Hey guys.
A friend and I were having a debate about game design the other day and the topic of a "perfect game" came up. He is of the opinion that there is absolutely no such thing as a perfect game, that all games have their flaws. I am of the opinion that there is such a thing, but here's my definition: A perfect game is a game that successfully is what it strives to be and has no room for improvement. Honestly a game I would consider perfect is Cave Story, as an example. I feel like it completes the objective of being a fast paced platform shooter and I can't really see a way in which to improve it. My question is, what's your definition of the "perfect game", and is there such a thing?
I realize this is such a trivial thing, but it's nothing to take too serious.
Theory of a "Perfect Game"
My perfect will be different from your perfect.
I cannot imagine any game that fits your definition of "no room for improvement". Ask the developer of any game and they'll talk about bugs that shipped and good things that had to be cut.
There is no one-size-fits-all perfect game.
I cannot imagine any game that fits your definition of "no room for improvement". Ask the developer of any game and they'll talk about bugs that shipped and good things that had to be cut.
There is no one-size-fits-all perfect game.
Ha... my perfect game.
It is the game that is set in a world that I shape since I am a kid and that I will always seek. I don't think I will be able, one day, to concretize my perfect game ideas in one single product, but it is always nice to keep polishing it in my mind.
I remember the first time I played Dungeons & Dragons and a friend of mine was teaching me the rules when he said: "This game is perfect because it runs on the best video card in the world: our brain and imagination".
Man, he said it all!
It is the game that is set in a world that I shape since I am a kid and that I will always seek. I don't think I will be able, one day, to concretize my perfect game ideas in one single product, but it is always nice to keep polishing it in my mind.
I remember the first time I played Dungeons & Dragons and a friend of mine was teaching me the rules when he said: "This game is perfect because it runs on the best video card in the world: our brain and imagination".
Man, he said it all!
A game in which the boss of the previous level is the 'common enemy' of the current level.
Imagine: You fight so hard to defeat the last boss, but once you defeat him, it becomes easy to defeat him again and again.
The game shouldn't give the player more power over the levels i.e. nothing like after you defeat the boss, you get a gun which insta-gibs the boss. The player should have equal resources throughout the game, only thing that changes is his own skill.
Amorhpous+ does this nicely.
Imagine: You fight so hard to defeat the last boss, but once you defeat him, it becomes easy to defeat him again and again.
The game shouldn't give the player more power over the levels i.e. nothing like after you defeat the boss, you get a gun which insta-gibs the boss. The player should have equal resources throughout the game, only thing that changes is his own skill.
Amorhpous+ does this nicely.
The original Western version of Tetris -- the Spectrum Holobyte version that ran on like Amigas, Atari STs, and Apple IIgs's -- was perfect I'm pretty sure. Beyond that ... I don't know ... Super Mario Bros. 3?
Author
A game in which the boss of the previous level is the 'common enemy' of the current level.
Imagine: You fight so hard to defeat the last boss, but once you defeat him, it becomes easy to defeat him again and again.
The game shouldn't give the player more power over the levels i.e. nothing like after you defeat the boss, you get a gun which insta-gibs the boss. The player should have equal resources throughout the game, only thing that changes is his own skill.
Amorhpous+ does this nicely.
That's pretty specific (. _ .) Though I can see what you mean as far as player skill. Player strength > avatar strength always in my opinion.
The original Western version of Tetris -- the Spectrum Holobyte version that ran on like Amigas, Atari STs, and Apple IIgs's -- was perfect I'm pretty sure. Beyond that ... I don't know ... Super Mario Bros. 3?
Yeah, tetris! Honestly I haven't even seen the version you're talking about, only played the NES version myself and I'd still call it just about perfect. Classic stuff like that, like pacman, I find those to be some of the definitive perfect games in my opinion.
There can be no perfect game in the sense you describe.
Perfection cannot be reached, only approached asymptotically. The closer you want to get to perfect in your sense, the more you have to invest - and chances are you're shooting at a moving target anyways. What might be 99% perfect after 4 years of development might actually only be 80% perfect after another additional year of rumination and hindsight.
Perfection cannot be reached, only approached asymptotically. The closer you want to get to perfect in your sense, the more you have to invest - and chances are you're shooting at a moving target anyways. What might be 99% perfect after 4 years of development might actually only be 80% perfect after another additional year of rumination and hindsight.
Author
There can be no perfect game in the sense you describe.
Perfection cannot be reached, only approached asymptotically. The closer you want to get to perfect in your sense, the more you have to invest - and chances are you're shooting at a moving target anyways. What might be 99% perfect after 4 years of development might actually only be 80% perfect after another additional year of rumination and hindsight.
Well, what would be your description? If at all, that is, I guess.
It doesn't matter; my statement holds for any definition of "perfection" that doesn't completely destroy the connotations of the word. It's a human project with finite resources; it's gonna be lacking somehow to someone.
It doesn't matter; my statement holds for any definition of "perfection" that doesn't completely destroy the connotations of the word. It's a human project with finite resources; it's gonna be lacking somehow to someone.
It is nice how Microsoft takes this in consideration when rating your computer on the System menu.
The grade is from 0 - 10, but the maximum one computer can get is 7 or so. That is because the top notch computer of today can't be the top we will get, so a grade of 10 is too much and the threshold of 7 shows how much we have to constantly progress.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
