Game Design Obstacles
after reading many posts in these forums, i''ve come to realize that some people feel that many of today''s games suck. i can''t say i disagree. not to say that they all do, there are many good games out there. but looking at a lot of games i can''t help but think that if i had the skills to create a computer game that i could do so much better. other people have said similar things and the response has been that it isn''t the game programmers fault that their games suck. there are other factors involved. i was just wondering what these other factors are exactly. some things are obvious, graphics can only be as good as the current graphics cards allow for example. but just cause a games graphics aren''t amazing doesn''t mean the game sucks. i''ve played many games from the days of Windows 3.1 and the graphics are crappy, but the games themselves are good. other issues involve memory and processor speeds, but again in most of the cases discussed i don''t see how these could affect how good the game itself is.
in order to better clarify i will give an example. there is a current post in this forum discussing skill systems in RPG games. the argument about it not being the programmers fault was used in this discussion, specifically by InnocuousFox and agreed with by dwarfsoft. InnocuousFox makes reference to a "nebulous concept known as ''the Real World''", and dwarfsoft mentions technological limitations. in the case of a skill system, i don''t really see what kinds of obstacles could stop a game programmer from making their ideal system. it all seems to have to do with the programmers ability to develop a system and their ability to design the algorithms to implement it.
now, i''m not saying the those, like InnocuousFox and dwarfsoft, who use this argument are wrong. i don''t know enough about creating a game to make a judgement and i probably won''t until i make the attempt myself. but i really do not see what they are talking about and if they or someone else could enlighten me i''d be very appreciative.
People (meaning your players) will only put up with so much abuse before they get tired of it. Seriously, though, a lot of the problem is the unwillingness to take a risk and develop something amazing. Some of it is there''s a point where people want their games to be fun and not realistic anymore.
i agree with you, but those don''t seem to me what people are talking about when they say it isn''t the programmers fault. if the programmer is unwilling to take a risk than that is his fault, and if he decides to sacrafice realism for making his game more fun, it is again his fault. he might be making the right decision, but it wasn''t that he couldn''t make the game like he wanted to, it was that he decided not to for some other reason.
realism isn''t necessarily what we are talking about here. it is generally assumed that more realism is better. this might be the case, but lack of realism isn''t necessarily bad. the point is that some systems are just bad and others are not, or some systems are good and others are better. if the designer chose a lesser system that''s fine. but some people are saying he didn''t chose it, he had no choice but to accept it. what factors are they talking about that would force the programmer to choose a lesser system?
realism isn''t necessarily what we are talking about here. it is generally assumed that more realism is better. this might be the case, but lack of realism isn''t necessarily bad. the point is that some systems are just bad and others are not, or some systems are good and others are better. if the designer chose a lesser system that''s fine. but some people are saying he didn''t chose it, he had no choice but to accept it. what factors are they talking about that would force the programmer to choose a lesser system?
quote:
realism isn''t necessarily what we are talking about here. it is generally assumed that more realism is better.
Games are abstractions. Take a game like Risk. It''s tremendously abstract. Would it gain anything from more realism? Or is it playable (and fun) the way that it is?
Games are supposed to be fun. They should support whatever level of realism makes them fun, and no more. Realism for realism''s sake is pointless.
Take care,
Bill
quote:
realism isn''t necessarily what we are talking about here. it is generally assumed that more realism is better. this might be the case, but lack of realism isn''t necessarily bad.
please don''t argue with me and then take my words out of context. what i''m saying here isn''t that more realism is always better. i just said that most people believe that. i didn''t want to say that they were wrong, but i did say that they might be.
in fact, you are right. they are wrong. in fact the whole idea of an RPG is unrealistic. if we''re talking fantasy, i can''t say that i have ever seen a goblin in the "real world." but don''t get me wrong, i know that isn''t what you are saying.
i think we''ve gotten away from the actual issue i wanted resolved. i want to know what factors there are that would affect a programmers design for a skill system or a magic system or some other kind of system or something, that would be beyond his control.
You know, normally I''d try to say something constructive, and subtly try to make a point. But right now, I just have to say this "Big words. Now back them up."
I mean, at the very least, say something constructive. WHY do todays games suck? How would you do better?
Let''s start with some excersizes: Name a game, what sucked about it, and some solutions.
Metal Gear Solid: Basing a game around stealth and sneaking, and then having long sequences where you have to shoot the crap out of your opponents. Solutions: Place a few more shooting situations into the game so they''re not so out of place. Or another solution would be to remove the drawn out shooting sequences all together, and replace them with sneaking sequences.
Now, as to why it''s not (always) a programmer''s fault when a game isn''t as fun as it could be. This is all extrapolated from my own knowledge. When coding a specific module it''s very hard to keep your eye on the whole picture. It''s hard to remember the play balance issues of having a 10 foot wall of fear spell when you''re coding collision code. It''s even worse when a coder on your team gets fired, and you have to make up for the absence by working twice as hard to meet your deadlines.
And, in my expierence, Coders get handed out designs that are half done, at best. "Well, this is an RPG, using a system much like square''s Active Battle System, where characters can cast spells, attack, defend, use an item, or a special ability." Great. But there''s a lot of info in there missing.
Second, code and content should be two very seperate things. Just because you have a high tech 3D engine, doesn''t mean that you have art that pushes it to it''s limits.
And, just to let you know where I''m coming from, I''ve worked on six team student games. 3 of those games were designed by me. I''ve also made two small games by myself, and designed several that have never seen the light of day. Let me tell you that desigining a simple game still be a very big deal. Especially if it''s being done from scratch.
I mean, at the very least, say something constructive. WHY do todays games suck? How would you do better?
Let''s start with some excersizes: Name a game, what sucked about it, and some solutions.
Metal Gear Solid: Basing a game around stealth and sneaking, and then having long sequences where you have to shoot the crap out of your opponents. Solutions: Place a few more shooting situations into the game so they''re not so out of place. Or another solution would be to remove the drawn out shooting sequences all together, and replace them with sneaking sequences.
Now, as to why it''s not (always) a programmer''s fault when a game isn''t as fun as it could be. This is all extrapolated from my own knowledge. When coding a specific module it''s very hard to keep your eye on the whole picture. It''s hard to remember the play balance issues of having a 10 foot wall of fear spell when you''re coding collision code. It''s even worse when a coder on your team gets fired, and you have to make up for the absence by working twice as hard to meet your deadlines.
And, in my expierence, Coders get handed out designs that are half done, at best. "Well, this is an RPG, using a system much like square''s Active Battle System, where characters can cast spells, attack, defend, use an item, or a special ability." Great. But there''s a lot of info in there missing.
Second, code and content should be two very seperate things. Just because you have a high tech 3D engine, doesn''t mean that you have art that pushes it to it''s limits.
And, just to let you know where I''m coming from, I''ve worked on six team student games. 3 of those games were designed by me. I''ve also made two small games by myself, and designed several that have never seen the light of day. Let me tell you that desigining a simple game still be a very big deal. Especially if it''s being done from scratch.
quote: Original post by Erebus
after reading many posts in these forums, i''ve come to realize that some people feel that many of today''s games suck. i can''t say i disagree.
I disagree
Most people who post here saying that "todays games suck" weren''t actually around and playing games in the 80s. They compare the mass of todays games to the few classics they remember from the 80s, and say "today''s games suck!" It''s a biased argument. Who remembers Beach Head, Nonterraqueous, Lee Enfield, AAARGH!, Alien Break-In, Darkman, Hoppin'' Mad, Pacpunk...? Hardly anyone. They just remember the ''classics'' and compare them to today. Releasing dross is not a modern phenomenon. The only thing that''s changed is that now software is more unstable, but that''s an issue more for the programming forums.
quote: i was just wondering what these other factors are exactly.
1. Opinion. Most of the time, when someone on here says that something ''sucks'', I just plain disagree. So that is one factor that derails most of the arguments. You can''t say "I would do much better" if what is ''better'' is a matter of experience. I happen to like linear murder-based games in a lot of cases, for example.
2. Time and Budget. If a programmer is earning $40,000 a year, then every day that project goes over budget costs the company at least another $110. If you have 10 people on your team, that''s over a thousand dollars you''re spending each day! So expecting an extra 6 months to add more features or whatever is just not viable in a lot of cases. If a complex feature takes twice as long to develop and twice as long to test and balance, it costs you money!
3. Complexity...
quote: it all seems to have to do with the programmers ability to develop a system and their ability to design the algorithms to implement it.
...what makes you think that programmers are perfect? You said yourself, "if I had the skills"... programmers may have more skills than you, but they don''t know everything. If they did, software would be delivered on time and bug-free. And they can''t just try something, see if it works, and then try something else if not. They have deadlines, and they have to produce something. Better to be guaranteed of producing something simple than to attempt something difficult, fail, bankrupt your company and lose your job.
quote: If the programmer is unwilling to take a risk than that is his fault, and if he decides to sacrafice realism for making his game more fun, it is again his fault.
No, it''s the fact that the programmer needs to pay his or her rent. I eagerly look forward to the day when you can guarantee programmers job security, so that they can waste time experimenting rather than writing code.
And don''t use the term ''fault'' in conjunction with ''making the game more fun''. You are not coming across like someone who could really ''do better'' now. This goes back to the Opinion part above - what you think ''sucks'' may be someone else''s idea of a great game.
The ''real world'' comes into play when newbie designers come along saying "all these games suck" and then proceed to launch into their own (very subjective) idea of how to improve them, which tends to either (a) be impossible given current computing power, (b) be unfeasible due to the above issues, or (c) is already being done in several games already but the poster was ignorant of this and believed themselves to be The Elite Designer. I see these 3 situations in about equal proportions on this forum.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]
quote: Original post by ThoughtBubble
But right now, I just have to say this "Big words. Now back them up." ... I mean, at the very least, say something constructive. WHY do todays games suck? How would you do better?
My thoughts exactly, on a lot of posts here.
quote: And, in my expierence, Coders get handed out designs that are half done, at best. "Well, this is an RPG, using a system much like square''s Active Battle System, where characters can cast spells, attack, defend, use an item, or a special ability." Great. But there''s a lot of info in there missing.
Damn right. Currently I am doing research into game development processes, and too many times the designers have given the programmers some half-assed concept and called it a ''design''. The fact that a lot of designers have little idea about how it would be implemented is one problem, but more important is how much information is just plainly ignored or omitted.
[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]
One thing that could possibly make games suck recently is lack of personality..
The game industry is a big industry and they are trying to make money, not good games....Ignore the last sentence it doesnt make sense (or perhaps you could try to explain what I mean).
For example I was in a game shop the other day, there were two guys talking about the Wipeout series of game made for the Playstation/s. The newest one was made for the Playstation 2, but one of the guys didn''t like it and his reason for not liking it was its "blocky, ugly" etc, while this was totally untrue - each ship has infinitly many more polygons than the origional wipeout, better textures, mip-mapping, volumetric effects and so on. im guessing it was somthing he couldnt put his finger on but he knew it wasnt right - so I thought maybe it could be lack of personlity - Wipeout now just seems like a rehash to make money.
Another example is Final Fantasy (note this is in my opinion) I started playing FF7, I loved it thought it was great. I bought ff8, loved it thought it was great, I presumed FF9 would be great (in fact I won a copy of the game signed by Yoshitaka Amano and Hironobu Sakuguchi) but It wasnt, I didnt like it. I
got bored quickly. Recently Ive bought FF6, it has crappy graphics but it shows more personality than any of the other Final Fantasys. I''m playing this near 8-year old game instead of a new game. (p.s. Yes I do like ff10, it rocks )
I am making a game at the moment, I think an advantage of being a amateur game developer is that we can put more personality into our games.
What do you think? Was that just a load of rubbish?
The game industry is a big industry and they are trying to make money, not good games....Ignore the last sentence it doesnt make sense (or perhaps you could try to explain what I mean).
For example I was in a game shop the other day, there were two guys talking about the Wipeout series of game made for the Playstation/s. The newest one was made for the Playstation 2, but one of the guys didn''t like it and his reason for not liking it was its "blocky, ugly" etc, while this was totally untrue - each ship has infinitly many more polygons than the origional wipeout, better textures, mip-mapping, volumetric effects and so on. im guessing it was somthing he couldnt put his finger on but he knew it wasnt right - so I thought maybe it could be lack of personlity - Wipeout now just seems like a rehash to make money.
Another example is Final Fantasy (note this is in my opinion) I started playing FF7, I loved it thought it was great. I bought ff8, loved it thought it was great, I presumed FF9 would be great (in fact I won a copy of the game signed by Yoshitaka Amano and Hironobu Sakuguchi) but It wasnt, I didnt like it. I
got bored quickly. Recently Ive bought FF6, it has crappy graphics but it shows more personality than any of the other Final Fantasys. I''m playing this near 8-year old game instead of a new game. (p.s. Yes I do like ff10, it rocks )
I am making a game at the moment, I think an advantage of being a amateur game developer is that we can put more personality into our games.
What do you think? Was that just a load of rubbish?
I think that is the most appealing part of being an independent. You can make your game be whatever you can imagine and pull of in code without outside interference. No deadlines, no budget concerns, no one is going to get angry if you suddenly scrap a section of your code to change the game halfway through. Basicly I feel the independent developers should be producing far more playable games than the huge companies. And I said more playable not advanced. I truely believe people will take a solid storyline, better control, well thought out games over all the bells and whistles of a boring game.
GRELLIN
Most people feel I think to highly of myself. But they just don''t know how great it feels to be me
GRELLIN
Most people feel I think to highly of myself. But they just don''t know how great it feels to be me
Steven Bradley .:Personal Journal:. .:WEBPLATES:. .:CGP Beginners Group:. "Time is our most precious resource yet it is the resource we most often waste." ~ Dr. R.M. Powell
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement