Gaming World Forums
Creativity => Game Design & Demos => Topic started by: james_the_composer on July 06, 2010, 05:34:18 pm
-
I've been trying to study what makes a game addicting/fun. And now, of course, when I say "addicting" I mean fun, not the "I need one more hit of crack" kind of addicting.
What makes it so that someone can play a game, and look at their play time, and go "Holy crap, 100 hours? That can't be right..," without having left the game idling.
So far from what I've collected surveying people, the most common features in a game seem to be:
- Getting every item
- Customization in the creation or development (leveling) of one's character
-
I don't know, games like Deus Ex , Gta San Andreas , System Shock 2, Psycho Fox etc lets you play the game a billion different ways.
-
A sence of acheivement is one.
-
there is no way all games are cheap you will not believe me now but you will have this revelation one day on your deathbed and weep
no seriously was saying this about Earthbound it took like 15 years of gaming history to get to Earthbound and it was like the first game where the town section was actually more involved than the 'dungeon' section, and even went so far to make the dungeons just as towny/funny people to talk to and stuff as the town parts. Like just make a script of good stuff you can have the characters say and make sure the graphics/music are good and if the music/graphics/story doesn't stand on its own you shouldn't make it/make changes to it. I hate to say it but at their core videogames are just a delivery system for pretty picture/musics and for whatever reason games have a certain 'it' factor which is why you're putting up with them and not just watching a movie/cartoon or something
also come to think of it Resident Evil was fucking genius because the one flaw in horror movies is how like you can cover your eyes and the scary stuff will pass but in resident evil there is the videogame structure and you HAVE to progress forward. It really puts you in a vulnerable position/puts you inside the scary movie plot just a little bit more
so yeah have the actual 'stuff' of the game outweigh the stuff that's just padding out the game and give people a reason why they should be playing a videogame as opposed to other media. If you want to do custom art for your game and yet you can't make a bunch of doodles that you like just unrelated to any game project you're doing something wrong!
-
What ragnar.
james, pretty much everything goes into the addiction/fun factor. There are certain aspects that you can add to a game to increase that addiction factor, but fun is just creating good design. None of the shit you add like a millions unlocks is gonna make a game fun. You just have to know what you're doing. Just go play Spelunky, those facebook games (apparently these games work somehow), and open world games!
-
tries to sum it up as concisely as possible try to make the game parts stand on their own like don't get overexcited like THIS IS IN A GAME OMG. Like some of those people online who do awesome monster sprites they're not for any game but they're so good you can imagine the kickass game they're intended for. Even if you're not making your own monsters make like KICKASS MAPS or something. Like make them great to look at and then you can walk around in them too like whoa. Well also you could like animate the weather and shit and make it more real
I was saying in some other topic I think a lot of famous games got away with shit music or graphics or something as long as the other parts made up for it, I don't think it's this magical complete the planets are in alignment sort of thing like a bunch of people seem to think. If a game does suck in music department for example I think the person's brain will just focus more attention on the graphics instead of being this glaring oh the music sucks balls. So if you suck at maps etc. at least try to make up with something else that's your strong point like good spriting I dunno
probably the most important factor is something kind of some secondary thing like PLAYCONTROL but it's kind of hard to have the game have a different flow from other games with RPG Maker. I wish RPG Maker did have more finetune sort of features like how fast windows open up and have your guy walk less like he's on rails
Edit: But I stand by that I don't think you need incredible graphics + music + everything like everything has to be perfectly in sync. I think people find one aspect of a game appealing and then if there is nice music on top of it that's just icing on the cake. I don't think everything has to be ON constantly. Like people will sit through many battles in an RPG as long as the battle music is worth hearing more than once/cycles through enough enemies to see a new monster design on occasion
-
Oh, I get what you mean now.
Usually when you showcase that talent you can get somebody to do the other things for you.
http://www.locomalito.com/juegos_hydorah.php
Like this game.
-
challenging but realistic goals which wont take years to achieve and offer rewards to make you ubber in some way, everyone loves being ubber in video games. ubber
ubber
ubber.
-
uber
-
Also there is no real list of features people find fun, I don't think. They might list them, but a lot of games that just put things in to put things in end up being crappy. I think a game has to feel "organic". All the features that exist should feel like they belong to one another and relate in some way.
Earthbound was mentioned above and I think one of the reasons I liked it so much is that all the whackiness felt totally right. Think about it this way: If, instead of new age retro hippies et al you were fighting really serious goblin enemies in a world of goblins n' trolls instead of rock music and silly characters, would the trippy colour pattern backgrounds make sense? Would the arcade-style number counters make sense? Would the sounds and battle dialogue and weapons and EVERYTHING feel right at all? No, probably not. If you change the setting, then almost all of its associated elements need an overhaul to. If you don't shirk away from making sure all the pieces fit together, people will appreciate your game. It will have a consistent feel to it and they'll want to see what the next unlock (or whatever) is because they know it'll line up with what they expect but will still be new and fresh, which is what players want in a game they like (not more of the same but more of the similar)
-
james, I think the thing that makes a game feel addicting is that if I feel there's more pull to me doing everything than just for the sake of of doing everything. What do I mean that? There are SO many Xbox 360 games doing this wrong at the moment - giving you achievements for doing all of something you wouldn't bother with unless there was an achievement to tempt you into doing it (PS3 is similarly guilty). So give everything a purpose - if you're collecting all of something make them useful for something fun, or promise something at the end that is worth the effort (Ratchet and Clank does all of this brilliantly). Customization can be fun (I'm designing a game that revolves around this atm), but if you go down that path too far you can alienate people who don't like micromanaging.
-
Also there is no real list of features people find fun, I don't think. They might list them, but a lot of games that just put things in to put things in end up being crappy. I think a game has to feel "organic". All the features that exist should feel like they belong to one another and relate in some way.
Earthbound was mentioned above and I think one of the reasons I liked it so much is that all the whackiness felt totally right. Think about it this way: If, instead of new age retro hippies et al you were fighting really serious goblin enemies in a world of goblins n' trolls instead of rock music and silly characters, would the trippy colour pattern backgrounds make sense? Would the arcade-style number counters make sense? Would the sounds and battle dialogue and weapons and EVERYTHING feel right at all? No, probably not. If you change the setting, then almost all of its associated elements need an overhaul to. If you don't shirk away from making sure all the pieces fit together, people will appreciate your game. It will have a consistent feel to it and they'll want to see what the next unlock (or whatever) is because they know it'll line up with what they expect but will still be new and fresh, which is what players want in a game they like (not more of the same but more of the similar)
I like this too. Like Earthbound is pretty obvious but Final Fantasy III/VI just feels right for whatever reason even though it's probably a mix of different architecture/time periods/etc. it's STEAMPUNK isn't it oh god suchandsuch was right about how internet criticism ruins everything. If someone made Final Fantasy VI today would be like.... 'hey guys I'm making this game... it's kind of steampunk(is immediately criticized and made fun of and shunned from the internet and quits their game project/suicide). But yeah Final Fantasy VI wasn't just steampunk I want to see more modern games that feel like they're throwing a shitload of ideas around. Like you guys are masters of internet research combine those Russian paintings that look like Russian history as an RPG + steampunk + cheesy 90's cartoons
but I think kaempfer's right I've seen the Squaresoft games that didn't make it here (Rudra) and some minor dime-a-dozen japanese-only rpg for the SNES and well the generic one was like... you can see where they played with some ideas the houses are like a Tudor style maybe??? And the monster sprites are kind of intense and serious like final fantasy but they tried to do the occasional Dragon Quest-style goofy monster (or just like Cactrot from final fantasy) and it just looked.... wrong. Incompetent I guess. And Rudra I don't even know what they were going for. Like this one town is like Mexican I guess this one's like China but we didn't try to hard?? Mother 3 is even crazier (but effective imo) how it melds like old west style with modern times with future with etc. etc. it's like one of those dreams where the setting changes seamlessly like you're going down in your basement and all of a sudden you're in an egyptian tomb Mother 3 is like that
-
Grammar Nazi Alert: Addicting is not a word! The word you are looking for is addictive.
Ultimately I think a game being addictive depends on what kind of a game it is. Some games thrive on replayability, others on challenge. Some persuade you to play on because they have you hooked on the characters/story and you want to find out what happens next.
-
Grammar Nazi Alert: Addicting is not a word! The word you are looking for is addictive.
Several dictionaries disagree.
-
I don't know what it is about Super Mario Bros. 1, Super Mario Bros. 2, and games like Megaman 2 and 6, but I find myself running back to those whenever I'm bored on the computer, like I need my NES fix for the day. I can't say which games are addictive while others aren't, but I know that games like Hero's Realm can be quite addicting, if even a bit repetitive.
-
gams r delivery system thing.
that whole "delivery system for content" thing is totally played out. in what way is chess an intricate delivery system for for little wooden game pieces? using games as a delivery system for content is a popular thing to do at the moment, and was also common practise when we were kids but it's not really what's "at their core." if you think you know what's the core of games, like, in general, I'd say you're probably wrong. the practise of playing games is really old and really diverse. you could try to isolate video games as a thing in itself, but you wouldn't get away with it. there are significant differences between video games and games before them, but it's less of a HARD BARRIER and more of a significant development in the history of a bigger THING. if you want to say that recent computer roleplaying games are a content delivery system then sure. but in what way do Street Fighter and Tetris act as a delivery system for non-game stuffs?
-
I've been trying to study what makes a game addicting/fun. And now, of course, when I say "addicting" I mean fun, not the "I need one more hit of crack" kind of addicting.
What makes it so that someone can play a game, and look at their play time, and go "Holy crap, 100 hours? That can't be right..," without having left the game idling.
So far from what I've collected surveying people, the most common features in a game seem to be:
- Getting every item
- Customization in the creation or development (leveling) of one's character
games can be a way of expressing to other people what you think is fun. if that's the kind of game you like and you aren't opinionated about what makes games fun already then maybe making games isn't for you.
-
Several dictionaries disagree.
Alright, I'll concede that point, however addicting is a verb whereas addictive is an adjective. Since we're describing a game as having this quality, addictive is the correct term. We wouldn't called an attractive girl "attracting", now would we? (Sorry for taking this a little off-topic, this is just a huge petpeeve of mine. I blame this on addictinggames.com.. I think that's what's been spreading this. lol)
-
Alright, I'll concede that point, however addicting is a verb whereas addictive is an adjective. Since we're describing a game as having this quality, addictive is the correct term. We wouldn't called an attractive girl "attracting", now would we? (Sorry for taking this a little off-topic, this is just a huge petpeeve of mine. I blame this on addictinggames.com.. I think that's what's been spreading this. lol)
Yeah I don't disagree it was used wrong (and it's definitely addictinggames' fault), it's just also definitely a word.
-
that whole "delivery system for content" thing is totally played out. in what way is chess an intricate delivery system for for little wooden game pieces? using games as a delivery system for content is a popular thing to do at the moment, and was also common practise when we were kids but it's not really what's "at their core." if you think you know what's the core of games, like, in general, I'd say you're probably wrong. the practise of playing games is really old and really diverse. you could try to isolate video games as a thing in itself, but you wouldn't get away with it. there are significant differences between video games and games before them, but it's less of a HARD BARRIER and more of a significant development in the history of a bigger THING. if you want to say that recent computer roleplaying games are a content delivery system then sure. but in what way do Street Fighter and Tetris act as a delivery system for non-game stuffs?
sorry yeah I probably said it wrong but yeah I meant it more for RPGs and stuff since a lot of the stuff on here is made with RPG Maker 2003 XP VX?? I meant it less in the sense of 'lol metal gear solid game with more FMVs than actual gameplay' and rather 'don't magically expect your music/graphics to sound/look good in the context of a game, or your story to be better-written because little pixelated midgits on the screen are acting it out (case in point those 'RPG Maker movies' where you just watch people say shit in RPG Maker) well ok maybe not that but you should have a script written for the game and if you can't make someone care about the characters just by the text like in a regular book you shouldn't expect them to care because they have some extra dimension of being a little pixel dude. I think the 'games have an extra dimension than other media' thing is cheap basically, that's like Avatar thinking
-
Alright, I'll concede that point, however addicting is a verb whereas addictive is an adjective. Since we're describing a game as having this quality, addictive is the correct term. We wouldn't called an attractive girl "attracting", now would we? (Sorry for taking this a little off-topic, this is just a huge petpeeve of mine. I blame this on addictinggames.com.. I think that's what's been spreading this. lol)
As fellow grammar nazi I feel I need to butt in here. You're right that you don't say "that girl is attracting [me]", but it's still syntactically a valid sentence. The difference with "this game is addicting [me]" is that this has some mainstream support and is generally accepted as an alternative. Valid syntax is never objectionable, except if it doesn't have any acceptance.
-
sorry yeah I probably said it wrong but yeah I meant it more for RPGs and stuff since a lot of the stuff on here is made with RPG Maker 2003 XP VX?? I meant it less in the sense of 'lol metal gear solid game with more FMVs than actual gameplay' and rather 'don't magically expect your music/graphics to sound/look good in the context of a game, or your story to be better-written because little pixelated midgits on the screen are acting it out (case in point those 'RPG Maker movies' where you just watch people say shit in RPG Maker) well ok maybe not that but you should have a script written for the game and if you can't make someone care about the characters just by the text like in a regular book you shouldn't expect them to care because they have some extra dimension of being a little pixel dude. I think the 'games have an extra dimension than other media' thing is cheap basically, that's like Avatar thinking
oh yeah okay i get what you mean. it's pretty bizarre how often that whole 3D GLASSES YES trick works though. i mean, i remember watching the making of god of war and the combat designer i think is like MY STRATEGY FOR PLACING ENEMIES IS I PLACE THEM EVERYWHERE. the other thing that's really cheap is people thinking that more freedom or different choices in a game makes it inherently more fun. i guess a lot of people really dig the whole sandbox idea but i dunno. it's hard to bother making choices at all when it doesn't matter either way what you pick. games that focus heavily on plot/narritive/characters need strong scripts just to build player attachment, i think. not that that's the only reason to write one, but without it you might as well not have a game. if the choices people make carry no weight then there's nothing interesting or fun or meaningful about making them.
As fellow grammar nazi I feel I need to butt in here. You're right that you don't say "that girl is attracting [me]", but it's still syntactically a valid sentence. The difference with "this game is addicting [me]" is that this has some mainstream support and is generally accepted as an alternative. Valid syntax is never objectionable, except if it doesn't have any acceptance.
time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana
-
idk i feel like making a distinction between "fun/addictive" and actually compelling where the latter has to do with what's already been said about a cohesive world and good design and writing etc and the former has to do with gross manipulative casino-psychology-level stuff like flashing lights and big numbers and a false sense of achievement/winning (can't quit now i've almost got the horns of icarus!!) but i'm not completely sure if these things are completely different at heart. it's not really a debate i want to get into though.
but yeah i guess the main things are a false sense of achievement followed with the promise of something good around the next corner. this article (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5889/state_of_the_pointandclick_art.php) talks about that a bit and how stuff like that is apparantly really important for casual games but really i think the only difference between them and more XXhardcoreXX games has to do with the extent the audience has already internalised all the gross reward/punishment stuff. like all the garbage about score and achievements etc are so completely taken for granted that they have to be rendered in the most direct and ostentatious way possible to even be noticeable. incidentally this is why i think you have to renounce the idea of GAMES SHOULD BE FUN as anything worth striving for if you want to get anywhere remotely interesting :doom:
-
World of Warcraft has 14 million players paying $15/mo to play. What makes it so addictive?
- Always choices of what to do next. It piles you up with so many quests, and quests off quests, that you never run out of something that needs doing.
- Competition: you want the better skills, the higher level, the better equipment, better mount and better pet than the next guy. And since there is always someone that is a bigger nerd than you, there is always a challenge of trying to get better.
- Human interaction: player vs player, groups, a variety of quests that require multiple people to play.
- Options: The sheer size of the game gives you a near unlimited ability to explore. You get to pick your race, and each race starts out in a different place.
- Free-roaming and non-linear with direction.
Hey, 14 million people can't all be wrong. I on the other hand, think that the quests are repetitive and unoriginal. And since I don't p lay well with others, I have no interest in anything but the exploration, which is stunted with hordes of shitty, never-ending, repetitive collection quests.
-
Nah I'm pretty sure the reason people keep playing WoW is because you never have a sense of completeness ever. It makes sure that you've always got something that needs to be done, and so you never feel like you've got a good stopping point, which is a pretty cheap way to keep someone playing.
It's the difference between playing a game because you really like it and playing it because you feel like you have to to get things done. I said this on IRC but it's more of a task than a game.
-
"It makes sure that you've always got something that needs to be done,"
Yeah, that's what I said.
"It piles you up with so many quests, and quests off quests, that you never run out of something that needs doing."
I just elaborated on more points. I know for a fact that the human interaction has something to do with it because A) I have friends that are addicted to playing the game together, and B) people use it as a social networking tool. So yes, there is more than one tool used for making it addictive.
"I said this on IRC but it's more of a task than a game."
When you break it down every game is a series of tasks. The only difference in regards to WoW from other games is that you can never complete them all. I wasn't in any way debating to say WoW is fun. In fact, I think its a great concept done wrong and completely ruined. I was just pointing out some of the tools they use to make it addictive.
-
no actually "series of tasks" is only really a good model for the analysis of mmorpg games. breaking down pokemon, for example, as a series of tasks would be cumbersome and feel dumb. you can criticise pokemon in better and more interesting ways. mmorpg games are not typically better or interesting so comparing them to shopping lists and addictive drugs is sufficient.
-
:doom:
-
:doom: (http://www.secxtanx.com/dump/bangtosssmiley.gif)
-
:doom: (http://www.secxtanx.com/dump/bangtosssmiley.gif)(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/wedemandhtml.com/tmp/palinsmiley.png)
-
:doom: (http://www.secxtanx.com/dump/bangtosssmiley.gif)(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/wedemandhtml.com/tmp/palinsmiley.png) :freak:
what now, mr. sikma????
edit by omeg:
:doom: (http://www.secxtanx.com/dump/bangtosssmiley.gif)(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/wedemandhtml.com/tmp/palinsmiley.png) :freak: (https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/wedemandhtml.com/tmp/gmail_whitman.gif)
edit:
:doom: (http://www.secxtanx.com/dump/bangtosssmiley.gif)(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/wedemandhtml.com/tmp/palinsmiley.png) :freak: (https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/wedemandhtml.com/tmp/gmail_whitman.gif)(http://www.secxtanx.com/dump/earstailssm.png)
-
Alright, I'll concede that point, however addicting is a verb whereas addictive is an adjective. Since we're describing a game as having this quality, addictive is the correct term. We wouldn't called an attractive girl "attracting", now would we? (Sorry for taking this a little off-topic, this is just a huge petpeeve of mine. I blame this on addictinggames.com.. I think that's what's been spreading this. lol)
actually (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/addicting.html)
-
I recognise addicting as a legit word but it can still fuck off. Like that pencil says, it makes me scowl
-
The reason why games are fun is because you learn from them. A game is addicting when the challenges are at the precise level that they are not too easy nor too difficult. When a game has that kind of balance, it's considered to have flow(There's a flash game called flow that investigates this concept by allowing the player to indicate the difficulty).
If you're truly interested in game design, try to get your hands on 'A theory of fun' or 'The art of game design: a book of lenses' they're both invaluable. The science investigating what fun is and what games are and their effects on us, is called 'Ludology'.
sincerely,
a gamedesign student.
-
I wasted hours on flOw.
I made a few games I've wasted time on. Like c0re and Jurin'Gra.
c0re I try to beat my own high score so the developer of the game can actually be at the top of the leaderboards. -_-'
Jurin'Gra just is about 2 hours of gameplay. So if I want to test it. Like the whole thing. I spend about 5 hours.