↬ https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3357/formal_abstract_design_tools.php discusses the formal abstract design tools and whether a game is "fun" or not, which I quite agree with. Whether a game is fun or not comes from a thorough and unbiased outlook on a game, and simply stating if a game is "fun" does not actually tell designers why it actually is entertaining. In turn we should be able to a pick a specific game, choose a single cool aspect from it and apply it to our own game, or even take a game that we love "if it weren't for one annoying aspect" understand why it bothers us, and make sure we don't create a similar mistake in our very own games. I think this is a very interesting approach to game design and I'll definitely be sticking to it.
↬ http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/WhatMakesaGame.shtml covers some very interesting topics on what actually makes a game good. For instance, it would have to be an original concept and has to possess unique elements that have never been used before, otherwise gamers would be considering playing other games as they would have the same concept with a more advanced approach. The freshness and replayability of a game makes its players want to play it again and again, and it should feel exciting each time it's played as it was the first time. Games lacking this quality will soon becoming boring. Games should also be enriched with surprised and repetition in sequence, progress and events should be strictly avoided.
↬ https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/64z7w8/what_are_the_qualities_that_make_up_a_bad_game/ features all the errors in a bad game and how to overcome them, from unclear and bad controls, to unnecessary features like ugly user interfaces. Some games also feature extremely long and unneeded tutorials, and if a player can't play the game fast enough, they'd lose interest, meaning your game is probably too complicated/complex and you'd need to tone down the specifics.
 |
| Complex Terrain. |
No comments:
Post a Comment