|
What Makes a Good Game
|
|
Posted on 1 September 1998
The following text was written by Alan Wong
: This has eluded many of us for a long time. What makes a good game? I
started to think how we can all come together to create the elusive good game when I was
responding to an Article here at ticalc.org. From writing my response, it hit me. Why not
write a whole article devoted to the good game, and so I also thought of ways to quickly
make good games, which introduced me to the engine, which we do not have as of yet. Sure
we have side scrollers, but their coding is different, since they are not made in the same
way. Then I thought, what do we need to make these engines, and here comes talent, time,
and ideas. And then finally, I thought once more what we need, and I could not believe I
missed this in my initial thought, but it is the most important part, fun. Making an
equation, I came up with this: Calculators + Engines + Talent + Time + Ideas +
FUN = Good Games To an extent, this is important. I did not include sound and
graphics since the TI calcs are not very good in those areas, and they are not as
important as the other parts of the equation. There are some good graphics out there, but
in making an actual game, the graphics should be toned down a bit for playability (1 fps
for a game is not that good), and sound is basically out of the question (I would look
kinda stupid wearing headphones attached to my calc, non?). I also have ideas about these
two, but first, lets look at my initial spark of light on the subject, caused by the
comment. In the following paragraphs in italics, is my comment to Why Big Assembly Coding Projects Are Possible by Gerard
Imbert. Read if you haven't read it, since I will base my later ideas on this.
Well, if I knew 86 assembly like the back of my hand (which I don't by the way) I
would code a big project (and I have a ton that I'd like to do, but I'll get to that
later). I believe that the 92 is not the only calc that is not getting a lot of
attention. So far, I've seen a lot of games for the 82 (ffx, and lots of new ones in the
past several weeks) and the 83. The 85 is now starting to gain some ground (a new rpg).
But the 86 is lacking a bit in the big programming part (although Joltima is one big one).
But what I am getting to may not be an idea many have come across. This idea, I
believe will give us calc owners with many good games and even let us inexperienced guys
have a chance. What I'm talking about is the engine. No, not cars, but game skeletons. If
ticalc.org can somehow get a team of super talented programmers (and I know quite a lot of
names in that category) to come together and make the basic engines (side scroll, rpg over
head, fighting, first person perspectives, myst type, and blah blah blah blah), then all
the other people have to do to make a good game is add several elements (art, levels,
story/plot, and FUN). This may help extend the amount of games, plus introduce the
beginners, instead of dropping them into a pool of code (which I hate... but o'well).
Now that I have pushed forth my idea, maybe someone can pick it up. Now, lets add my
idea of games that all the calcs need in their gallery. One, has anyone heard of
Castlevania? Wow, good side scroller to pass the time away. Next, let us see a spin off
from the Myst type games, those will help speed up the science classes. What about the
RPG's? I have one I want to make, but I have no talent whatsoever. This is Pokemon (Pocket
Monsters) for gameboy. In this game, we can take advantage to the short distance between
people in classes, and the link ports. This game has a person collect an insane number of
monsters (near 200), and build their levels one by one. Then the fun comes, battle between
calcs for monster superiority. And last but not least, what about a book. What about
putting a whole book into the little calculator to read and pass the class time. This is
very possible (not with huge books though). Anyway, this is my opinion (and I
hope I spelled everything right.. hehe) and I would hope that everyone takes this
seriously, and spawn big projects on all calcs by forming the skeleton for great games.
And for inspiration for new games, just check out the gameboy games, since the calcs and
the gameboy are almost the same, or you can come to me... Well, now that
you've seen my opinion, I would like to expand greatly (read, greatly, meaning large
amounts of text). The title of this was "Calculators + Engines + Talent + Time + Ideas +
FUN = Good Games" (I shortened it afterwards), and basically, this equation is right.
First, you have your calculators (an obvious ingredient), but what comes after are the
more taxing elements, all leading up to the final product (hopefully). But why am I
writing this? Well, everyone wants good games, and I'm going to give you my opinion as
unbiased as I can. Let's start with the engine. In the comment in italics, I
said that it would help the beginners start and also help many game projects to get
started, and that is right. But most importantly, this engine will give us one thing
lacking (IMHO) in the calc world now, speed. A good game is few and far between, and by
creating flexible engine types, we can role out good games after several weeks to one or
two months of work. Note, I said good, since a game can be a technical feat, but still
quote unquote "suck". Anyway, this engine should allow lots of games to be completed in
short amounts of time, which lets us have more games to take to class and show off to
friends (hehe). This since the production of the game will (read very carefully) be based
basically on art, level and sprite design, and making it fun, instead of making it work.
The next several things can be put into a clump. Talent, time, and ideas are
important, but can be put together. Talent is needed, since a good engine can still churn
out bad games. Here's an example. Say we have a mario / sqrxz type engine. One person puts
a lot of time to make good sprites and levels, and these levels are challenging (like in
sqrxz *cough*praise*cough*). And another person makes a game with this non animated sprite
and a flat level with a couple enemies, and one can finish it in a couple seconds. You
tell me which is fun (which is talked about later). Next, time is the essence. No one has
enough of this. But with the engine out of the way, more time can be spent making the game
itself and making it fun, instead of making it work through tedious testing. Finally,
ideas are important. Would you rather play a game with its own world and interact in it
like a real world (The Legend of Zelda 64: Ocarina of Time, by Nintendo), or a game that
is like an interactive movie with slick cg (Final Fantasy 7 and 8, by Square), or would
you rather choose a game that was thrown together with no good idea at all, more like a
jumble of what a game could have been (too many games to mention, but one is ET on the
Atari). Anyway, what I'm getting at is that ideas are important too. Let's try to stop
copying, and try to improve games. If you think I'm contradicting myself, I'm not. Even if
we use the same engines, we can still improve games in many ways (which I will get to
later). Now for the biggest chunk of the good game factor. I would personally
put it at 99% of the good game factor, but some may give it slightly less, but no matter
what, this will make or break a game. This is the fun in a game. With out this, why even
play the game? Just dump it for more space on your calc, or use it as a door stop or
Frisbee. In the most recent issue of Nintendo Power, Volume 111, they interview one of the
best in the video game industry. He is Shigeru Miyamoto, and he recently won the Hall of
Fame award in a new awards program for the video game industry, The Academy of Interactive
Arts and Sciences. In the interview, he explained one way he makes games fun. This is to
balance a game with 70% objectives and 30% surprises. Also in the interview, he says he
wants to create a miniature world in a game, much like what he is doing with Zelda 64
(coming out November 23 this year by the way), and also that he stresses actual
interactive action and immersion (another words, fun) into the game rather than the cg
movies, fmv movies, plot, story, etc. since the latter only adds to this action and
immersion. He wants us to play a game rather than watch a movie. If all this sounds a
little too advanced for our little wimpy calculator compared to the Sony PlayStation,
Nintendo64, and the upcoming Sega DreamCast, it might be. But fun is fun, and if we could
some how get the fun into a game (and this may come in many forms, who knew dropping
blocks was fun?) then we could have the ultimate achievement, the good game. Now
the equate for this is the good game. These can come in many forms, and here is a quick
list of games that sold well for consoles - Zelda, Mario, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior,
Castlevania, and many more. These are classics in many of our minds, but what makes them
good? Good question, but there is no answer. The things in the equation are only quick
overviews of my opinion, but there are so many other things, such as graphics and sound
(maybe not for the calcs). These add to the immersion. As long as you keep in mind what
games are for you should have no problem churning out good games. And this you is to all
of you (and me), since working together is one way to make good games, since you have many
opinions on good games, rather than just one. Any way, the thing about games is to make
them fun. We play games to be entertained. This is why fun is so important. If you keep in
mind what makes your day, and what makes our days, then you have one part of the many
parts of good games. Then lets think of other possibilities, like our natural tendencies
(bloody games seem to get more attention - Mortal Kombat). All in all, anyone should be
able to make a good game. If you remember back to the beginning of this article,
I mentioned graphics and sound are not as important as the rest of the parts. This is
true, graphics and sound only add to the fun. But here is a radical idea (just like the
engines idea). Why can't we have several groups of people concentrate on one aspect of the
game? I can't program, and I don't expect myself to be good enough to make a good game for
a while, but I can do computer art effectively. So why not have some people just make
graphics as good as the calc can handle, and the other people make sound effects (if
needed). Then we can have archives of sprites and graphics for use with the engines just
to speed the process along a bit. I'm not saying that making a Frankenstien game (put
pieces together) is the way to go, but with this graphics library and engines library, we
can concentrate on the fun of the game, not the technical stuff. This concludes
my huge article on what a good is game is and some ideas on getting to this dream on the
calc even with such a somewhat limited backing (face it, not everyone on the planet has
one, and not everyone that has one even has a clue how these games are made or even knows
they exist). Here now is a list of what I think are possible games that can be made on the
calc and still be fun (some mentioned in the above italics): - Final
Fantasy (give us some ports PLEASE!!)
- Pocket Monsters (Pokemon - really really good
game, huge backing in Japan)
- Castlevania (no one gets bored of a hack and slash or
whip game, just make new levels and bingo, instant new game)
- First Person Perspective
(maybe we can get a multiplayer action going on now, lets make a 4 port connector for 4
people in the same game - hint hint hint hint)
- Simple Board Games (I'm tired of
finding that second player, why not add an AI? Don't make the Space Odyssey one though..)
- Puzzle Games (sure fire way to get us through classes, but just make new types, not
clones of Tetris)
- And finally, something that might not be even possible, but at least
someone can prove me wrong... A type of Mario 64 game.
- And maybe a slide show movie
and etext books on the calc can help a bit.
Anyway, have fun programming
and making games, and I really hope you all consider these ideas (since it took me forever
to write, but hey, I got stuff to get off my chest). Feel free to respond and add other
pieces to the good game puzzle. And finally (real this time), nothing is impossible, it
just seems that way until someone achieves the impossible.
|
|
|
Reply to this item
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Jeff
|
|
I do agree that better, longer lasting, and more games are needed, but the idea of creating an engine just makes it seem like too many people will be pumping out the same game if they all use it.
What I think is that programmers should release more routines and more tutorials to help others. I remember when I started z80 and couldn't find anything at all on it. There were only a couple of routines and a little bit of source code to look at. Hopefully, one day there will be a really good "games programming" tutorial.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 04:46 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
Elliot Olney
(Web Page)
|
|
I thing that this artical had some good ideas, I would love to have a game engine to help me get my game going. I have a web that I put together about the games I want to make, and I'm just starting so a game engine would be great!(it's at http://welcome.to/ccia).
CarBiN
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 05:02 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
Jeremy Mullins
(Web Page)
|
|
I have to disagree with the engine idea. If an engine was released, there would be a flood of games that look and play exactly the same, with maybe some different sprites or backgrounds. The first one or two of these might be fun, but they would begin to get old quickly. The only way to possibly make that work without the selection of games suddenly becoming monotonous is to make an engine extremely well commented code (and I mean every line) so that future programmers could come behind you and completely overhaul the engine for new or customized features. Beyond that games would become one, monotonous blend.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 05:40 GMT
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
Does it matter?
(Web Page)
|
|
I disagree with the engine Idea also. Finding a good asm tutorial is hard, and they do leave something out. I have been trying to learn asm for months, and don't have any good programs made, and none have been released. The engines would help new programers learn asm, and create a game, but it does defeat the whole purpose of programming IMO. I program because it is fun. If you just take someone else's code, then programming is no longer all that fun, and it takes away that feeling that you accomplished something big, since it wasn't your code that you worked with.
I agree with the team programming idea completely, however. I always get bored with programming about 5 minutes after I start. I don't like making the sprites all that much, and I get bored with coding it out. If you had someone else to help you, it would go a lot faster, and add fun. It would even be better if your partner was someone you knew personally, and could be in the same room while programming it.
I was going to make a Warcraft game for the 82(the calculator I program for) but got bored after completing the title screen and the tree sprite. I will need some mega help if I am going to ever complete it.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
19 June 1999, 01:15 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Jason K.
|
|
Ehem!!! I think a main peice of your puzzle that is missing is the Replay Value. I beleive that That is the most important issue... I think some games acheive this with the feature of Difficulty Levels, and then attempting to beat your high score on a game, and then attempting to beat someone else's even higher score... Thats one method that has worked. On the other hand, which upsets me, all RPG's completely suffer in the Replay Value category. I think one of the greatest RPG/Adventure type games is Chrono Trigger for the SNES, and this is because there are so many paths to go throughout the game, and it is usually different everytime you play the game. This should be used for future RPGs on the TIs, for example, taking a "path" not necessarily a location, but then shutting off other sections of the game, and then continuing to further branch out in the plot, where many different outcomes can be acheived. I think this was accomplished with that latest RPG for the 85 that was mentioned, but I cant remember the name and havent gotten to play it yet... Well, I'm afraid theres too many RPGs already though, but if someone decides to go create another one, dont go for the graphics, but instead keep the Replay Value and Yes, THE FUN, in mind...
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 07:01 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
BlueRaven
|
|
I didn't comment on the game engine before so I will do so now. If you think about it, most games for console and PC have a game engine (for example: the Quake 2 engine which is being used for a lot of games lately) and I feel it is a good idea. Why take all that time to make a new engine while one is already out there that you can put to use (with the author's permission of course). I think it would put gaming on the TI in the right direction. Most will probably disagree with me on that one. I just think it would be easier to have an engine to use rather than make one from scratch (not that there is anything wrong with that).
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 07:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Mathieu Lacage
|
|
Well, i do believe that engines are a good idea.. I think that what makes a good programmer is not only the fact that his programs run like hell but also the fact that they may be easily used by others, updated, changed... This is called maintenance and makes up most of a program consitancy..; Many seem not to believe i am right but assembly programming can be made to be easily understood...
Also, i think the team idea is good, perhaps will it need some refinments ( programmers and graphists need to think in the same way ) but it is definitively a good idea... I, for myself, seek a good graphist and a programmer to help me in a 3d engine which is to be released ( for th 92 ) The program is allmots entirely debugged and features textures ( awfull textures ) but is still rather slow... Advices are wellcome... Also, the code of the engine will be released and i have tried to stick to the maintenability idea while making something modular and easy to modify...
Mathieu,
Last but not least in this long comment: i am ready to help anyone willing to program in 68k assembly something
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 10:50 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Alan Wong / Damnation
|
|
I really appreciate the comments, but alas, I'm not the all mighty guy that can get the ball rolling. I can see that most agree with my ideas (minuse the engine). What I meant the engine to be is to help create games, by cutting down development time. I did not mean to just redo graphics and things. This may be the start of the engine idea (look at most of the doom mods, mostly level and graphic enhancements). But if you put together a real flexible and completely well commented code made by not one by a few programers, then not only graphic and level enhancements are possible, but also code editions. Look at some of the commercial games using the Quake 2 engine. Its not just the same engine. It is modifies and made better to suit the game idea. I mean, if someone makes a side scroller engine, I could use the engine to make a contra type game, but someone else can make a mega man type, and yet another could make a mario game (been done I know, but its just an example). Basically, I just want the routines to be taken a step further to basic engines (just like the sprite move routine that was recently placed in the ti-86 list, and I thank the author since i'm going to learn a lot from this :). Anyway, I was kind of afraid my ideas were quite radical (and i see that from the people that give good arguements against the engine idea), but it seems to be that a lot of people share my ideas. But lets not stop there. Lets start sharing OUR ideas and OUR talent, and make programs and games that make other people (especially the game industry) to take a second look at this little black box and say ," How'd they do that?".
P.S. - Why not start the team idea now and start naming what you do best at your own ti-xx lists, and start making games! Oh, and wouldn't a strategy game for 2 players or 1 player (with AI) be cool. Think WarCraft. Think StarCraft. Think Diablo. Most of all, think Command and Conquer...
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 21:00 GMT
|
|
|
no offense but...
|
|
Sean
|
|
I read nearly that entire article and that was the lamest thing I have ever read. It's pointless to make up your little "good game equation". You wanna know what makes a good game? It's FUN. Thats all there is to it. Calculator games are not the future they are meant to keep you awake in school.
You must have a ton of time on your hands or think you'll became "famous" by writing a stupid article. Programmers make the games they want.
P.S. Engines for a calculator game??? The only thing that makes two game with the same engine different is there graphics and weapons. Its the same damn game!
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 23:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: no offense but...
|
|
Jon Pruente
|
|
Well, I have a quick question:
Have you ever programmed?
If not, you wouldn't understand much of what he was saying. I have been at it for some time (and yes, have progressed beyond high-school Pascal into college levels) and know many of his ills.
Until you try to design from scratch in a foreign language and good piece of software, you haven't a clue. You seem to have a pessimistic outlook on this, which I would guess comes from the entirety of the process. Find an idea. Design a way to implement it. Try it. Fail. Redesign it. If you succeed, begin with making your idea work like you want it. The hardest parts of it are getting a good frame, and getting it to work alright. Game engines take alot of the drudgery from the first part, and you can focus on the second. I know there are those who like making engines. Fine, go ahead and make them, damnit! Don't complain to this person, simply because he pointed out that you don't seem to be getting it done. Unless someone steps in and starts the trend, we'll be stuck in our little world of TI platform games.
Remember: Engines make life easier for the end designer, so we can put better quality into those "keep you awake in school" 'wares you seem to need. This is my opinion, but if you need a game to keep you awake, not just from being bored, there's something wrong.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 01:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: no offense but...
|
|
Alan Wong
|
|
Thanks for supporting my ideas there, hehe :) . Anyway, I don't see the ti calcs as just calcs for the programmers we know and love (not love as in real love, but you know what i mean). These calcs are stepping stones to other more advanced programming languages that are out there. If they can do what they can on this little black box, then what can they do with millions of dollars of budget, 3 years of time, and a vast amount of other talent to work with? The answer is something that we will want to play in the future. I would not be surprised to see some of these names in the future of the gaming world, getting PAID to do something they love and we love, make games. So to them (and me, though i can't program for beans), this is a major part of their decision of whether to go on with this or not (i think). If they do well here, then they'll do well in the industry (which i also follow).
Anyone want to back this up?
I'd like more comments for me to comment on too... hehe, anymore ideas that no one has come up with yet? (mostly game ideas)
Alan Wong
Damnation
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 02:33 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|
