There are not enough similarities to actually legitimately say it's copying it, and I really do wish people would stop saying that.DoPo said:
Game design laws
- Thread starter hooglese
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nevertheless, would you call it new and original? Even if it's not 100% copy (and make no mistake - I'm not saying it is) it does seem largely influenced by it. Which would make it partly derivative. And this is comes at odds with the OP's claim that it's not.canadamus_prime said:
Those rules are inane:
1) You can make a memorable segment by restricting gameplay.
2) This is just dumb. By "Copy" you mean "Similar in a way I don't like"
Because, you know, the criticism of "Copies Counter Strike" can be levelled at the other shooters just as innacurately as you have there, and then we end up with the recursion back to Doom/Wolfenstein. Talk to someone who's actually played both, they're wildly different.
Innovation will make a great game, but you can make a perfectly good one with existing mechanics. See Far Cry, TES, L4D, GTA, Mass Effect, basically every game you have, or will ever, play.
3) That's not what engagement means, and your definition defeats itself. Apparently fast paced gameplay is a part of making the player think? That's silly. Fast paced gameplay introduces execution challenges, rather than conceptual ones (ie, thinking).
Amusingly enough, though you explain it poorly, #3 is the only valid point you make: A game must engage you. It must entertain you, scare you, thrill you, sadden you, educate you, but it must keep your interest, and make you want to continue. That's it.
Even if you had a functioning set of laws, great games would still violate them. Because the things which are the most different, are often the most interesting, whether collosal failures, or brilliant successes.
1) You can make a memorable segment by restricting gameplay.
2) This is just dumb. By "Copy" you mean "Similar in a way I don't like"
Because, you know, the criticism of "Copies Counter Strike" can be levelled at the other shooters just as innacurately as you have there, and then we end up with the recursion back to Doom/Wolfenstein. Talk to someone who's actually played both, they're wildly different.
Innovation will make a great game, but you can make a perfectly good one with existing mechanics. See Far Cry, TES, L4D, GTA, Mass Effect, basically every game you have, or will ever, play.
3) That's not what engagement means, and your definition defeats itself. Apparently fast paced gameplay is a part of making the player think? That's silly. Fast paced gameplay introduces execution challenges, rather than conceptual ones (ie, thinking).
Amusingly enough, though you explain it poorly, #3 is the only valid point you make: A game must engage you. It must entertain you, scare you, thrill you, sadden you, educate you, but it must keep your interest, and make you want to continue. That's it.
Even if you had a functioning set of laws, great games would still violate them. Because the things which are the most different, are often the most interesting, whether collosal failures, or brilliant successes.
Erm...did you just say that releasing a game DIRECTLY BASED ON another game counts as being original? So if I were to make a game based on Harry Potter, don't get the license, and rename the protagonist "Garry" would that still be original? It must be.elvor0 said:
I do believe it's different enough not to break the OP's rules. After all many works of popular culture take inspiration from other works of popular culture, but are still distinct enough to stand on their own. Starcraft falls under that umbrella.DoPo said:
Well I can't comment on that since I've never played either CoD or CS, but from my outsiders perspective all modern military shooters seem to be cut from the same cloth so there ya go. Maybe someone whose actually played them can cite the differences and maybe those differences are enough to distinguish them in the same way that Starcraft distinguishes itself from Warhammer 40K (but I doubt it).DoPo said:
Actually, both Starcraft and Warhammer 40K draw inspiration from the novel, Starship Troopers, which came out decades before either franchise existed.DoPo said:
OT:
I'd like to add another rule: You must have consistently good writing. Doesn't have to be amazing, but it does have to be engaging, and quite a bit more thought put into it than setting up an excuse plot for all the gameplay.
Games that obey this rule:
The entire Legacy of Kain series (well... except for Blood Omen 2, arguably... but it was definitely the weakest point in the series)
Sly Cooper series (1-3 anyway, I haven't played 4 yet)
Mass Effect 1 and 2 (3 doesn't count because while 85% of it is exceedingly well-written and engaging... that last hour on Earth and the 10 minute diatribe of bullshit flying out of the starchild's mouth just... no... just no... I did say 'consistently' well-written)
Myst series
Sam and Max (any Sam and Max game)
The Walking Dead
Thomas Was Alone
Portal 1 and 2
Half-life 2
Silent Hill 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Batman Arkham Asylum and City
Fallout New Vegas (simple revenge thing bubbles out into a struggle for control over the entire Mojave Wasteland... and the victor of the Hoover Dam battle immediately taking control over the entire Mojave makes A LOT more sense than taking over the water purifier in FO3 did)
Spec Ops: The Line ('nuff said)
Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines
Planescape: Torment
KOROR 2 (especially with the restored content mods)
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (just the first game, the second game was very weak, the third was okay, don't even get me started on the 2008 one or Forgotten Sands)
Metro 2033
The Blackwell series
Primordia
Jade Empire
DXHR (poorly designed and written boss fights aside)
Antichamber (a very subtle story, even more subtle than any of Valve's 'environmental storytelling', but what's there is fascinating)
Amnesia: The Dark Descent
There are some other games I'm considering putting on this list, but I haven't played through them all the way yet.
Wait, no, hold up, that's not entirely accurate, is it? People like horror because it's fun to be scared. It's fun because it offers the ability to glimpse something new, exciting and exhilarating in a safe, controlled way. It's approached differently than in other genres, but fun is still the primary motivation, with fear simply acting as a means to that end.WoW Killer said:
I'd like to see some examples of these excellent games that aren't fun because I honestly can't think of any.
How did Call of Duty copy Counter Strike? The fact that it is a military shooter? Counter Strike, and well, every FPS game copied Wolfenstein. And how is Minecraft the "best" example? It copied infiniminer.hooglese said:
Spec Ops: The Line wasn't fun. The Walking Dead wasn't fun. Dark Souls isn't particularly fun, but it is rewarding to overcome its many challenges. These games were compelling and engaging, and that's more important. Feel free to disagree about the games I've selected, but this is only opinion, and I'm not saying that they weren't fun for other people.PeterMerkin69 said:
Warren Spector actually wrote an article on this website about the nature of fun in games. Check it: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_65/381-Fun-is-a-Four-Letter-Word
I'd also recommend this video, for another perspective:
On the contrary.Redingold said:
This is indeed "fun". The word does not only mean the feeling you get when you watch a comedy show (let's assume it's not cringeworthy) - "fun" is a synonym for "enjoyable". And what "enjoyable" is varies from situation to situation and from person to person, even - the factor that makes a comedy show attractive is not the same as why you'd go and watch a horror movie or an action flick. The reason why somebody else might choose these could indeed be different to yours. You derive some sort of enjoyment from them, you derive some sort of fun from them, too. Doesn't need to be laughter. So yes, those games are "fun" if you were liked them in some way.Redingold said:
That's what people mean when they say "fun". The entire "but games don't need to be fun" debacle is inherently meaningless since the two parties say the exact same things - "this game was fun" is the same as "it was engaging" (or whatever). The meanings are the same, the wording is different. If you don't like the wording, ask to clarify what exactly did they mean, since "fun" is a broadly encompassing word - it could be the action, it could be another segment, it could even be primary positive feeling that makes you laugh. But don't tell them they were wrong.
CAPTCHA: make it so
I disagree. To me, fun is more lighthearted, not like those games at all. Getting scared shitless from playing Amnesia isn't fun, and some parts of Amnesia were really unpleasant. I still was interested and engaged, though. Engagement does not always have to come from positive feelings. The end of the Walking Dead was in no way positive, it was practically heart-breaking. I don't think you could spin the word fun to mean heart-breaking, no matter how hard you tried. Nevertheless, I was engaged and emotionally invested.DoPo said:
Also, it's somewhat hypocritical to ask me not to tell people that their opinions are wrong, and then tell me that mine are wrong because I don't find those games fun. You'll note I specifically didn't tell people that they were wrong, and that they were welcome to disagree because it's only a matter of opinion.
...you missed everything I said? Fun does not only mean "lighthearted" and that's not it's only use. When people say that Amnesia (for example) is "fun" they definitely don't mean "I laugh at it". They do mean "engaging", or "atmospheric" or whatever else they found in that game that resonated with them.Redingold said:
No, it's not your opinion I'm calling wrong it's your definition. And you call others wrong based on that. It's easy to see that is so - take a look at the person you quoted - substitute "fun" with "interesting" or "engaging" in that post. Now substitute it with "lighthearted" or "funny". See which one makes more sense. Yes, indeed they didn't call it the latter.Redingold said:
I really don't agree that fun means engaging. Some of the best moments I've played in games have been anything but fun. Cutting off my finger in Heavy Rain could not be construed as fun by any measure. I mean, if you want to argue definitions, go get a dictionary. I've checked the OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, and Collins, and they all give meanings along the lines of amusement, pleasure and enjoyment. That moment in Heavy Rain was not amusing, was not pleasurable, was not enjoyable. It was uncomfortable, and it made me grimace. It was still a worthwhile scene and I would be opposed to any rule that excluded it because it wasn't fun.DoPo said:
OK, let's start it from the top - did you derive some sort of enjoyment from that game? Enjoyment need not be positive it is just something you like...ok, not the correct word - something you prefer over other stuff. Engagement could be enjoyable, fear could be enjoyable, interesting could be enjoyable - heck, even pain could be enjoyable. Maybe a better word is "satisfactory" - it satisfies something. Something you want satisfied - the rush of adrenalin when you're knee deep in dread or the laughter after a joke. That's what's enjoyable. So yes, if engagement is what one likes...then that's where they get their fun/enjoyment/satisfaction from. It could also be jokes and goofyness or other stuff. Depends on the product, it also depends on the person.Redingold said:
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. The Walking Dead was exceptionally fun, and while I've only played the Spec Ops demo, I found its shooter mechanics to be fun. Since when has shooting at fake little people in games not been fun? That's been a staple of video gaming since forever. Since Call of Duty, since Wolfenstein, since Hogan's Alley. The story may be dark but that doesn't mean the thrill of popping out of cover, levelling your sights and landing a shot on a target is any less rewarding. Doesn't the story even try to guilt you for your enjoyment of that?Redingold said:
I have well over a hundred hours invested in Dark Souls and Demon's Souls--they're my absolute favorite games of the generation--and believe me when I say I have fun playing them.
If you're not having fun in Day Z you're doing it wrong or you just plain have different taste than I do. My first successful attempt at banditry--among other things--had me grinning ear to ear.
I can't help but feel like Spector's projecting his insecurities onto the "medium" and that the article is dripping pretension. He sounds like he's aspiring to the big, fat illusory Something Moar, which is far beyond the scope of this conversation. In his defence he does admit that he doesn't have the answers, and I'm always a fan of constructive criticism, but in this case I'm still not convinced he's on the right track.
Rather than an exclusive phenomenon, fun is inclusive of things like (controlled) horror and terror. It's still the ultimate goal behind the art that makes you think and spend hours discussing it. At best, things like the finger being cut off that you mentioned--you filthy spoiler, you--might be temporarily unpleasant, but you admitted that it was still worthwhile. This means you took something away from it, that it ultimately increased your enjoyment of Heavy Rain. At the very least, this relegates something that isn't fun to a catalyst of fun. Fun's still the name of the game, only with my catchphrase duly applied: no pleasure without pain.
I agree that things shouldn't be excluded from games because they don't fall within a developer's limited definition of fun, but the problem lies in that limited definition and not fun itself.