Perhaps you should have one core concept for each area of the game's design, rather than one core concept period. Like the Gimmie Those Wings! design, which failed because we had one big gameplay idea but we didn't have one big story idea to go with it.

Quote:Original post by Wavinator
This is a great point. I definitely struggle a lot with this one. But one of the things that really strikes me here is the paradox of the frankenstein versus coming up with something entirely new.

Imagine, for instance, what you would think if you got this amazing brainstorming that involved competitive fighting and farming. At first blush you might say, "Bah, these are unconnected, no way do they go together!" But if you were really creative, you might be making Monster Rancher.

So I'm curious what people think about this in general, if they have similar experiences.

Well the question becomes what are farming and fighting connected to? If they where two main features of a game then question becomes what is the games core concept? Remember and old game called the horde? That had you protecting a small farming town from monster attacks. You used the income you got from succesful farming to defended against attacks.

So I don't think coming up with something entirely new means you have to frankenstein since even a orginal idea needs a good desgin or it will fail.

Quote:
Harvest Moon is a successful francise of combination of farming and dating/marriage sim/RPG, so it could be considered to have two big ideas.

To be honest I wouldn't really call Harvest moon a dating sim. The dating aspect is just part of the farm sim and all the dating aspect comes down to is give Girl X a gift she likes every day for Y days to get married.

Quote:
Perhaps you should have one core concept for each area of the game's design, rather than one core concept period. Like the Gimmie Those Wings! design, which failed because we had one big gameplay idea but we didn't have one big story idea to go with it.

If the story is important then a design could easily fail if it didn't have a good story. But I don't think the story should be more important then the games core concept unless the story itself was the core concept in which case the gameplay would all contribute directly to the story.

Quote:Original post by Trapper Zoid
I suppose this also applies to your combined 4X strategy and RPG hybrid, Wavinator. As long as one component doesn't overshadow the other, and both compliment each other, then you can make a successful hybrid. However, if one component looks like it is more important than the other, either scale back that component to make it a better blend, or maybe you should make the other a secondary idea and put more effort into making the more important part better.

I think you're right about this. You should, in general, never have so much of an element that it makes people want to play a game that only has that element. The racing element in a gangster game shouldn't make people pine for Grand Turismo, for instance.

Does this automatically mean that any success in one area must generate rewards in the other?

Let's say that we're creating some kind of dating sim and midnight street racing game. Does this imply that every successful race gets you a better date with the guy/girl of your choice, who in turn gives you access to better cars if you successfully woo them?

Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
Perhaps you should have one core concept for each area of the game's design, rather than one core concept period. Like the Gimmie Those Wings! design, which failed because we had one big gameplay idea but we didn't have one big story idea to go with it.

Yeah, this might work. I have heard reviewers and gamers sometimes complain that a game made them feel as if they were playing several separate games, though. I'm not exactly sure what ingredient is in the secret sauce to make this work.

Quote:Original post by TechnoGoth
To be honest I wouldn't really call Harvest moon a dating sim. The dating aspect is just part of the farm sim and all the dating aspect comes down to is give Girl X a gift she likes every day for Y days to get married.

Okay, and this raises another interesting question: How much of feature X makes a game its own genre?

Take the weird street racing/dating game idea, and let's say that you have side mission detective investigation gameplay. It consists of using a lockpick to break into competing racers homes and searching for well-hidden pieces of evidence as to whether or not they're part of an illegal smuggling ring.

Now where I'm heading with all of this would be a game that fits the mold of the movie The Fast and The Furious. Ironically, I think ANY concept becomes immediately acceptable once a popular book or movie makes it part of the cultural gestalt. Until then, you'll have people complaining that the concepts don't go together.

When an idea for a game strikes me I try to visualize myself and others playing the final game. I take my idea, think about all the fun things I'd love to do with it, then imagine playing the game and using all the features. As I play in my head I find out what seems fun and what doesn't, as well as things that simply can't be implemented. I can take that experience and turn it into a list of what will be in the game. Sort of like virtual playtesting. Since I don't have the time to just sit and think, think, think, I can't give a good estimate of time. Maybe a couple of months to drill down features from the original concept?

Quote:I'd say yes it would, otherwise one of the gameplay elements is superfluous. The closer you can inter-twine the two gameplay elements the better.

I totally agree. For most games, every element should at least affect the other elements of the game. It should be a given in MMORPGs. Combining elements in a single game would be pointless if the combat people never interacted with the crafting people.