So, disregarding the language, time to write the game, what about a plot and 3D object design?

Even if I had the passion to develop a game, I am not a writer or author to think of a plot, nor a very creative person to design 3D meshes/objects . There are indeed games like Minecraft which are plotless but are still fun, and may not have Crysis 3-like graphics, but they are unique and new and reap success.

What do you think?

I think outside of raw coding, the requirements for a game will differ depending on the game.

For example, chess is a game, even a computer version of chess. You don't need 3D graphics or a story to create chess. Of course, chess is a game that is already created... but I mean, let's say you created your own simple board game akin to chess. You do not need 3D creativity, art and design, or a story to create this game.

Games can be fun without all of that stuff. Many people have a lot of fun with logic puzzles. Sudoku is a grid with numbers. This is very basic, but still enjoyable without any kind of flashy graphics or story. In fact, most people would probably agree flashy 3D graphics and a story would take away from the fun that is had by solving a logic puzzle like sudoku.

So, at the very core, the most that is needed for a game outside of the program, is the rules of the game, and some sort of basic visual representation of the game. That is all that is needed, I guess.

Actually, thinking about it, in theory, you don't even need a visual representation if you somehow created a game in which people respond differently to different audio clues. Like, imagine a game like Simon in which two people had a musical instrument (or even just their singing voice) and went back and forth adding notes rhythmically to a string. Actually, my brother and I play a "game" like this when we both have drumsticks near us (we are both drummers) in which we will tap a count or measure of a rhythm, then the other copies it and adds a unit, and we keep copying the string until one of us messes up. Usually we both end up forgetting the "correct" response, but the game is just in fun so it doesn't really matter who wins. But this could be an idea of a game concept in which there is no visual component at all.

Of course, people would much rather see some visual measure of success and instruction...

But I guess it comes down to how you want to define "game." Since you can get pretty loose with that definition, and I assume you're talking about what all is required for a computer game... I would say the only absolutely necessary requirements would be:

* A program that includes machine and user interaction
* Game rules and structure

And that's it.

To make a successfull game it needs to be creative. Creative can be story, models, graphic style, gameplay, texture or any combination of these (plus all the other stuff I forgot).

Look at Limbo, it didn't had much of a story and the gameplay wasn't complicated but it had a creative graphic style.

To make a successfull game it needs to be creative. Creative can be story, models, graphic style, gameplay, texture or any combination of these (plus all the other stuff I forgot).

Look at Limbo, it didn't had much of a story and the gameplay wasn't complicated but it had a creative graphic style.

This can be argued. "Words With Friends" is a very successful and popular casual game, however it is not creative at all. It uses rules and design that were copied from Scrabble. The board bonus spaces are shuffled around a little, but certainly not in a creative way. It also allows you to play online, which you could say is its biggest appeal; however, you could play Scrabble online before Words With Friends.

So if Words With Friends has absolutely no creativity, how did it become successful?

You can also argue the definitions of 'creative' and 'successful'... which I think can easily become very subjective.

I think there are many factors that can cause a game to become successful, and not all are required: marketing (hyped games with ads everywhere will have more success than without), accessibility (a game EVERYONE can play will have more success than a game only certain people can play), novelty (games that are unique and intriguing can gather success), branding (Pokemon White 2 is not terribly creative if you look at Pokemon Red/Blue/Green/Yellow/Gold/Silver/Crystal/Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/FireRed/LeafGreen/Diamond/Pearl/Platinum/HeartGold/SoulSilver/Black/White/Black2... but it still is extremely successful!), etc.

[quote name='deathwearer' timestamp='1354929948' post='5008305']
To make a successfull game it needs to be creative. Creative can be story, models, graphic style, gameplay, texture or any combination of these (plus all the other stuff I forgot).

Look at Limbo, it didn't had much of a story and the gameplay wasn't complicated but it had a creative graphic style.

This can be argued. "Words With Friends" is a very successful and popular casual game, however it is not creative at all. It uses rules and design that were copied from Scrabble. The board bonus spaces are shuffled around a little, but certainly not in a creative way. It also allows you to play online, which you could say is its biggest appeal; however, you could play Scrabble online before Words With Friends.

So if Words With Friends has absolutely no creativity, how did it become successful?

You can also argue the definitions of 'creative' and 'successful'... which I think can easily become very subjective.

I think there are many factors that can cause a game to become successful, and not all are required: marketing (hyped games with ads everywhere will have more success than without), accessibility (a game EVERYONE can play will have more success than a game only certain people can play), novelty (games that are unique and intriguing can gather success), branding (Pokemon White 2 is not terribly creative if you look at Pokemon Red/Blue/Green/Yellow/Gold/Silver/Crystal/Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/FireRed/LeafGreen/Diamond/Pearl/Platinum/HeartGold/SoulSilver/Black/White/Black2... but it still is extremely successful!), etc.
[/quote]

Nothing I wrote is to be taken by the book

Of course some of them doesn't fit.

Some games are successfull because of the franchise or the fans. Some games are also "successfull" because it fill a need that no other game fill, even if the game is not that good. Some game are even successfull and nobody could say why .

Thanks for the information I know most of you have a language you prefer, just as I prefer the plain and simple C. I know C++ is preferred in 99% of the games today, but C is very comfortable for me.

As such however, if the engine is not in C as well, I must either not use it, or glue it around in DLLs. I am a hardcore fan of 3D games, as such they are my goal