What are the key features of game
design? What makes us enjoy the game?
What makes the game worth
playing?Every gamer is different, so there is no universal answer to this question.
Probably the first major attempt to determine the source of fun in games was this little chart:
This theory is called Bartle's
Taxonomy. It could be a little outdated, since it was roughly
formulated in 2000, but it grasps the concept of major game
activities or rather major game archetypes.
This chart divides players into four
categories and determine the core feature of the game they can be
interested in. The easiest way to remember the four categories of
players is to use card symbols:
- Achievers are diamonds (they always seek for treasure).
- Explorers are spades (they dig around for information).
- Socializers are hearts (they empathize with other players).
- Killers are clubs (they hit people with them).
To get more info on this matter watch this video, it clarifies and further expands this theory
Bartle's Taxonomy has become a popular point of reference for designers because of its simplicity of covering basic needs for each group of players. But despite its apparent versatility, it should be taken with a grain of salt. This theory is old, and the gaming community has developed a lot since then.
For example, in the Bartle's Taxonomy diagram there is basically no place for games like Minecraft. Games about creating something. You can somewhat squeeze it between everything, but none of those categories represents 'creation'. And that's something quite popular for nowadays.
If you are not familiar with Minecraft or you simply despise this game, watch this:
If you are not familiar with Minecraft or you simply despise this game, watch this:
So,
What is your type of fun?
Have you noticed something particularly important in design choices of your favorite games?
What is your type of fun?
Have you noticed something particularly important in design choices of your favorite games?
Comments
I do not know a clear recipe for success, because many times I was surprised by the phenomenon of the popularity of games like Angry Birds, which in my opinion were rather weak.
Recently I discovered a cute little game called "Lovers in a dangerous spacetime". I don't think it got much attention and it has a bit girly stylistics but it's really hard to beat and I think it's a cool concept. Two players drive a circular ship and take places around different "stations" in the ship - engine/4 battle cannons on every side/shield/ultimate move and they can upgrade all of them in different ways.
Here is a short video:
Link
Have any of you played “Life is Strange”?
I would say that every created game today that is gaining popularity has always second bottom . I really like the fact that game development today is that simple ! The amount of source, tutorials and tips on internet enable every willing person to try create one by yourself. There is not any longer necessary to create your own game engine, and their posibilitis for extending and using it in diferent scenerios make them the best way to produce and develop cross platform games. Such a large access to the possibility of making games causes that today we have a lot of niche production created by people totaly intrasted in game development with a vision - not always with best grafhic user interface . Not to mention about the fact that my oral skills comes from playing games :)
I would say that every created game today that is gaining popularity has always second bottom . I really like the fact that game development today is that simple ! The amount of source, tutorials and tips on internet enable every willing person to try create one by yourself. There is not any longer necessary to create your own game engine, and their posibilitis for extending and using it in diferent scenerios make them the best way to produce and develop cross platform games. Such a large access to the possibility of making games causes that today we have a lot of niche production created by people totaly intrasted in game development with a vision - not always with best grafhic user interface . Not to mention about the fact that my oral skills comes from playing games :)
And then there is the game popularity. All big companies have enough money to make advertising campaign solid enough to sell their title even if the game is average at best. But almost no indie title will make it to the big audience and if it will, it is probably because of support of popular people on the Internet. I'm not sure how Angry Birds started, but now its a really big franchise with lots of merchandise and Rovio became really big and successful shovelware producer. Just like the zynga. God, those companies are the real cancer on the game industry.
Other are about unusual mechanics and I have no idea, where they belong.
And there is branch of roguelike indie games that are about permadeath and are insanely hard to play through, so they fit into 'achieving' pretty nice.
I love the cat A.I. in single player in this 'Lovers in a Dangerous Spacetiment' trailer.
And sadly I don't played Life is Strange yet. Don't spoil it for me!
I hope you're not assuming reading is a better thing to do than playing games. Because that will be not only ignorant but very elitist/snobbish too.
Interactive media can not only convey a meaningful story, it can engage its user more than any other media, make the experience more personal or thought provoking. Or it can slap a pair of giant jiggling boobs up to your face. Or both. All depends on the game.
And yup,open source projects and free software is a real blessing. Creative people can benefit a lot in this times. And in case of poor graphics or User Interface - you can always go and find another game-dev-wanna-be who have skills you require.
Unreal Engine is free from some time, and its a top grade game engine. It have its limits like making dynamic maps, that can be drastically (and not in preprogrammed way) changed in game, but for those tasks you have Unity - more versatile, for me quite easier to use, but a bit less pretty engine.
And yep, games do teach people real life skills. For me it was this kind of spatial orientation, when you're not paying attention where you're going, but still know where you are.
With Microsoft Hololens the technology for augmented reality is finally here, but I think designing games for this platform is a big new challenge. Lot of previous game genres and mechanics is not usable. On the other side with this new technology there is new ideas and opportunities.
And with game creation its probably important for devs to be really involved in the process. Games are not just business or craft, it's also an art form, and for this to work, you need some inspired artists :)
Personally, I admire the company's success with our "backyard". I'm talking here about the CD Project.
The Witcher, their flagship product was a huge hit around the world. Last I heard, that Hollywood interested in the history o f Witcher, which makes me very happy, because I would like to see one of my favorite novels on the big screen and by the way forget this recorded a few years ago in Poland:)
I'd say I'm somewhere between an achiever and an explorer. I'm really awkward when it comes to socialising, I rarely play any MMOs - and even when I do, I basically explore the world by myself instead of going PvP (it totally stresses me out! :D).
I'm much more into single-player RPGs, like Elder Scrolls, Bioshock, Vampire: Masquerade, The Witcher, Fallout, etc. I love exploring the world (especially when a game has an open world like in Bethesda games) and looting everything I find (I'm a total hoarder, I tend to take every single piece I find and end up overloaded and unable to move! :D).
Sometimes I install an application - game on the iPhone. I don't have a special type of games. I choose good game design - my favourite flat or 3D.
However, looking at most of the games I can observe that a) there are no designers in some game studios b) people don't care about gamers. It looks like games with easy plot are made to demonstra5e graphical engine, not to entertain people. If plot is better, more complicated games tend to have tons of bugs. I haven't seen any good game for a while (oh yes, I haven't tried any Wiedzmin yet)
However, this theory is still quite interesting as the process of creating a game is something that I know very little about. It could be quite fun to take part in creation of a game and then see people enjoying it.
You've mentioned GTA and racing games as an example - and you're right, these games don't teach you anything except for reflex and language skills. But these are just two examples, and I could easily give examples of books that teach you nothing as well - just like the harlequins that I mentioned.
As I said, it's a matter of content, not medium. You can watch some documentary on Discovery, which is valuable, or "Trudne sprawy", which is not. You can read "Fahrenheit 451" which is called great literature, or you can read "50 Shades of Grey" which doesn't even improve your language skills, for it's so badly written. It's the same for games. There are bad games and good games, games designed only to give you fun and games which question your morality and your choices. It's only up to you which type you choose.
What is atmosphere like in your favorite games? Is it always similar mood or it varies?
I'm not telling that games with plot are the only right choice, but it's a lot easier to like a game where no one tells you, that he slept with your mother :)