look at those Polys 0.0 - Page 2

ronnoc10 · 05-31-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HagNasty

Because when it comes down to it, Mario is fun, Katamari os fun (oh for the love of god is it fun). These don't have great graphics or animations. There 100% fun factor. And that is how we are designing our games.

I have been eaten

But, that leads into my next point: the relationship between graphics and gameplay. A 2d game can fake 3d, and a 3d game can have 2d gameplay (RTS), so that doesn't have too much impact, but proceduraly generated animations (aka. Crysis, Spore, Fable 2, Indiana Jones 2007) can have a huge impact on gameplay, and therefor, fun factor.

iddqd · 05-31-2007, 06:50 PM

Actually, it's a misconception that great games are based around "fun." In reality, games that are truly successful are based on motivation. People don't play games for an extended amount of time soley because they are fun. They'll find a "fun little game," play for one or two sessions, then forget about it. I can't even count (or remember) a ton of the fun Flash games I've found online. They were lacking any motivation for me to come back night after night, though, and play. This is just one example.

Mario, as you mentioned, had an exterior motivation that was very much beyond just fun. People were amazed at what could be done with games, and wanted to see the story unfold (a very population motivation technique) and explore new areas of the game.

Some games have a different style of motivation. Tetris, for example. This game is based on the fact that you play it mostly when there isn't much going on. The motivation is to occupy your mind with something other than the "real world." This is a common theme with portable games, especially. Another example along these lines: the rubik's cube. This isn't really fun, but it's motivating to complete. When it's finished, we rejoice in our victory, and this is fun. We find it challenging (which is not the same as fun, although the two can go hand-in-hand) and this challenge motivates us to accomplish something that is presented as being intended for us not to complete. It's the human nature of "this can't be done? Let me try..." It's a huge motivator to get people to buy into the hook of your game.

You guys are mentioning good graphics. YET more motivation. You wonder what cool cutscene is coming up next...how these awesome graphic, character, and animation design will give you more of the immersive world surrounding the game. What's going to happen next?

Yet another example: World of Warcraft. You can't argue the success of this game by any means, and...let's face it...a lot of the game isn't all that fun. It isn't fun to shoot your 3,000th shadowbolt at the 428th level 2 zombie that you're killing for the night. But there's motivation in it. Level up, see the "cool" stuff in the game, and experience fun at THAT point with your friends. Motivation STILL persists here, though, to either get better and better gear, or to pvp with other players for various rewards. Overall, though, a good chunk of the game isn't directly fun.

A lot of games that involve player development through character growth center around allowing a player to become immersed in this experience of advancement. They believe that THEY are becoming something more than they are...that they're exceeding boundries put on them by reality. This is where good animation and great world/character design *can* come into play, although it is also often accomplished through other methods. Although you may call this fun (and often times portions of it are, of course), there are always stretches in games that aren't fun. You can't avoid this, no matter how good you may think you are at design, because everyone has different thresholds of how long they can stay at something...how much of your challenges they can take. This is where truly successful design gives motivation to either keep playing or come back later. When the player is away, you instill a sense in them that they're missing something...your game.

So, in short, fun is important, but just "fun" doesn't make great games by any means. You can make some neat little Flash passtimes by making games soley around fun, but if you want to create a truly great game that people will want to come back to again and again, you need to find that motivation that makes them never forget the title you put on your box.

HagNasty · 05-31-2007, 09:29 PM

I don't care how you define fun. If it's fun then you will succeed. Also Tetris has no motivation other then do better.

Player · 05-31-2007, 11:30 PM

Casual gamers would not play a game if they did not find it fun plain and simple. Of course there are many driving forces behind why people play a game but it all boils down to enjoyment, I played WoW for two years and recently stopped because it started to feel more like a job then a game to me.

iddqd · 06-01-2007, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HagNasty

I don't care how you define fun. If it's fun then you will succeed. Also Tetris has no motivation other then do better.

Uh..."doing better" is a huge motivation. Almost every game genre uses it. Look, your game can do one of two things: 1) define a new playing genre (or at least contain enough original gameplay that appears to form a new genre) or 2) expand on an existing genre. If you expand, you rely on allowing players that are already familiar with your genre to expand their skills in that type of gameplay. Ultimately, this is your player's drive for buying and performing long term use of your game. FPS's, for example, take what's there and add to it so players can feel like their expanding on their skills in the area.

And the WoW comment even furthers my point. When you get bored, the game is no longer fun...true. But you more importantly lose your drive to continue playing. Whatever was there that made you continue to go back night after night no longer is appealing. Maybe for you the game was a smorgasboard thrills with no pause for two years straight, but for most I would wager they their good nights and their bad.

I'm not saying great games aren't fun, but it takes more to make a game great. Especially if you plan to start an entire company around making the software...and said company is planned to be around for years and years to come. It's a necessity. Companies that succeed in the industry provide games that aren't just fun, but separate their product through giving their players great motivation for playing.

HagNasty · 06-05-2007, 07:25 AM

I think your debating a point that is along the same side as mine. I say that great games are fun. You say that to make a great game it has to have motivation. Now, I can't think of a single fun game that had no motivation can you?

ronnoc10 · 06-05-2007, 02:22 PM

Hell, I think you're both right. I wouldn't call it fun, I'd call it enjoyment. Fun Factor would be instant enjoyment, and Motovation would the anticipation of future enjoyment.

Quote:

Yet another example: World of Warcraft. You can't argue the success of this game by any means, and...let's face it...a lot of the game isn't all that fun. It isn't fun to shoot your 3,000th shadowbolt at the 428th level 2 zombie that you're killing for the night. But there's motivation in it. Level up, see the "cool" stuff in the game, and experience fun at THAT point with your friends. Motivation STILL persists here, though, to either get better and better gear, or to pvp with other players for various rewards. Overall, though, a good chunk of the game isn't directly fun.

See, the player belives that when s/he gets teh rewards s/he will enjoy the game more, or simply be happy to have it. They are motivated by the anticipation of future enjoyment.

HagNasty · 06-06-2007, 07:15 AM

that is a much better way of saying it. I like it

Adrir · 06-06-2007, 05:28 PM

Communial experiences, player status and competition are powerful motivators. Motivations that can be captured through the internet, recording player records on servers and connecting players across the world. Combining this with fun-orientated gameplay - that has alot of potential!

Although, about this whole motivation thing - why am I so convieniently motivated to slay innocent people on GTA:SA!

On topic, didn't great games such as StarCraft, Fallout and UO utilise 2d isometric methods? I still play Doom and Wolfie-stein on occasion! I think 3d is great for marketing a product, creating an immersive atsmosphere and sparking that "wow factor" but it doesn't maintain the momentum without great gameplay and some games just don't need to be 3d...Snake3D, ugh!

HagNasty · 06-12-2007, 09:26 AM

Ok ok, 2D art can be great too and used in game. BUT, the goal of this thread was to examine models in game and discuss what makes them good.

This could include there textures the way they are rigged and animated, how they interact with the environment or just there general shape and topology. It would be hard to go into detail of the geometric topology of a sprite :P