scott8 said:
The author revealed the real reason the guard is there is to offer the player possibilites

So it creates a problem and the game offers multiple solutions, and it's up to the player for which one they choose. Without the problem the player would just walk straight in. Sounds interesting

scott8 said:
Also, play games and pay attention to what makes them fun or not.

I've heard this before and I have done it a tiny bit, but what should you do with this info? Like I went through Halo 3 ODST and wrote a bunch of stuff down which I thought made the game good. After I did this I had a few pages of random points but no clue what to do with them.

scott8 said: Also, play games and pay attention to what makes them fun or not.

gamechfo said: I've heard this before and I have done it a tiny bit, but what should you do with this info? Like I went through Halo 3 ODST and wrote a bunch of stuff down which I thought made the game good. After I did this I had a few pages of random points but no clue what to do with them.

You didn't have “random points.” You had information (information about some things that made that game “well designed”). What do you do with information? You remember it, so you can use it when an occasion arises.

Then you analyze more games, and collect more “random points” as you called them. At some point, after collecting more data, you can start to see repeating data points, which confirm that you've identified something that makes for a well designed game.

This is too subjective a question.

Games like food appeal to different audiences, and are made and distributed differently, What is “taste”?

Genres have certain standards that are expected, one standard may not appeal to certain people, and standards don't always translate between genres.

your question of what makes up a good game, can be superimposed to what makes good food? what makes a good book? what makes a good song or movie?

Asking us is your way of trying to shortcut the trial and error experience that most people must go through to learn these things.

But lets say you really want an answer?

fine, I'd say, solve for the equation of “Fun”.

How you may ask?

Well that is your job to figure out, but start with isolating the key load baring variables of fun.

What are those variables?

What are they specific to the type of game you want to make?

What skills do you need to see that vision to fruition?

How much time and money will it cost you In pursuit of said vision?

Go!

frob said:
Complicating matters even more, there are fads, trends, breakthroughs, and viral moments. What was popular today may be unpopular tomorrow. What was thrilling today may be considered bland tomorrow. And what seems trite today may be tomorrow's hottest thing. There is a continual ebb and flow. Some game designs age extremely well. Others are products of a single moment in time. Neither is inherently “good” or “bad”, they simply are what they are.

GeneralJist said:
This is too subjective a question. Games like food appeal to different audiences, and are made and distributed differently, What is “taste”? Genres have certain standards that are expected, one standard may not appeal to certain people, and standards don't always translate between genres. your question of what makes up a good game, can be superimposed to what makes good food? what makes a good book? what makes a good song or movie?

I see… noted

GeneralJist said:
Asking us is your way of trying to shortcut the trial and error experience that most people must go through to learn these things.

Yeah… I guess so…

GeneralJist said:
fine, I'd say, solve for the equation of “Fun”. How you may ask? Well that is your job to figure out, but start with isolating the key load baring variables of fun. What are those variables? What are they specific to the type of game you want to make? What skills do you need to see that vision to fruition? How much time and money will it cost you In pursuit of said vision? Go!

aight o7

oh

Another thing, if not explicit, is the variable of “fun” may have a specific personal meaning to you., different from everyone else or the standard meaning.

Also, go do research in psychology.

Understanding yourself and the people in your target audience is a core part of the game dev experience oft overlooked.

07 indeed.

IMO, it's best to think of a game as an artificial environment through which the player interacts with other players (multiplayer) or game developers (single-player games). If there are players who consistently want to immerse in this environment, then it's well-designed. So, my personal opinion on key characteristics:

• (1) Playing the game invokes a distinct, specific “feeling” ("fantasy", “aesthetic”, etc.); and a specific player demographic craves it.

It's experiencing exponential growth and watching numbers get big (clicker games, and similar); getting immersed and lost in a new and strange universe (any RPG); getting better, and overcoming challenges after putting in the effort (think of any Souls game). Sometimes it's this mind-numbing yet relaxing repetition of simple actions that reliably produce results you expect (which helps to unwind and distract from the random, uncomprehensible real world with serious consequences - that's the goal of farmers/match3s/any casual mobile game. Ever wondered why you need to ‘tap’ coins to collect them, and why they are so generally ‘stupid’, yet popular?)

• (2) The game has enough variety of elements to surprise the player, and provide a new experience

= there must be changes in the flow (decision-making process) between matches or across time / there are no “dominant strategies” / there is “enough content” / there is enough “depth” / etc. You get the point.

If the game always does what the player expects, everything is predictable, and each play session feels the same - the player gets bored and uninstalls the game to free up space for something better.

IMO, OG DotA (Warcraft III) is a perfect example. Think about it: its popularity is counter-intuitive. There was a bazillion of new custom maps pumped out every day; yet players chose DotA which was same-ish over time, with minor changes between versions, new heroes appearing every aeon, and terrain virtually unchanged over decades.

Why players consistently chose the DotA map they already played, instead of something new? Because there is an enormous roster of characters fitting different playstyles and catering to players with different playstyle preferences; they have interesting interactions between/against each other; and customization using purchasable items makes progression through the match dynamic, adaptive, and unique. Each play session feels different, yet it's just similar enough to carry and accumulate skill and experience between matches. That's a brilliant formula!

• (3) There are no elements that do not work for (1) and (2).

Have you ever had a situation where you tried a unit in RTS / ability in an RPG / character in a fighting game; found it underwhelming; and mentally marked it as “useless”; but then watched your opponent (or a video with another player) do insane stuff with it; or even realized its enormous niche potential yourself)? This is a magic “a-ha” moment: you realize that you missed something cool in the game; and probably there is even more, you just have to dig deeper.

If there is an unneeded mechanic (="bloat") which does not suit the game, unintuitive, or just poorly explained and underused, it's not just “redundant element”. It actively detracts from the game, creating confusing situations and giving it an “unpolished” look.

---

There is a certain beauty when all three conditions are met.

After getting hooked on the “feels” and spending time to master the game, you realize that all effects, abilities, units, and even stat numbers are fine-tuned and designed to work with each other towards a single goal: giving you exactly what you need (so-called "fun", whatever it means for you/game). Together, simple little elements form a system where overall complexity is more than the sum of its parts. There is nothing redundant, and every element is needed for something.

It's a piece of art.

The developer put thought, care, and effort into every little detail; and probably, you would not change anything, if you were him/hers. Even if there is some jank or eyebrow-raising things, they are here for a reason. Maybe, you haven't figured it out, but some niche players get off of it.

Or, maybe, devs decided to spend more time on monetizable cosmetics because they were hard-pressed by investors and managers into increasing short-term revenues, while the vast scale of the project diluted the feeling of personal responsibility so no one objected. Yeah, I think it's more plausible.