This thread is in response to the thread located at id:801623. I decided to start a new thread, instead of further derailing that already extensive discussion.
--------------------------------------------------
Read that thread and count the number of different ways we refer to art and art creation. Now count the number of ways we refer to play and play creation.
On the one hand we have art, with words like color, animation, depth, perspective, style, pallet, consistency, and so on.
On the other hand, we have play with only one reference I can see: gameplay.
This should be enough to illustrate the underlying issue BYOND has with game development. We don't know how to talk about, describe, analyze or implement play in games. We lack the vocabulary to express these concepts, and therefore, revert to what is already accepted as a "game" on BYOND and derive our "game" from that.
In order to understand gameplay, and explore it as developers, we need to define what play in a game means. Unfortunately for us, this lack of vocabulary extends to the greater game development community. There simply is no well-defined means of expressing what play is, and much confusion about what makes games fun to play. The problem is bigger than BYOND, but it's much more prevalent here.
The vast majority of games on BYOND have little or no play mechanics. Clicking something over and over to increase a stat is about as far as we get. The trope is so over-used, we don't even see it anymore. It's the pbag. The attack verb. Mining ore by clicking a rock. Fishing by clicking the water. The list goes on and on.
Some games have tried to break this habit, but really only end up re-creating the same game mechanic in a different way, resulting in the same sort of problem, now with a new facade. Instead of clicking the Attack verb in the stat panel, we now click the Attack HUD icon.
Until we, as a community, come to terms with our lack of understanding, we can't expect to attract dedicated developers and players, and BYOND has little chance of obtaining anything remotely close to success in the game development marketplace, no matter if we publish here through BYOND's Hub, in a stand-alone EXE, or in some web-based flash interface.
Here's a few links to help get the discussion flowing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics
http://gamification.org/wiki/Game_Mechanics
http://www.squidi.net/three/index.php
~X
Oct 26 2012, 3:44 pm
|
|
ACWraith
 |
I tend to side with Tadhg Kelly on game definitions, but some of them rub people the wrong way. Unfortunately, defining terms for useful analysis is sometimes seen as a hate crime.
|
ACWraith wrote:
I tend to side with Tadhg Kelly on game definitions, but some of them rub people the wrong way. Unfortunately, defining terms for useful analysis is sometimes seen as a hate crime. Jeez, these people don't play enough games! In the end of the day, this is where a pretty basic game documentation before the start of development fixes most of these problems, and it is extremely handy and keeps you on a straight path from conception to development to finished product. What you really need to know is: What is your goal What is your premise to this goal What is your route to this goal In further detail: By 'your goal' I mean the games objective, in puzzle games this is usually as simple as "get the most points". In a single player puzzle game, its usually "expand to a gradually more challenging game which requires a deeper tactic than one employed earlier in the game". In a multiplayer game like Alchemist it is to "Bury your opponent by creating chains and combos". In a role playing game it is usually "save the world" and in a strategy game "conquer all your enemies" regardless of whether it is single player or not. Premise for the game is the bit we're usually all good at, the story behind the game. Even puzzle games come up with a premise behind the game, such as 'Dr Mario' where Mario takes the role of a doctor curing a virus. In a role playing game, this usually tends to be more complicated as the game usually requires at least one 'twist' in the middle or near-end to surprise the player. They usually revolve around the central character being in the wrong place at the wrong time, either as a minor, mercenary, etc. A strategy game is usually much simpler, a case of "them or us" where you either fight or surrender against an overwhelming enemy. The route to the goal is then the gameplay, and this needs to be defined _before_ you start developing a game, because changing it mid game is not the easiest thing in the world and often ends up in cancellation. Although Xooxer quite rightly says that BYOND games usually centre around a very basic route such as clicking an object or a verb in a panel and an action performing but its not a question of how basic the interaction is but rather the enjoyability of the action. Having a little guy hitting a rock with a pick, the same animation every time, and having to do that thousands of times is _not_ fun. A game such as dungeon keeper where the Imp whacks the path you outline in the same way every time but then discovers caverns of new creatures, resources, surprises, technologies and bonuses is more fun and holds a reason for doing so. An unlimited rock which never breaks up simply for the purpose of stat level grinding is not fun. | |
I agree with the above poster on the statement that it's important to set a goal which guides the development, but I don't feel like it really hit's on what the OP has brought up (or at least how I perceive it!)
Why I think art and gameplay are so variant in what comprises them, is because in their core they are two far different things. When you speak of art, you are talking about taking an idea, or feeling, and using it to create something visually appealing. To me, gameplay is not necessarily something created, but the result of a creation. If we were to put it in an analogy, viewing art would be shared with art creation, as gameplay is to game creation. When a game is played, I generally follow along with what is presented to me, and head or work towards a goal. I suppose aspects of gameplay that can be brought up are these; Focus: Is the game attention heavy, do you have to pay attention to a lot of details. Immersion: Are you drawn into the situations or activities you're set into. Creativity: Is what you're doing ordinary, or does it really draw you out and excite you (Assassinating someone, building something epic, racing to complete something) Visual Appeal: This too is a part of gameplay, but not all. It cannot substitute other attributes. Visual appeal has a lot of factors, but they all come together to create this aspect. I think my pizza is burning! Going to end this post xP | |
I think what you begin to touch on was the concept of the developer's monologue. It's the idea that you build a game by learning exactly what the player is thinking at each moment. So when they find themselves at a dead end, the developer already knows how the player is feeling and has set up the next course of actions in the game to operate based on that premise. Have you ever played a game and thought about what the developer was thinking? If you have then you've had an insight into the monologue. We don't usually notice it, we just say things like "Oh, I guess I'm supposed to go here... Okay." but really that's the developer who has already known what you were going to think and has created what you were looking for well before you knew you wanted it.
Just my two cents. | |
Kitsueki wrote:
I suppose aspects of gameplay that can be brought up are these; I think also what also can be good is the appeal of things you can't effect, at least not directly. Many games rely on mechanics that are not immediately alterable by the player. In games like Sim City this could be population change; yes building that police station in a sea of red crime in the graph will immediately tackle the problem but the changes of populations and their attitude to living in your city and the issue of crime doesn't drop straight away also. This also pops in my dungeon keeper example before, you can build lairs for monsters to join you, building other rooms unlocked other monsters, but say you got lots of minor monsters you don't like filing up your spaces, you have to sacrifice some and wait and hope the next one to pop out the pit is more useful. This use of still allowing the game to control some aspects of what the player gets is usually better than complete access as that 'random' feeling irks people in a way that they think they dislike it but still play on regardless hoping for a good result. | |
Thats so true, lol. If a player felt like they modified everything, it would feel less like something presented to them, and more like something they're creating instead.
Those in stone, irreversible mechanics are the ones that give a sort of foundation, and give the game it's character. @Red: Yep, that sort of relation means a lot. That very thing was likely part of the reason testing games was spawned. The designers and developers want to go through the experience in the player's shoes, and try to find the appeal they attempted to create, so they're certain the player enjoys it too. | |