I have an idea about a modern-day war game, where players build up their base and attack other players. What I was unsure of was if a game like that needs a back story, a reason why everyone is fighting each other.
So what do you think? Should a game with base building and PVP need a backstory? If so, what are some appealing ideas?
Why is the world at world? How do new players coming into the game change the story at hand? If at all?
Will there ever be a single victor? If so, what happens then?
Let us have a discussion...
How do you feel about having computer controlled players holding a place in the top 100 list?
In a competitive game I am thinking about, players can combat each other to grow their character as well as fight computer controlled characters. But when the players look at the rankings, should they NPC accounts be included.
Without the NPC in the rankings, you could see that you are ranked #19, the player in #18 place is stronger than you by 5 levels, but when you go to fight the other characters that are your level, you cannot see #18 because he is too strong, so all you fight are the NPC and players weaker than you but with in your attack range. This could be misleading to the player as they feel they are stronger than they really are.
And with NPC accounts in the rankings, player can really see how they rank up to other accounts that are as strong as them. They can see how many accounts stand between them and the next rank.
On a side note, some NPC accounts are marked as NPC while others are not.
Well, as the subject describes itself. I would like to start in videogame music and composition.
I do know some Music Theory and have some notions on how to play the piano, and also in my Degree we have some subjects refered to Sound and Music, but I would like to go a little bit deeper.
Anyway, I'd like to know if it there is any site, course, or bibliography refered to all of this, even if it starts from the basic of the basics. Also would be interesting if it is there any good reference to study all the software related to the theme.
It would be great if anyone could give me some advice, because now I am a little bit lost.
"You can't call any one game design bad, really. Like all art, it either speaks to you or it doesn't. If it only speaks to a few, it's just niche."
Some friends and I were arguing about esoteric game designs and whether or not you can ever really classify bad design objectively when one made the above assertion. I'm curious if you agree or disagree and why. Is a game design good simply because it is popular and therefore enjoyed, or as with narrative art are there underlying elements that a game can hit or miss, rendering it good or bad? If you don't like it, are you simply not the target audience?
I'm of the mind that games make something of an aesthetic contract with players: Not simply 'this game is about shooting' or 'this game is about racing' but rather a series of promises that can be said to be embedded in all of the elements presented-- from the sound design to the UI to the mood and tone of the world presented and most importantly the interactions and responses given by the simulation itself. "I promise you the gritty, harsh reality of a Special Operator behind enemy lines" or "I promise you the zany, action-packed experience of rocket powered cars that launch balls into goals."
To illustrate this idea, consider a perfect, hyper-realistic modern military stealth game. It's balanced, the levels are interesting and the choices offered are consistently engaging. Now make the UI bright & cartoony. A bit jarring? Swap the enemies with big, red nosed, ridiculous clowns. Gameplay is still the same, it might be funny, but did you originally buy it for funny? I would argue that the implied contract with your player is stretched to breaking or outright broken, and that THAT more than anything else, without some kind of upfront warning or easing of sensibilities, makes for bad design.
This breaking of the aesthetic contract with the player can extend right through the inclusion or exclusion and construction of gameplay elements itself. "Crafting is fun! Let's introduce wear and tear to weapons in our gritty Special Operator game and have the player hunt around the level for parts!" But you're a member of the best equipped, best prepared fighting force in the world. Doesn't this turn you into some kind of camouflaged, scavenging murder-hobo? I think it would break the contract, break the implicit expectations of everything that comes to mind when you think about "special forces" and thus blunder right into bad game design.