I'm just wondering what aspects of a game will players expect to be most innovative and competitive in relation to games in the same genre. I would say that gameplay will be the most crucial, then possibly narrative, visuals, audio and interface respectively. What order would you arrange these items and are there other game aspects that you would like to include? I'm looking forward to your replies. God bless
I don't think that there is a universal answer to this post that would apply across all genres. One of the things about a genre is that it brings something completely different to the table as compared to that bought by another genre. So in attempting to decide "what aspects of a game will players expect to be most innovative and competitive in relation to games in the same genre" I am firstly wondering to which genre you meant in specific or whether you meant as a general rule of thumb. If it was the second of those choices then it is going to be somewhat difficult to answer. For example:
In a turn based strategy game genre eg: Civilisation and their ilk. I would probably rate: gameplay, interface, visuals, audio, narrative
For a First Person Shooter eg: Call of Duty. I would probably rate for multiplayer: Visuals and Audio tied for first place, gameplay/interface for second and narrative for last. For campaign mode: I would want narrative to hold a higher place. But then again with a game like Bioshock I rate narrative before all other factors as its strongest point and one that sold me on the game.
For an RPG: Gameplay/Interface Narrative/lore visuals/audio
For Arcade games: I really have no idea: half the time audio annoys me, visual tends to be basic, Narrative seems derived from the head of Andre Delambre after his teleportation trip, game play is probably rated highest and interfaces probably second.
What I am interested in from you is more of a definition in what you are seeking.
For RPGs, maybe the combat - because everything else is going to be similar or on par with each other.
For FPS, probably the multiplayer features. Killing Floor is one of the best multiplayer co-ops and I've been playing for almost a year straight.
For strategy games, like Total War series, probably the variety of units and functions - the more planning and thinking the better.
For TBS strategy, like Civ, probably the trivia - the interesting policies, the fun diplomacy, good graphics and stuffs.
But remember, this is a very subjective topic.
Some indie games are loved by their communities because almost everything about them is unique. Look at Mount and Blade, as an example - what other game allows you to hire a bunch of peasant recruits and then train them up to become knights and soldiers and go claim your own little fiefdom in a feudal world full of war, bandits and trade, whilst being able to take part in the heat of battle with full customisation of your character?
I don't think that there is a universal answer to this post that would apply across all genres. One of the things about a genre is that it brings something completely different to the table as compared to that bought by another genre. So in attempting to decide "what aspects of a game will players expect to be most innovative and competitive in relation to games in the same genre" I am firstly wondering to which genre you meant in specific or whether you meant as a general rule of thumb. If it was the second of those choices then it is going to be somewhat difficult to answer. For example:
In a turn based strategy game genre eg: Civilisation and their ilk. I would probably rate: gameplay, interface, visuals, audio, narrative
For a First Person Shooter eg: Call of Duty. I would probably rate for multiplayer: Visuals and Audio tied for first place, gameplay/interface for second and narrative for last. For campaign mode: I would want narrative to hold a higher place. But then again with a game like Bioshock I rate narrative before all other factors as its strongest point and one that sold me on the game.
For an RPG: Gameplay/Interface Narrative/lore visuals/audio
For Arcade games: I really have no idea: half the time audio annoys me, visual tends to be basic, Narrative seems derived from the head of Andre Delambre after his teleportation trip, game play is probably rated highest and interfaces probably second.
What I am interested in from you is more of a definition in what you are seeking.
Thanks for the reply, it was pretty helpful. Yeah, I didn't take into consideration that different genres of games will be different in what players expect from it.
In my humble opinion, gameplay should always be considered first.
After all, how the player interacts with the game is kinda the point of a game. Yes, flashy graphics are nice with cool sound effects and music is alluring, but if the player can’t meaningfully interact with the game, it’s all a wash to me. After all, how many times have you seen a game that rubbed superior graphics in your face only to have you be annoyed by simplistic controls and an uneventful gaming experience?
The game of real Chess doesn't need flashy ivory pieces, fighting sounds or combat music to be entertaining. It is quite literally, almost 100% gameplay.
