Quote:Show me one feature that can "automatically" create a fun game.
I agree that there is no "automatically" fun features that can be added to a game. However, this does not mean that there are no features that if added to a game can't make it less fun. For instance: if the player's avatar actions were determined randomly (a feature to simplify controls) and the player themselves had no control over their avatar's actions, this would automatically make the game less fun (as the player is no longer "playing" the game, but just watching it like they would a TV).
Including this feature would automatically make the game less fun, but giving the player control over their character does not automatically make the game fun. Badly implemented controls: complex control layouts, too many controls, inability to configure the controls, etc can effect how "fun" the game is even if you give the player control over the character.
Besides, the existence of even a single feature that always created a fun game would not invalidate my point: That some features will reduce the amount of fun a player has in a game.
Quote:I merely presented an idea that if implemented correctly can yield great results.
The key words here are "Implemented correctly". Nowhere have you even indicated what you mean by that.
Better physics simulation can mean more variety in gameplay. But more variety in gameplay does not mean a better game.
An example: In an RPG you need to buy food. You have a choice of 3 types of food: Bread for 10 gold and reduces 100 hunger points, Meat for 200 gold and reduces 200 hunger points and Trail rations for 50 gold and reduces 50 hunger points.
Now we have more variety here because the player has 3 choices. But, does this enhance the fun the player has. If what they are looking for is a better simulation, then yes it does enhance it. But if what they are looking for is an interesting game, then as there is no real difference between the options, there is no real enhancement of fun.
Quote:Yes, it is a well known fact that many features are not implemented in the game industry even though they can be,
but this is mostly due to the fact that the industry usually doesn't like taking risks and prefers using the old and working formulas over and over because it is a safer investment.
But what you are saying is that if "implemented correctly" then it
will be more fun. This means that player will like it and by adding the feature then it will make the game better and therefore more popular. If so, then this
is no risk in adding in the feature.
So, if you have any idea how to implement such features correctly, then there would be no risk to implementing them. Unless of course, such features do not add any significant amount of fun to the game experience, then it would still make it a risk to add it (but if there is no real increase in fun, then it is not needed in the game and you can just leave it out).
Quote:I dislike the approach of: "If it hasn't been done before there must be a reason."
I agree, unless a reason can be stated (as I have done - one of level design complexity in the case of better physics simulations). Just saying "there must be some reason", without having some idea why it wasn't implemented means that you haven't though about that feature much at all. If there is a reason, then you should be able to figure it out (time is usually a big one, as is complexity - as complexity increase the time needed).
Quote:As for:
"Players only like this and that, so you shouldn't try to implement this feature".
As long as people drink red-bull and listen to crappy songs on the radio I will have to disagree.
"Players" are often 'stupid' and will fall for marketing tricks/trends while others will look for quality.
There is always room for innovation. However, innovation can't just be undirected. Putting a feature in "just to be innovative" is bad design. It means that you are not thinking about your players. You are treating your players as if they don't matter. This is bad design.
We make games, not to show off to other game designers, but so that people can player them. Therefore it should be obvious that we should design games so that players can play them.
Any feature we add, we must be able to justify its inclusion by how it contributes to the player experience. A case in point is the AI system in oblivion. In this system it would calculate activities going on in the background and implement them in the game world. There might be some involved assassination plot, or something, but all the player sees is some dead guy in the street. If the player has no chance to interact with that background story, then what is the use of including it in the game. It even runs the risk of negatively effecting the player in that the target of the assassination plot might be someone that the player needs to continue the story.
This can be fixed by flagging any essential NPCs as "unkillable", but then this is a break in the "realism" of the simulation. It would be a bit like in the example in my previous post about the tower that needed to be blown up. If all non essential towers obeyed the physics laws, except that the tower that needed to be blown up only followed the scripted events. The mismatch between them will confuse the player (they might have experience blowing up other towers, but when it comes to the scripted tower, because it doesn't react as they have learned, they will get confused and it will break the sense of realism (which was the purpose of including the physic is the first place).
Quote:That's a pretty large generalization.
Maybe that is what you like in games - I personally like both complex chess and super-mario.
I also enjoy playing basketball in real life where the 'system' is so complex I wouldn't be able to calculate wind speed/air pressure/etc when I shoot for the basket...
Programming is fun as well... I enjoy the challenge.
Chess is actually a very simple game. 6 types of pieces and their rules on how they move and capture enemy pieces. A game board 8 squares by 8 squares in a chequer board pattern of white and black. You could fit the game design document for chess on a single sheet of paper.
Now, think about the physics needed to allow you to play a game of chess. You have electromagnetics, gravity, particle physics, etc, etc. This would take up whole libraries (and we still haven't fully described the "rules" of physics that would allow us to play chess - not to mention the biology of the players).
So as you can see. The game of "Chess" is actually extremely simple compared to the physical world in which the game of chess is played.
Or even compare it to a turn based strategy game on a computer like Civilization. Compared to this Chess is extremely simple.
Quote:Well, I can stretch the post about a mile more, but this is all getting too philosophical
Not philosophical, theoretical. What you posed was a theoretical problem. And as such we are addressing it on that basis. You haven't given as a concrete example where you are implementing this in an actual game. Until you do that we
have to discuss it on theoretical grounds. Besides, I have given some fairly concrete examples of why adding in complexity to a game is not necessarily a good thing.
Quote:and I feel my idea is just being supressed by generalizations.
I should probably post here if I have a non-innovative MMORPG idea :P..
Well since you haven't given as a specific situation in which to discuss, we have had to resort to generalisations. Each implementation of a feature is unique, so it is impossible for us to discuss a specific as the results from that won't necessarily apply to another situation. If you can provide us with the game design you are implementing this in and how your are implementing it, then we will just have to keep discussions as generalised and theoretical.
And we arn't just "suppressing" it. We are discussing it. We are trying to explain that what you have proposed is nowhere near as simple as you think. That there is a lot of complexity and problems with what you propose.
You presented this subject for discussion. In the discussion, we are not just going to say "Oh, that is so great, you are so amazing". We are going to discuss it. That means that we will disagree with you.
We are not "suppressing" you, we are discussing the topic you presented.
Presenting an idea is good. Presenting an innovative idea is even better. But, the most dangerous thing you can have for an innovative idea is for everyone to be a "yes-man" and not attempt to discuss the difficulties and problems that can arise form your innovative idea. No one person can see all the problems that arise from implementing it. If nobody raises objections, how will you know what problems lie in wait to stop your idea from being implemented?
If you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail.
Negative feedback about an idea is the most valuable thing you can have (and the more innovative your idea the more valuable this feedback is). We are not suppressing your idea, but are giving you the opportunity to refine your ideas and to make them better. If you want to throw that away, then it is your own loss.
