Hello all, and welcome to my second blog post. Today I'm going to discuss the generally accepted notions of what makes a successful game, and also offer my own ideas on why they might actually be misunderstood. My friend Starterpack wrote a blog on the same subject yesterday, so be sure to check out his post as well if you'd like to see how our ideas and perspetive of the industry are contrasted!
I think one of the most important things to realize when attempting to ascertain the makings of greatness in any given game is to recognize that all gamers appear to have different tastes in genres. Developers have yet to create a game that appeals to even the majority of gamers. Most people would agree that it'd be too audacious and maybe even arrogant to claim to know of some perfect game formula. So, I will be attempting to break down why I think some games fail to gain a large audience and others succeed in a more broad sense, because I think all games - regardless of specific gameplay mechanics or visuals - should be held to the same standard of quality.
If someone says they dislike a certain game, more often than not you'll hear someone else reply, ''Well then, that genre simply isn't for you.'' That appears to be a fair assertion at face value, but it can also be dangerous for the video game industry to simply write off every game you don't like as ''not being for you,'' since that kind of mentality eschews criticism - and criticism breeds innovation and improvement. How do we discern quality if no one is allowed to criticize a game they don't like? And on the other hand the only people who do get to critique games are the people who already like that ''genre,'' so there's the problem of a possible bias, resulting in tolerance of design flaws. I personally believe all games have certain things in common that all gamers like, but not all games emphasize equally - and that's where we get different preferences about genres. Some gamers just value certain things more than others, even though pretty much all games share similar gameplay concepts.
Gamers Are Control Freaks
I think the single most important thing for any game to offer to the player is the feeling of empowerment, being able to actively participate in and ultimately determine a game's outcome. Whenever you hear someone complain about unbalanced mechanics, for instance, it's because their ability to compete in the game effectively has been compromised. They're being excluded and pulled out of the game when they don't possess the means to complete their objective.
Gamers need to be in control of their destiny. They want to feel important and special in the game, not feeble or inadequate. They want their actions to carry weight in the world they've immersed themselves in, which is why they get worked up about things like a lack of balance. If a time ever comes when they feel like the game is dictating outcomes for them, or only offering them a few options (like in quick-time events), in their minds it's as if they've been reduced to a bystander who simply moves the game along with simple or repetitive inputs. This is cause for frustration, and worse yet, boredom. As a developer, your goal always ought to revolve around making the player the star, not just a spectator. This is, after all, the difference between video games and movies. Which brings me to my next point....
Put Them To Work!
Supplying players with toys to play around with is only the first step to making a great game. Now you have to actually require them to use these in-game assets creatively, and you have to design challenges that keep them engaged. It's not enough to tell players to ''create their own game'' within an empty sandbox. Think about it, what do you derive satisfaction from when you play a game? Would I be wrong in saying it comes from completing a difficult task with skill? Thus, a game can never be truly fulfilling unless it consistently requires the player to utilize the game's mechanics with forethought and skill, rewarding the player for reaching goals by completing objectives. That's why games like Dark Souls are so fun to play for certain gamers, but they also intimidate others because the penalties for not succeeding are too extreme (such as losing previous progress and rewards for good performance). This is something I think developers misunderstand. It's not necessary to actually punish the player with restrictions and disappointing losses. That just turns games into a grind where you perform menial tasks over a long period of time. Checkpoints were invented for a reason, to quell that kind of frustration!
On the flip-side of this principle, I would venture to say that some very creative games that contain immense amounts of gameplay variety and replay value fail to gain a following because they aren't satisfying enough; they don't actually demand that players use all of those mechanics in conjunction with each other, but rather allow the player to choose between using specific tactics that will always succeed no matter what, and this results in players not feeling as much satisfaction, since they were never challenged enough. If you can get an even balance of empowerment and objectives that require legitimate skill, you'll have a rewarding game that never gets old. The best video games are places where you express yourself by pursuing and accomplishing bold ambitions, not just by filling in the blanks.
Accessibility is Key
I think the principle that glues together these aforementioned concepts is accessibility. It's absolutely essential that players - in regards to both multiplayer and campaign - are given enough information and opportunities to take advantage of a game's many facets with ease, whether it's the control scheme, tutorials, on-screen prompts and alerts, directions as to where they're supposed to go, what they're supposed to do, and the various aspects and uses of in-game items (so that the player doesn't end up missing major parts of how the game is supposed to be played).
A player's gameplay experience ought to be fluid and seamless. Just recently we've begun to discover what it means for a game to be ''immersive,'' and a lot of it has to do with the player's ability to concentrate and interact with a game without being distracted by complicated controls or confusing objectives. Oftentimes it's clumsy level design that throws players off and leaves them wondering what they're expected to do, or they're given so many gameplay mechanics to master that they forget how to utilize the things they were equipped with. Why, I've played games for hours on end, only to realize later on that I had forgotten about a certain gadget or ability I learned about at the beginning that I could have been using that entire time to make my experience easier and more enjoyable. If the player isn't sufficiently enlightened about their role in a game, and then given the means to attain success through mastery of the gameplay mechanics, you've missed the whole point.
No matter what genre we're talking about, whether RPG, FPS, or RTS, gamers expect developers to understand these fundamental doctrines of game design, and every successful game in history has executed them well in most respects. But there's always room for improvement, which is why we still see highly-anticipated games fail miserably from time to time. You have to have a firm grasp of these foundational truths in order to achieve the success of past hits, and more importantly, innovate past them.
Thanks for reading!
