Video Game Ideas

[jubeh]

Ideally, yes. Ideally, all games should allow players to master them.

You mean master the gimmick. You realize that every game is going to have trial and error right. The first time you played mario did you run into the goomba or jump on him. How did you know it would kill him?

When it comes to something like Meatboy, it's simply about perseverance. At the end, you haven't gotten "better" at the game, you just memorized it.

I wasn't even going to respond to this because it's so wrong but I'm gonna do it because I just love you so much. Jumping is a mechanic. Sprinting is a mechanic. Wall jumping is a mechanic. Mastering these is mastery of the game. When you play meatboy the majority of the time the level is layed out before you and you know how it's going to play out, so yes you are objectively wrong here in the case of super meatboy.

There aren't any surprise razors, or secret traps and shit.

I guess what I'm saying is: games shouldn't be a test of patience, but mastery of the mechanics.

Man am I talking to fenn talking about all games need to do this or that.

Games like IWBTG are just tests of how frustrated you can get before you quit.

Well that's the point of that particular game.

[CypressDahlia]

How did you know it would kill him?

I read the manual. Yes, there is going to be //some// degree of trial and error in games. But for a game to be //about// trial and error is what I'm against. You only need to jump on a Goomba once to realize that jumping on Goombas will kill them, but you might have to replay a single level of N 20-30 times before you get the timing down just right.

Jumping is a mechanic. Sprinting is a mechanic. Wall jumping is a mechanic.

These things are all so standard in games that I would hardly call them a "gameplay mechanic". Actually, I would call them "the game" as far as most platformers are concerned. And it's not like SMB handles it in a particularly unique way, either.

...the level is layed out before you and you know how it's going to play out.

Yes, and it takes immense amounts of trial and error to realize that you can't wall jump that gap, or you can't reach that ledge that way, etc. The game is built around you dying and trying again--there is no gameplay outside of that.

Man am I talking to fenn talking about all games need to do this or that.

There is a standard that all games should meet, otherwise we consider them faulty. Being frustrated is something very few people enjoy.

[jubeh]

I read the manual. Yes, there is going to be //some// degree of trial and error in games. But for a game to be //about// trial and error is what I'm against. You only need to jump on a Goomba once to realize that jumping on Goombas will kill them, but you might have to replay a single level of N 20-30 times before you get the timing down just right.

I don't see why you couldn't look at a stage and make a reasonable assertion as to how to go about it. Whether you thought you couldn't make the jump or not is based on your experience and how good you are at the game.

You can look at a stage and decide how you're going to do it. Trial and error would be stepping on a platform and suddenly it vanishes and you fall to your death, or any other random thing beyond your control. Since jumping is completely under your control in N, its your fault if you mess up a jump.

These things are all so standard in games that I would hardly call them a "gameplay mechanic". Actually, I would call them "the game" as far as most platformers are concerned. And it's not like SMB handles it in a particularly unique way, either.

WOw just no. They are definitely mechanics. And considering that games are composed of mechanics then yeah jumping is what makes the game for platformers. You don't have to have "unique" jumping. What does that even mean.

You could even go as far as to say that sprinting in the air is a unique spin on jumping. Half of becoming good at SMB is knowing when and when not to sprint.

Yes, and it takes immense amounts of trial and error to realize that you can't wall jump that gap, or you can't reach that ledge that way, etc. The game is built around you dying and trying again--there is no gameplay outside of that.

Um the gameplay in platformers is jumping on platforms.

Trial and error only comes into play when you encounter a new mechanic or something beyond your control. There's nothing unfair about jumping too far or too short, because it's your fault.

An example of something that I felt was unfair in an otherwise well polished game was when you'd jump to a new room in VVVVV and instantly die. How were you supposed to know there were obstacles in that room?

There is a standard that all games should meet, otherwise we consider them faulty. Being frustrated is something very few people enjoy.

This is a destructive attitude and I know that you're going to 100% disagree with me but thats no big deal. Its along the lines of the play to win stuff in that I feel that we just haven't gotten there yet.

First of all there need to be games for people that do enjoy frustration. I hope one day that there are enough games to scratch every unique itch. So if the very idea of a game is to just piss you off to no end that's fine if its what you're looking for.

Considering a game faulty because its not based around the mastery of mechanics does not and should not be applied to every game in a world where not everyone is interested in mastering them. You need to be open to the idea of a game where being good at it isn't a huge deal and maybe not even point of the game. For instance the games we play on the forum.

[CypressDahlia]

The thing about N is that you will often see things like this:



I've beaten all of N, the community packs and a good amount of N+, and I still bet I would die 20 times attempting to traverse this room. Even though I have mastered running and jumping, it hardly constitutes mastering the game which involves memorizing where to be and when to avoid death. Not to mention that the allowed margin of error is so unforgiving that death almost seems inevitable. And it's also extremely context sensitive, therefore general mastery of running and jumping really doesn't matter so much as memorizatino. So yeah, that game is about trial and error.

So they're not really mechanics in the sense that they don't override the importance of memorization. Getting good with them is not going to make memorization any less important, or any less vital to progression. And it's safe to say that these odds are so extremely stacked against you that it's almost unfair. I know you and I have different definitions of "unfair".

But I do agree with you, actually, on the last point. Hardcore gaming is all about people who like to be challenged, even to the point of frustration. I'm one of those people myself. But I think it's equally destructive when devs take things like difficulty balancing and player enjoyment for granted and instead make games "uber hard" just for the sake of doing so. Even our commercial devs haven't mastered difficulty balancing, so that's something we should pay more mind to, instead of making these games that gain novelty through unbalanced difficulty.

[jubeh]

I can't speak for N since I haven't played it since it first came out but If you're saying the same about SMB and Ninja Senki then you are simply nuts. I mean you could say that any game without randomness is about trial and error. Any corridor shooter, jrpg, racing game, or shmup like I said earlier. All genres that you can (typically) muscle through with sheer perseverance.

Okay stay with me on this example because its weird. Yesterday I found one of my old dungeons and dragons choose your own adventure books. I used to think those books were just random but there are a lot of clues in the text as to what you should do. For instance I had to escape these orcs and there was this strange fog. I had the choice to confront them or escape into the fog. That one seems kind of obvious because you could then ambush them from the fog but the choices got a lot more complex and difficult but I felt the book always gave you the clues you needed to get through.

You could totally go through this book randomly through trial and error and just start over when you died. But there is no way you could say that it was about that.

Also I disagree that memorization is more important than your actual platforming skills on most of the games you mentioned. I would submit that if I were to wipe your memories of the game clean but kept your muscle memory intact you'd clear rooms better than you did before. There is an inherent set of skills you pick up in games like that.

As for our definitions of unfair, Anna Anthropy likes to refer to these platformers as masacore games. Basically games for masochistic people that don't necessarily have to be unfair. IWBTG would fall into this category but so would Battle Kid* most likely.

Truly unfair platformers would be like the ones I mentioned. I doubt its the first game like it but I believe Owata kicked off the idea.

But I think it's equally destructive when devs take things like difficulty balancing and player enjoyment for granted and instead make games "uber hard" just for the sake of doing so. Even our commercial devs haven't mastered difficulty balancing, so that's something we should pay more mind to, instead of making these games that gain novelty through unbalanced difficulty.

That would be a fair appraisal if "player enjoyment" had some sort of metric. You remember that pigo guy that would always ask, "how fun is this game." That's so annoying.

Also saying that difficult indie platformers are unbalanced is a pretty outrageous claim. SMB has an almost perfect difficulty curve. VVVVV was pretty much the same. Those games were refined as fuck. I mean that was the whole idea behind them. Team Meat took a hard look at video game difficulty and asked, "How can we make this better."

*I've actually heard that Battle Kid was made in response to IWBTG. The creator wanted to prove that you could make a game that was just as difficult that didn't have to be unfair.

[CypressDahlia]

Player enjoyment can be vaguely standardized by whether or not it frustrates the majority of people who play it. You and I both know that hardcore gamers constitute a very small percentage of the entire body.

Also, Ninja Senki has a lot of "firsts" where you'll jump into an offscreen enemy and fall to your death.

[jubeh]

Player enjoyment can be vaguely standardized by whether or not it frustrates the majority of people who play it. You and I both know that hardcore gamers constitute a very small percentage of the entire body.

Well that ostracizes games that are fun because they are frustrating like demon souls and games made for niche communites like the spiderweb games. If we could measure "fun" then focus testing would dictate that half the shit we see never hits the market.

Also, Ninja Senki has a lot of "firsts" where you'll jump into an offscreen enemy and fall to your death.

Err I mixed up ninja senki with the one where you're the naked ninja that stabs dude in the head. My bad.

[CypressDahlia]

It's okay. Sometimes we can't help but think about naked ninjas.

And I'm not saying eliminate frustration in games (because that would mean no challenge), but that the priority should be to maximize enjoyment (unless it's one of the "niche" games you mentioned), accessibility and //most importantly// make sure a game is more fun than it is frustrating.

[Lucy]

Memorization is one way of aiding yourself in overcoming a particular obstacle. If the player chooses to remember how to overcome a particular obstacle, then it will be easier for them, however in most games it is still possible if they don't. If a game is very difficult, it will probably be required to supplement their raw skill. Memorization is only ever strictly required in games that are designed in such a way that they trap a player if they don't know what to do (Otawa, IWBTG, Karateka's infamous post victory decapitation, etc). I'd argue that if you were taught N as a core subject in school and did it for hours a day as a fundamental part of your life, then by the time you were about 35 you'd be so good at manipulating the mechanics that you'd be able to get through that room without dying once, however, you could do it on the very first day you ever played N but you'd die about 500 times learning how. You can approach things in multiple ways, and there is a sliding scale of how much your success is down to familiarity and how much is down to skill, and it's possible for that scale to slide to both extremes.

On the subject of frustration in games, you have to consider the effort=reward thing. You could play a shmup where hardly any bullets were fired at you and your hitbox was the size of a subatomic particle. You'd beat it first try and it probably would not be fun. Or you could play something with a lot of difficulty like DoDonpachi's 2nd loop, Mushihimesama Futari Ultra, Cho Ren Sha, or whatever. You wouldn't win the first time you played unless you were freaking godlike, but after a lot of work on improving your own ability and finding ways to overcome things, you'd eventually beat it, and I'm sure you know that when you do, my friend, it is goddamn exhilarating. Frustration can be a good thing because it enhances the sense of achievement the player gets when they finally win. On the other hand you have really hard games that most players won't beat; then the player is unlikely to ever get that satisfaction, true. However, if a player takes on IWBTG or one of the aforementioned screw-you-player-I-want-you-to-die-now shmups, then becomes obvious to the player that they're undertaking somewhat of an endeavor quite some time before they actually begin to get frustrated. A lot of the frustration associated with such games is down to the player expecting unrealistic performance out of themselves.

[ram]

plants vs zombies >.< lol