Choose Your Own Adventure!

It's a new forum, its fate is in our hands... rather than just saying "this doesn't relate to game design" for every single topic being posted... seriously...

 

When I read the thread title I immediately thought "wow... brings back memories. I remember those old Choose Your Own Adventure books"... sounds like an interesting adventure game design discussion. I preferred the D&D Endless Quest books because I was working on Zork-like adventure games at that time. Of course, this was not the point of the thread.

I vote for a games discussion.

 

I think game design may not be enough of an enthralling topic to warrant its own forum. Most of the discussion here has been about game elements, specific games and very little design has been discussed.

Maybe because game design is a real, hard job and not fun to talk about for most people.

 

We can always continue from where we left up in our original discussion.

We only made it up to an agreement of the definition of game.

To create The Process of Game Design we would need to move forward to the actionable pieces at some point.

Of course, we could build more of a foundation by covering play mechanics, environment, story, and so forth.

Or we could just get to... the game concept... coming up with the initial idea.

 

It might not even be well suited for a forum format.

Yeah might as well go ahead and resurrect that topic. I feel like we should really focus the discussion rather than have it all spread out everywhere.

 

My apologies if I misunderstand the purpose of this thread. Game design is a broad topic. Individual elements are well suited to forum discussion. I ticked every single checkbox in the poll at the top of this thread. Even user interfaces are related to game design. Take cameras for instance. Implementing a third person camera is a Scripting forum topic. But whether to use third person or first person in your game is a design topic. First person places the player into the world, where the world is the primary experience. Third person places the protagonist front-and-center in the camera, so the protagonist is the primary experience. A single technical aspect (first or third person camera) has deep implications for game design. Is the game about exploring and manipulating the game world (e.g., first person camera), or about exploring and developing the life of the protagonist (e.g., third person)?

 

I think it would be nice to see what people care about, what issues we want to think about... rather than just hoping that someone starts a topic that catches interest.

 

Gotcha. Makes sense!

 

So you're looking for more high level discussion on game design as a process?

 

I think so.

I'm not sure what belongs on this forum, but my understanding was that it was about designing games.

I like sharing my opinions on RPG stats, but...

 

Looks like the number one thing people want to talk about is UI and bad design decisions. I'll do some research, see what can be used to build a decent discussion around I guess.

I think bad design is a "share your horror story" kind of topic waiting to happen...

 

Well, those two points are common for all games, and even in theory to other programs, and both can really make or break games.

 

I made a post on Gossip that was a huuuge debate, called "Is a computer game anything other than a large program?"

Everybody agreed, more or less, that games were programs. How could you not, right?

Every program has a user interface.

So, the graphics and sound effects we see as "the game" are actually a kind of interface. That's a bit too confusing, though. So, I think it's best to stick to GUI elements.

Arguably, WoW is 90% GUI interaction. Minecraft, too. Big games have good UI. So, how come its not thought of as game design... or is it? I wonder if Extra Credits has even touched the subject?

It might even be the difference between a mediocre game and a great game.

 

It certainly makes a huge difference in the quality of a game, but I'll challenge your theory that it is the difference with two words:

Dwarf Fortress.

 

A matter of opinion, that.

I thought I tried installing Dwarf Fortress and I couldn't tell if I actually installed it or if my computer was just glitching out.

Someone walks in the room while you're taking a bathroom break from playing that game and force restarts the computer...

You don't install graphics mods you download language packs...

Finally a game that makes Atari graphics look good...

I could probably go on but I think that's enough.

Ok one more... You thought you were looking at the strategy guide but it was actually windows character map.

 

Dwarf fortress is a very good example of how a bad UI (and I don't mean the graphics, ASCII doesn't help to get into it either) can make people walk away without giving it a proper try.

When you stay and force yourself to learn all the convoluted ways to actually be able to play, the game itself is quite decent, and there are various mods to enhance various parts (graphics, content, tools), but the UI is not mod-able.

If only Toady was willing to listen to this complain and make a proper and consistent UI, it would make for a better game across the board.
Some menus allow for mouse inputs, others use the arrows, others use -+*/ as navigation keys...

I love that game, but I won't lie to myself on the parts that are just plain bad.

 

Some people theorize that a hard to use interface is part of the fun for some people, I remember reading this in some random book, someplace and thinking about Minecraft... how it didn't even explain the most basic crafting recipes, etc. Then again, Minecraft is just pick up and start playing... so it's actually a really obvious, simple interface. I guess what I'm saying is if I can't even figure out what I'm looking at, I for one won't play it. I'm sure there are others who agree. Then, there are people who will play it precisely because of that reason. ::shrugs::

Ultimately, I think the easy to use UI has broader appeal.

 

I think the difference with Minecraft is that it's easy to understand how to interact with the world (basically just look and click), but the fun is exploring what you can do with that interaction.

Compare that to the frustration of old text games, where you knew what to do (e.g., "pick up the bucket") but had to fight with the parser to figure out how to interact ("take bucket"? "grab container"? Oh! "get pail"! Finally!).

In Minecraft, the player is in control. In text games, the parser is in control.

 

Perfectly said.

 

So, judging from my research... we can't create a decent user interface, have no idea how to balance the difficulty in a game and all want to know what we should watch out for, in general, because we suspect we're doing it wrong.

 

It's better to seek what you might have done wrong than to think your own view is always right, no?

 

To err is human, to learn from other people's "err" is downright wizard.

 

.............you have GOT to be kidding me...

If this is true, then no wonder most games have awful designs and are uninspired, uninnovative PoS.

Typical Dev: uhhh...what's game design? Huh? That's not important. Now bugger off! I gotta finish my roguelike platformer metroidvania clone.

 

I was sorely disappointed when I found out this thread was not about discussing Choose Your Own Adventure Books game design.

Almost rage-worthy disappointment. WTFMAN

 

If it's any consolation, since I know you have the Dialogue System, there's a simple CYOA example for the Dialogue System here. I've been surprised by the number of people who are using or plan to use the Dialogue System for CYOAs. You could always start your own discussion thread about CYOA design!

 

Well played good sir
Well played.

 

Why don't you have a read about these forums. A lot of people are making roguelikes and platformers. And most people don't seem to want to talk about the real meat n' potatoes of game design, that it's based in human psychology/biochemistry etc. Read this thread, the most popular post was "who cares?"

 

tis a shame

 

This forum is just fine. Game design, and the elements of game design are very important.

 

Regarding Dwarf Fortress, I don't like it either. That doesn't mean it's not a great game, though. Enough smart people enjoy it that I'm willing to have faith that it's actually fun beneath the inaccessible interface.

That said, it think it would be objectively better if the interface were better designed. I don't even think you'd need to to get rid of the ASCII art - just design the interface with the user rather than the systems in mind.

 

Dwarf Fortress is NOT a great game. It is however a great game to an extremely small niche. (You will find plenty of people who praise or defend DF, but few who actually play it.) Such a universally unplayable game for the majority of gamers prevents it from being classified as great, or even good. It makes a mockery of developers who actually put significant time and effort into usability, and degrades the high quality of fantastic user interfaces, great usability, depth in design (as opposed to depth without design), and so much more. IMO, the title "great" or even "good" should be reserved for developers who actually care about their players. Specifically, caring about how their player's interact in the game. (DF made the game for himself, and just happens to share it with others. This is quite clear, and fine, but disqualifies it from being great.) Also, great or even good games need to have a lot of people who actually play the game, but pretend to play it and brag about how awesome it is. Nearly every review I've read from legitimate journalists (non-hardcore) acted as if the game was great, even though they themselves admit not being able to even play it, let alone enjoy it.

I would not classify those who play it as smart as much as I would say they are just different. Maybe lovers of ascii too? Maybe imaginative. Folowing some guides and a few mods, and it isnt so hard to play if you have the time to waste dealing with frustrating interfaces and irrational input changes. Once you get it, youve got it and can just play. Even after that barrier of entry, the people who keep playing it aren't this massive number like those who TALK about it.

Most people like the IDEA of dwarf fortress, more than the game itself. They praise, they discuss, they even defend the game- all because of the idea it represents.

There are some who actually play it, but they are minorities in the pro-DF crowd.

The reason those players like it, is because it is, how you say, An ever-changing puzzle of perpetual feature creep.

Features are added constantly without any thought to design, balance, or anything. So the playerbase get to play, learn, and conquer until losing. A new feature is added quickly, and now the game changes and they get to figure out how to work with the new feature.

"Once this finds you, you cannot beat it so you instantly lose."

*next game*
"How do I avoid that mob so I cant lose?"

*carts are added*
"Hmm, I've figured out how to use carts to provide infinite food! I am awesome!"

*cart bugs are added*

"Now I cant rely entirely on carts. Hmm maybe 30% carts and 60% farms!"

Bad example, but everyone loves tons of new features constantly being poured into their fave game. A game that doesnt need anything except more and more features to make them happy.

For everyone else, it is about the depth. The fact it isnt yet another platformer. An idea of complexity is an idea people love, even if it is an unbalanced unplayable PoS for 99%.

Also note, never blast DF at gamasutra. Unlike most places, many there are in denial of its flaws and want to have Tarn's babies.

 

I forgot to mention: look up gnomoria.

It is a more usable DF clone. (Has real gfx and a real interface). Otherwise it is strikingly similar in gameplay.