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.

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.

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