Basic Rules to Develop Simple and Appealing Games | Hacker News Reader

Basic Rules to Develop Simple and Appealing Games

voidbee.com

116 pointshmoutol16 comments

I recently spent a couple of weeks working out the details for a new game based on a clever concept but then suddenly realized my "game" didn't actually have any gameplay or anything fun to do in the game.

It's always good to take a step back from your creations and ask yourself "Is this fun? Will anyone want to play this?"

Great article.

One of the big game journalism outfits did an hour long "Let's Play" with Jonathan Blow, where they showcased The Witness and talked about many of its design decisions.

My favorite part was where Blow talks about how the puzzle idea started from an RPG-style game where you cast spells by performing gestures on-screen, where certain aspects of how you drew symbols (ie: speed, size) determined the traits of the spell cast. I always had that idea myself.

However, after exploring the idea a bit, he realized that it wasn't really much fun to do elaborate gestures when what you really wanted was to merely cast "Fireball 1", which you would do a thousand times in the course of the game. What was really fun was the lore-related ways in which you could teach spells to the player, by having them find them carved as runes into the scenery and such.

So he made a game about that phenomenon of "discovery" instead. I thought it was brilliant insight.

Fun fact: That's how Final Fantasy VII started -- as a prototype demo starring FFVI characters and running on an SGI. You drew shapes with the mouse to cast spells and perform summons.

Didn't Black and White do that?

I think Dungeon Master on the NES did it, too. It might work on a touch screen or with some sort of generated spell-making logic based on gesture combinations, but having 10 spells and 1,000,000,000 non spells wasn't very satisfying.

Was that the Giant Bomb talk with Blow? I have that queued up to watch once I play the game.

There are an exceptionally large number of design parameters in "fun". And it's not enough to be fun to be commercially viable - there has to be a hype factor(premium) or a monetization strategy(f2p) built into the product too.

All of this is best combat with a lot of feedback, and a lot of kinds of feedback. It's challenging to parse all of the information and stick to a certain focus, since the incentive to play your game over others is not clear or obvious.

> it's not enough to be fun to be commercially viable - there has to be a hype factor(premium) or a monetization strategy

That sounds like you want over 100% fun. Hype literally means over.

Sure you need a monetization strategy, and simply selling might not be good enough, but at some point you are not selling a pure game anymore. Collection of additional content for example is a meta-game that's only loosely connected to the game, without any real benefits. That is not more appealing.

edit: There's some truth to it, though. premium makes it less fun for some and in relation to them, 120% fun for the premium users. And that's not entirely wrong, because a game can't please anyone, so it's OK if some enjoy just 85% and you want to keep out the ones who couldn't enjoy it all, so they don't spoil it out of ignorance or spite. I'm just not sure that getting more money for premium content is the right motivation to develop a clear distinction in this vein, to actually keep out "filthy casuals", with DLC it's quite the opposite.

> Hype literally means over.

And cool literally means a moderately low temperature, no?

Yes, it describes a person that is the opposite of-hot headed. It describes things, too, anything that doesn't temper a cool person. Handling of hot shit requires increased energy conversion resulting in excess heat. When that is seen as a negative, cool generally describes a positive.

It's use might be a bit more contrived than that, but this is simple thermodynamics. Temperature is one of the most basic perceptions, certainly it's rooted deep in our understanding of the world. Language is littered with expressions related to temperature, eg. emotional warmth vs a cold heart, because temperature perception is that fundamental.

>> it's not enough to be fun to be commercially viable - there has to be a hype factor(premium) or a monetization strategy

> That sounds like you want over 100% fun. Hype literally means over.

My point was that even though words might have a literal meaning they can also have other meanings, and in that case the person meant the other meaning

  hype
  informal
  noun
  1. extravagant or intensive publicity or promotion.
  "she relied on hype and headlines to stoke up interest in her music"

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...

For a larger scale case of exactly this I recommend people read about Subversion[1] from Introversion. Regardless of the game being a failure, the tech behind it was incredibly cool, and you can understand how obsession with the technical side of things can distract from gameplay.

[1]: http://www.introversion.co.uk/subversion/

Thats true. That's why one of the best ways to develop a game - or just anything that you are not sure about the outcomev - is constantly reitarating and asking for feedback.

Interesting read.

I've recently decided to start taking the plunge into game dev myself, coming from a purely web/app dev background and to try to blog the process in the hopes it will turn in to a useful resource for other completely green game Devs.

The first of the two (somewhat insubstantial) videos I've made about it is here if anyone's interested https://youtu.be/PliCYTiCxKk

Great read and great advice. The hardest of all things mentioned of course is assembling a team of both competent _and_ passionate people to work on the project. All other challenges pale in comparison.

The article spends 3 sentences on the subject of which one is shilling their product, which basically seems like a dating site for game developers. Since they are just entering alpha everything rides on them proving that great games can be birthed from their service. It's a great idea so I hope they can do it!

Here's my theory on what makes a game fun:

Games should be filled with challenges and rewards. Some of these are tiny (give a unit an order, hear "Yes Sir!") some are big (defeat a boss, see victory animation). All of these things should in some way (no matter how tiny) be seen to advance the overall game. Games are boring when they either don't give you enough little rewards or when the little rewards seem superfluous toward the overall goal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com