Last edited by HAPPYFACES on 05 May 2013, 11:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Costinteo
Posts: 705
Joined: 09 Mar 2013, 17:49

Post » 05 May 2013, 10:18

HAPPYFACES wrote:
Qcode wrote:There are exceptions to every rule though. I Get This Call Every Day seems to be pretty good for a game about a pretty mundane thing.
*stuff*
And as I know the current audience for this forum are >18 and have no interest in reading an essay...

TL;DR: Opinions. Fucking opinions.
Didn't you mean <18? Maybe I'm wrong anyway.

So my design choice would be, first of all, a really, really good storyline that would keep grip of you and you'll be excited through the whole game. There are some even more complex and AMAZING storylines, for example: if you do a certain action, the WHOLE storyline changes. (e.g Heavy Rain, one of my favourite games)
While I was trying to get a certain ending, everytime I fought with someone my heart was racing, because you can die very easily (+ I was playing on hard because yeah).
But what am I saying?! Not only a storyline/lore would complete a game, how about the gameplay or graphics?

First off, I'm going to talk about my perspective on graphics. As you can see, we evolved a lot from 2d pixel games to Crysis series. But the question is, does the graphics REALLY affect the game? The answer is YES. Even if most people know this "If you're playing a game for graphics, it's like watching a porn movie for the storyline", I really believe the graphics affect the game. Now seriously, graphics DEFINE video gaming. If we didn't have this competition between some of the companies of the world, today's graphics would probably be Final Fantasy XVII (I hope it's the right game, tell me if I'm wrong). Probably what you got for now it's "Crysis best, Mario sux" which is not true. I meant graphics as something pleasant to the human eye, like a sunset in a game, while you can see the palm trees and the sunlight goes between their leaves. But Mario? What's so cool about it? The graphics! It defines that style of games. We even have a name for those: SNES!
Of course, I really don't mind playing stuff like Diablo II or Half Life 1 which are probably some of my favourite games of all time... Or Skyrim (seriously, Skyrim really had some stupid textures) because those are pleasant in their way. For example: Diablo II has the dark theme, which in my opinion suits perfect with the graphic choice.

Let's see now, gameplay. Gameplay mechanics are really important for Gaming, because if those aren't there, we're basically watching a movie. Interaction is really important in video games, more stuff you can interact with, the more awesome the game is. Example again: Heavy Rain. You can almost interact with EVERYTHING.
But it's not just this, gameplay defines the genre. For example: Kaboom Gameplay - lots of action, boom-boom pow-pow; Interactive Gameplay - focuses on storyline; Strategy Gameplay - Should I move it there, or should I explode the shit out of that guy, which could kill me with that superweapon; MMO Gameplay - Gotta level up, gotta level up, GEAR GEAR GEAR, gotta level up, have a party with my guild and there is a secret PvZ quest; Stealth Gameplay - *sneaky sneaky sneak* "Right behind you" "huh?" *kill, drag body, get rid of evidence, laugh like an evil retarded guy*; There are a LOT of gameplay choices, not only does, which really define gaming in my opinion, just like graphics. But let's be serious, Gameplay is the thing that made games. I like all kinds of gameplay, except for those turn-based stuff, though I like chess.

Also, developers have to choose, will the story be completed alone, or will this guy encounter other people or even have a sidekick?
Sidekicks! There are lots of those in gaming: from Luigi to Lydia in Skyrim and The Templar/The Scoundrel/The Enchantress in Diablo III. But what's the best sidekick, in my opinion? That prize goes to *drums*...... Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2. But what takes to be a sidekick? First of all, you must be helpful and in good "relationship" (not love or stuff like that, but I guess that works too) with the protagonist. Also, what would be a sidekick who wouldn't joke at all? We need a little break from the war sometimes, right? I mean zombine is pretty cool. As of the funniest sidekick ever, I would vote that guy from Gears of War.. I don't remember his name, but I think he was black. Also, the most helpful sidekick deserves a mention, and that would be Elizabeth from Bioshock: Infinite (edited: Whoopsies, I said Bioshock 2 D:)

So that's pretty much my perspective on good design.
Last edited by Costinteo on 05 May 2013, 13:37, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Automatik
Posts: 1073
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 17:54

Post » 05 May 2013, 11:45

Didn't you mean <18? Maybe I'm wrong anyway.
You're right.
So my design choice would be, first of all, a really, really good storyline that would keep grip of you and you'll be excited through the whole game. There are some even more complex and AMAZING storylines, for example: if you do a certain action, the WHOLE storyline changes. (e.g Heavy Rain, one of my favourite games)
While I was trying to get a certain ending, everytime I fought with someone my heart was racing, because you can die very easily (+ I was playing on hard because yeah).
Well, a good storyline:
-Is deep. Ex: Cave story, Portal. Everything isn't told clearly, and you try to figure out what's going on.
-Isn't a classic storyline eg. "a bad guy stole your girlfriend and you have to stop it"
-Don't force you to do things you wouldn't do. eg. Playing as a nazi.
First off, I'm going to talk about my perspective on graphics. As you can see, we evolved a lot from 2d pixel games to Crysis series. But the question is, does the graphics REALLY affect the game? The answer is YES. Even if most people know this "If you're playing a game for graphics, it's like watching a porn movie for the storyline", I really believe the graphics affect the game. Now seriously, graphics DEFINE video gaming. If we didn't have this competition between some of the companies of the world, today's graphics would probably be Final Fantasy XVII (I hope it's the right game, tell me if I'm wrong).
Well, because competition bring innovation, and lack of competition bring lack of innovation.(IE6)
Probably what you got for now it's "Crysis best, Mario sux" which is not true. I meant graphics as something pleasant to the human eye, like a sunset in a game, while you can see the palm trees and the sunlight goes between their leaves. But Mario? What's so cool about it? The graphics! It defines that style of games. We even have a name for those: SNES!
Mario's graphics aren't cool today. They look crappy. But when SMB was released, it looked super pretty.(OMFG the background color isn't black!)
Then, you don't have to use 200 Shaders pixel 8.534356 to have a pretty game. But it can help, depending of the kind of graphics you want to aim to (Borderlands)
Let's see now, gameplay. Gameplay mechanics are really important for Gaming, because if those aren't there, we're basically watching a movie. Interaction is really important in video games, more stuff you can interact with, the more awesome the game is. Example again: Heavy Rain. You can almost interact with EVERYTHING.
The most important thing in gameplay is that the core gameplay should be fun. It should be fun even with no graphics, storyline or sound. (Eg: Frozen Synapse's devs said they enjoyed their game at work when it had no graphics) It should always bring you enjoyement, be simple to learn, hard to master.
But yeah, details here and there can add to the game.
But it's not just this, gameplay defines the genre. For example: Kaboom Gameplay - lots of action, boom-boom pow-pow; Interactive Gameplay - focuses on storyline; Strategy Gameplay - Should I move it there, or should I explode the shit out of that guy, which could kill me with that superweapon; MMO Gameplay - Gotta level up, gotta level up, GEAR GEAR GEAR, gotta level up, have a party with my guild and there is a secret PvZ quest; Stealth Gameplay - *sneaky sneaky sneak* "Right behind you" "huh?" *kill, drag body, get rid of evidence, laugh like an evil retarded guy*; There are a LOT of gameplay choices, not only does, which really define gaming in my opinion, just like graphics. But let's be serious, Gameplay is the thing that made games. I like all kinds of gameplay, except for those turn-based stuff, though I like chess.
Imo, some gameplay genres just aren't fun (MMO). You objectively can't have fun if you're always doing the same thing again and again.
There is slow-paced games (turn based) and fast-paced games.
Costinteo wrote:Also, developers have to choose, will the story be completed alone, or will this guy encounter other people or even have a sidekick?
Sidekicks! There are lots of those in gaming: from Luigi to Lydia in Skyrim and The Templar/The Scoundrel/The Enchantress in Diablo III. But what's the best sidekick, in my opinion? That prize goes to *drums*...... Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2. But what takes to be a sidekick? First of all, you must be helpful and in good "relationship" (not love or stuff like that, but I goes that works too) with the protagonist. Also, what would be a sidekick who wouldn't joke at all? We need a little break from the war sometimes, right? I mean zombine is pretty cool. As of the funniest sidekick ever, I would vote that guy from Gears of War.. I don't remember his name, but I think he was black. Also, the most helpful sidekick deserves a mention, and that would be Elizabeth from Bioshock 2.
That's part of the story, not part of the gameplay.
Now, here's my opinion on multiplayer:
Currently, there's a trend which is to include multiplayer in every game.
But gameplays are singleplayer/multiplayer-specific: You simply can't have the same experience in singleplayer and in multiplayer(Eg, Half Life)
And a multiplayer horror game is just stupid.
Multiplayer is usually "screwing around"
Whereas singleplayer is more based around immersion and story.

User avatar
Costinteo
Posts: 705
Joined: 09 Mar 2013, 17:49

Post » 05 May 2013, 12:52

Automatik wrote: But gameplays are singleplayer/multiplayer-specific: You simply can't have the same experience in singleplayer and in multiplayer(Eg, Half Life)
And a multiplayer horror game is just stupid.
Multiplayer is usually "screwing around"
Whereas singleplayer is more based around immersion and story.
Automatik wrote:And a multiplayer horror game is just stupid.
Multiplayer is usually "screwing around"
I can imagine me and my friend going full retard messing with Amnesia monsters.

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 05 May 2013, 17:15

Good graphics, sound quality and no gameplay at all.

User avatar
Jorichi
Moderator
Posts: 964
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 02:08

Post » 05 May 2013, 19:28

Camewel wrote:What makes a game fun?

That is a quest that is completely different from person to person. But if you think about it a little bit more, isn't it that the 'euphoria' you get from overcoming obstacles and reaching certain goals (whether set by the game or by the player him/herself)? The harder the goal, the bigger the euphoria.
For example: When you beat a tough boss in Dark Souls all on your own. Or when you finally got enough diamonds to build that giant diamond cock and balls you always wanted in Minecraft.
But not only that, also the excitement certain events can give you play a huge role. Some people even look for a specific experience or want to feel the mood of certain settings. It's just that what the player really wants. Some players even use games as a relaxation method.

Although what makes a game interesting is the game's 'gimmick' as Popcan called it. A feature in the game, may it be the main or not, that is simply unique and different, something never done before. If you execute your game's gimmick properly it's bound to tickle interest of people who see the game.
So yeah, striving to be unique is a smart bet. Although, it's one of the hardest things to do.
Camewel wrote:What makes a game addictive?
An addictive game would be a game that just simply meets the player's demands. But a huge part of the addictive part would be the replayability of the game.
There are always those games that you simply play once and then they get banished to the shelf to collect dust for the rest of their lives. But there are always a few games that tickle that nerve that makes you replay it over and over. In a lot of games it's done with random generation, giving the player freedom, RPG elements and playing with the player's curiousity.
Rogue-likes are usually the games that are easily seen as addictive games.
The less monotone tasks the better and the more to explore (may it be areas, items, lore, etc) the better.
Camewel wrote:What little things annoy you about games (and therefore should be avoided)?
There is quite a lot of things that can be annoying...
- Long loading screens aren't motivational, unless you can do something while it's loading (Bayonetta did this nicely).
- Slow menu's. Just... please burn them.
- Controls that feel like they aren't working like they should. It's a common problem in 3D games, they feel clunky and off. Games like Spelunky, Super Meat Boy and Mark of the Ninja can easily throw you into your own death because the controls are simply so smooth and well done. In some games the limitation of controls is a feature in the game. The Binding of Isaac is an example in this; Isaac can normally only fire in four directions. But in these cases the game must let the player know and give him/her a chance to get comfortable with it.
- No pause. I'd like to take a piss when I need to.
-Clipping issues... I just hate them, always my biggest enemies in games.
-Awefull stories. I'd rather have none.
-Awefull voice acting. I can't stand dubs either, not in any language.
Okay, I'll stop now...

This post mostly consist of opions, please keep that in mind.

I'll keep an eye on this thread.

User avatar
TurretBot
Posts: 4399
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:18

Post » 05 May 2013, 20:05

Jorichi wrote:Although what makes a game interesting is the game's 'gimmick' as Popcan called it. A feature in the game, may it be the main or not, that is simply unique and different, something never done before. If you execute your game's gimmick properly it's bound to tickle interest of people who see the game.
So yeah, striving to be unique is a smart bet. Although, it's one of the hardest things to do.
This is because all the good ideas are taken.

User avatar
Jorichi
Moderator
Posts: 964
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 02:08

Post » 05 May 2013, 20:06

Turret Opera wrote:This is because all the good ideas are taken.
That's why I said it, Sherlock.

User avatar
TurretBot
Posts: 4399
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:18

Post » 05 May 2013, 20:36

Jorichi wrote:
Turret Opera wrote:This is because all the good ideas are taken.
That's why I said it, Sherlock.
Image

User avatar
Jorichi
Moderator
Posts: 964
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 02:08

Post » 05 May 2013, 20:39

Turret Opera wrote:
Jorichi wrote:
Turret Opera wrote:This is because all the good ideas are taken.
That's why I said it, Sherlock.
-img-
I hate you.

User avatar
Automatik
Posts: 1073
Joined: 20 Jul 2012, 17:54

Post » 05 May 2013, 21:30

This is because all the good ideas are taken.
I don't think that there is a "pool" of good ideas that can empty itself that easily.
Science was around for a big time, and it won't be "done" any time soon.
Video games were around for 41 years.
But howered, Science innovations, like good game ideas, are harder to find(It's like bitcoin mining.)

User avatar
Qcode
Posts: 1472
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 18:00

Post » 05 May 2013, 21:32

Turret Opera wrote:
Jorichi wrote:
Turret Opera wrote:This is because all the good ideas are taken.
That's why I said it, Sherlock.
img
I like how you said this
Turret Opera wrote: Exibit B: Me.

First I was bad because I didn't know any better, then I started improving, then TheJonyMyster influenced me.
But look at me now! Everybody loves me!
Yet every 2 weeks you fall back to being really stupid.

User avatar
TurretBot
Posts: 4399
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:18

Post » 05 May 2013, 21:57

Qcode wrote:Yet every 2 weeks you fall back to being really stupid.
Close enough. -_-

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 05 May 2013, 22:06

Exhibit A of Turret being stupid: derailing a perfectly good point.


Jorichi, you said that fun varies from person to person, but is mostly about overcoming difficult goals. This explanation is good, but it doesn't account for the example I posted, where virtually anyone can have fun just flying around the first level. There's no difficulty in it.

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 05 May 2013, 22:14

rokit boy wrote:Good graphics, sound quality and no gameplay at all.
I'll add to this,
No creativity, no differences between sequels, make it as easy as possible, no replayability, make it as unbalanced as possible, graphics, graphics, graphics, graphics and most of all, graphics.

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 05 May 2013, 22:20

rokit boy wrote:
rokit boy wrote:Good graphics, sound quality and no gameplay at all.
I'll add to this,
No creativity, no differences between sequels, make it as easy as possible, no replayability, make it as unbalanced as possible, graphics, graphics, graphics, graphics and most of all, graphics.
If you're trying to be funny it's not really working.

User avatar
Jorichi
Moderator
Posts: 964
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 02:08

Post » 05 May 2013, 22:27

Camewel wrote:Jorichi, you said that fun varies from person to person, but is mostly about overcoming difficult goals. This explanation is good, but it doesn't account for the example I posted, where virtually anyone can have fun just flying around the first level. There's no difficulty in it.
I think it's one of the biggest.
But right after that I said:
I wrote:But not only that, also the excitement certain events can give you play a huge role. Some people even look for a specific experience or want to feel the mood of certain settings. It's just that what the player really wants. Some players even use games as a relaxation method.

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 05 May 2013, 23:07

Camewel wrote:
rokit boy wrote:
rokit boy wrote:Good graphics, sound quality and no gameplay at all.
I'll add to this,
No creativity, no differences between sequels, make it as easy as possible, no replayability, make it as unbalanced as possible, graphics, graphics, graphics, graphics and most of all, graphics.
If you're trying to be funny it's not really working.
well i wasn't. i was describing a bestseller.

User avatar
TurretBot
Posts: 4399
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 23:18

Post » 09 May 2013, 23:07

Rokit Boy.
I fixed it for you.
rokit boy wrote:
rokit boy wrote:Bloody deaths, violence and no gameplay at all.
I'll add to this,
No creativity, no differences between sequels, make it as easy as possible, no replayability, make it as unbalanced as possible, violence, guns, blood, multiplayer and most of all, violence.

User avatar
renhoek
Posts: 4545
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 10:04

Post » 10 May 2013, 13:36

You need to look up real games.