What do you guys want in a game?

Alright so I am developing a project and I just don't want to develop something that someone has already done, right now I am working on something that will hopefully redefine the shooter. But anyways that project is too early in development and I need more people. As for what I wanted to talk about I wanted to know what things you'd like to see in a video game built with Unity or just in general to see overall what the community wants! Thanks and happy responses

 

Too late someone is about to release whatever it is you just made.

 

I don't quite think so, the development roadmap for the project I am working on is going to have a lot of features not seen in modern day shooters. Anyways I haven't explained my game too much to were you'd be able to know.

 

He's kinda right, though. Almost any conceivable idea has likely already been done at some point. Even minecraft wasn't the first of its kind. In my opinion you should apportion much more focus on implementation rather than idea.

I by no means know what I'm talking about, but it seems logical. Minecraft wasn't widely regarded as a legit game due to its concept (at least that's what I would deduce considering it has already been done) but because of the implementation of the idea.

Tbh, I don't really have specific features that I like in games; I just play whatever happens to be fun.

 

I'll add one note to the topic this devolved into: sometimes there's a reason that you haven't seen your ideas implemented in a game before. It might be prohibitively expensive, or maybe it's not actually as fun as it sounds.

Ok, two notes: Instead of trying to convince yourself and everyone else that your idea is totally original, find games that have done it before and done it well and mix their best parts together in a way that's original. Remember: bad artists copy [unintentionally/subconciously], but great artists steal.

As for the question originally asked: I like games that continuously teach me new concepts. A game should start out simple, then slowly introduce new concepts, one at a time, until it becomes something truly deep and complex. In other words, a gentle learning curve.
Remember: humans can't effectively make decisions between more than ~5 options, but 3 is preferable. [citation needed] After some experience, we can handle more, but it's mostly because we learn which options to ignore .

I've played (or tried to play) far too many games which are intent on throwing every option in the game at me at the start and expect me to know what's going on. I've also played a lot of games which try to reduce their complexity by making the game easier, which just winds up as a boring game. Strike a balance! Teach the player one concept at a time, but take advantage of that time to teach them the depth and nuances of that mechanic. Hold the player's hand, but punch them in the face if they don't master what you're teaching!

As a thought experiment, imagine how much easier to learn a game like, say, Dwarf Fortress would be if all of your dwarves started out starving to death. Placed in a crisis mode, you now know that your current objective is to get food, and you can ignore all options which don't relate to getting food. You'll die a lot while you learn, to be sure, but you'll fail quickly, and when you finally figure out how to get food, you'll understand that concept deeply for the rest of the game.

That's what I want in a game.

 

Make it fun. Make it have good gameplay. I'm playing Kingdom Rush on my iPad at the moment, it has fun gameplay (its a tower-defense in a kind of medieval theme).

 

Stop worrying about creating something original and just create something good. There is nothing original left. It's all been done. Sure you may come up with a few unique details here and there, but overall, it's been done, no matter what you think.

 

There are an infinite amount of possibilities if you think hard a long enough and put dedication and commit, I bet you could create something new!

 

Nope you're going to see the exact same idea well started on steam or kickstarter.

 

I'm less concerned with the story and assets than with the mechanics. Where I'm at with gaming right now, is that I'm not really impressed with everything that's out there.

AAA Multiplayer games lately seem to all be about how well you can play a cookie-cutter build (StarCraft 2, most MMOs.)

Single-player games seem to all be cloning either A) Minecraft, or B) Terraria (yes, even Starbound, which I am playing right now, I have to gripe about. It's like this play style is everywhere.)

At the core of my gripes is a lack of variety. Perhaps everyone is just really risk-averse in every part of their lives right now, but the lack of strategies that emerge in most games is really sad. I uninstalled StarCraft II because there are certain strategies that, if you can figure out what your opponent is doing, allow you to end the game in about five minutes, without ever touching 90% of your faction's units. It leads me to wonder, why the hell did they bother putting everything else in? Oh wait...because of the other cookie-cutter strategies. In my personal opinion, the Minecraft model is becoming as overused as the Damsel in Distress trope; it speaks of a great lack of creativity to me.

Something I'd like to see is a formal system with significantly more depth than most of the current generation of works; even a 'sub-optimal' build should at least throw a wrench in someone else's plans in multiplayer. Something else I'd like to see are more Metroidvanias where you don't build. If I am an explorer, I should explore; if I am a builder, I should build. If I am a soldier, I should kill. Don't try to make your game have n core conceits, or you'll fail at all of them.

[/Rant]