Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

128 Neutral

About Mattkancode

  • Rank
  1. Mattkancode

    What's in a Game?

    I find the definition that Craford used interesting. It defines "games" and "play" by conflict rather than interaction. This is interesting to me, especially due to my recent experience (literally this morning) with a game called Proteus.   Link to a short trailer for the game   I mention this game because although most games are based around central conflict or combat, some can manage without that and still manage to be enjoyable. As people we tend to be problem solvers or conflict resolvers. I discovered this about myself during the time that I was playing this game.    During my first ten or so minutes I was confused by my environment. I had no prior knowledge of anything in this game at all. In fact, I didn't even know it was included in the bundle I purchased. I started up and noticed a lack of mechanic in terms of player commands and control. I have no weapons, hands, items, quests, allies, enemies, etc. The only actions I could manage were movement, looking around, taking pictures, and this odd touch mechanic that I still don't understand.    So all I'm doing is walking around, looking and listening to this very relaxing music. I pass by a large tree that is surrounded by some sort of bobbing wildlife at its base. As I make my pass, I see in my periphery, the small wildlife "bobs" retreat to the ground in a single audible "ting". I then pass a swarm of small bees as they pollinate a field of pixelated daisies. Again, there are the audible notes as they repeatedly drop onto the small flowers. The small tones mixes well into the soft, harmonious track playing over my adventure through my headphones. I look at the sun as it collapses slowly over the horizon. A mirrored image on the opposite horizon shows the white, cool moon rise. The music follows example and calms more so into an even more relaxing tune.   Throughout all of this, I slowly discovered that perhaps the conflict that we experience in games now isn't entirely necessary for a game to be enjoyable. Perhaps we shouldn't define a game by who you're fighting and how you're doing it. As children, we had great fun simply playing house or pretending to be various animals or people. This game really did a great job to remind me of the value of the mechanics that are sometimes looked over.   I guess what I'm trying to say is, a game is fun, a game is played, a game offers an experience. We shouldn't restrict ourselves to the subject matter because the subject doesn't matter.    Games are meant to be played and enjoyed. All they need are the means to allow that experience.
  2. Mattkancode

    Giving Enemy mechanical meaning

    I am a fan of the idea to award bonuses or rewards for defeating incremental numbers of enemies. Also, if this is a mobile game you could possibly invest in some mobile networking and allow people to share titles or trophies they have earned for defeating enemies. Giving them competitive incentive as well as an in-game benefit.   Of course it would be expensive, but could have the capacity to boost your games' popularity amongst a more hardcore crowd. As well as adding replay value for the vast number of titles you can reward for your players racking up kills. Its a skinner box strategy but it works.
  3. Mattkancode

    Metagame in Competitive FPS

    I see what you're saying. I agree. The community would probably never be at the numbers that the game would be without which is an issue.    I can also see it affecting gameplay as well. I can imagine the community would be more conservative with their playstyle. Although I can see a rock paper scissors mechanic establishing itself. As 1 on the groups of players becomes more conservative, another will become more aggressive to counteract the conservative players and so on and so forth. I'd like to see how players would react in game to such a revealing concept.    Possibly you could have a completely new game. Which kinda shows you the impact that tutorials and instructions truly have on the experience of the player. its kind of like 2 students with 2 different teachers.   Teacher A teaches Student A: Method A Teacher B teaches Student B: Method B   Now we have two completely different methods to tackle a situation. But also it can be possible that the community would eventually level to a general style of play (Most likely the playstyle the game is designed to be played as.)
  4. I've been looking at a lot of FPS games recently and have seen how the metagame actually controls how the game will turn out. This is obvious of course but whether metagame is a successful method of play or not isn't the concern. Instead, if it is something that should be brought to the players' attention or if it should be kept under the radar.    In most games, understanding the meta undertones comes with time and experience. But what if we removed those factors? These are just some of my thoughts and I'd love to hear from others on the topic.   Note: these examples are in regards to objective based gameplay of non-persistent games (COD Domination, BF, TF2, Counterstrike, etc.)   Obviously there are multiple levels of gameplay. A: Run in. Try to win. (Base level. Based on player skill. no understanding of the undertones of play or the meta at all. Lower reflex and skill yield lower probability of success.)   B: Comprehensive assault. (Moderate. Player uses skill and understanding to achieve team's goal. fairly effective. Player uses prior knowledge of other player tendencies and game mechanics to maneuver and succeed. Can communicate but usually relies on personal skill to succeed. Player can hold his own but does not control any meta. Usually a lone wolf. Effective teammate. But still does not control the battlefield in most cases.)   C: Full control of meta. (Player understands advanced game mechanics and uses skill as well as coordination with other players to achieve the goal. Best chance of success due to control of the ebb and flow of the field as well as communication with a full squad or team.)   Note: I'm am only categorizing these in such a way so that it can be seen as a simple, quantifiable measure of player skill and experience.   My question is; Would introducing the metagame openly in a game such as this (Ex. Introducing the player to extensive weapon charts and stat values, giving the player advanced strategic information firsthand and allowing them to use this immediately, and allowing the players to be able to start with at least half of the understanding that someone would only understand after quite a few hours or even days of in game play) break the flow of the game? Imagine if Battlefield 3 upon release had introduced players to all of the weapons damage, drop off, accuracy and reload times descriptively. Do you think this version of BF3 would compare or would it be entirely different?   I understand that time slowly allows this progression to sort out. (Ex. Telling people that the M16a3 is one of the most reliable guns from day 1 would increase the usage exponentially from the start. Whereas only after a few months of play, did everyone decide this was the best choice based on experience.) But what if we cut out time? What would be the pros and cons? Would every player have the ability to control the meta? and if so, would this completely alter the gameplay?   I'm primarily asking this to get some insight from others. Bounce ideas and such. I am fairly new to design in general. A "beginner" so any information is valued and I like to hear opinions from my piers. So what do you guys think?
  5.   Pleasure to my ears ;-). Maybe a gate thats allows this empowering should be something like a difficulty to achieve the build ...           Thats interesting I wonder what is the motivation for such a deed (expansion of D&D rules in powers which would mean a setting change). Is it technical challenge or you had the vision of such a setting or something else?   Hit points per level approach is imho crazy inflation of damage. This something like useslesness of low level characters directly engineered (and imo one of the reasons for griefing in MMOs). And causes that two advanced fighters cannot beat each other by one slash. Its maybe just me but I like the phase of preparation- like make each part of the armour perfectly fit, find the right approach for the fight, take meditation  and then when it comes to fight be it swiftness of your blade, quickness of your feets and sharpness of your mind that keeps you unharmed.         That reminds me yours combat and parley topic. Are you going to have this feature in Caveman? Excuse me my curiosity, but it deals with some elements (emotions), that I am using in my system. Actually I am wondering if someone would like to play a charater who is horrible fighter, crafter, mage but is just great negotiator, inter-personal structure builder and information dealer...     Oh I promised to put something about stun, hopefully tomorow, it is going to be something about chaos as I see it.   This is an interesting concept. Allowing players to take advantage of the interactive aspects (such as in an mmo) by specializing in fields like negotiation, communications or information dealings. I find it intriguing because, as a young teen, I dabbled in runescape (about 6 years ago) and while playing I gained the trust of a few different clans. At first I was merely looking for a social group to play with but I essentially went turncoat and was payed by "clan A" to get information from "clan B" and upon arriving at clan B i would be paid for information gained while i was at clan A. A mere level 5 character was making 100s of thousands of gold without trading or grinding enemies or resources. Effectively, I was thriving on a new resource provided by other players. This could be done in a single player gam, Im sure. Although difficult. Could we create a counter class to combat that is specifically non-combat?
  6. You make some great points here! And i guess i agree with you. Maybe its just our growth as a people. Maybe thus is why we are seeing a new Indie revolution.
  7. Sorry about the construction of the post. Was more of a late night thought than an organized set of points so on that note I apologize. But in regards to what you're saying, skyrim sold well and continues to do. But the demographic is diminishing. And i play skyrim as well and i fond myself completely losing interest in active control at very many points. I subconsiously play while i think about work and school and whatnot. I can play for hours and hours but interest is low. And although we may have.friends who can remain engaged, this does not represent the majority. We can not use persona preference or experience when dealing.with design aspects. This is not a business of persons, but people as a whole. That is why we innovate and change. And it wont be long before the elder scrolls will begin to perish as all things do eventually. But where do we go from there? I hope that is a better.conveyance of some of my points. Also TBRPGs are on a decline but that's where the innovation kicks in. Change and adaption to remain relevant.
  8. As the Next-Gen aproaches, we have a lot to look forward to with new design concepts. The rise of companion devices is directly effecting so many new IPs. Whether it be The division or Destiny or old dogs such as Battlefield or even Metal Gear Solid, we are seeing very many new concepts being brought into play to allow for a more stimulative experience. This is shadowed all through the industry by even more ambitious new tech used to stimulate us in new ways. The Occulus Rift will allow for us to view out favorite first person games in a truly firsthand experience. We now have a generation of gaming that truly is attempting to capture a player in new ways only thought to be a dream in the past. This can always be brought down to the simple science of, "we adapt to stay alive". This is true to an extent. But at the root of it all, it is to keep the demographinc engaged. We must keep people involved and interested actively. The key word here is 'active'. Whereas 20 years ago, 16 bit platformers could keep a player actively engaged for hours on end with nothing more than the simple 'jump and move right' mechanic, we now see people actually lose all interest and essentially zone out in games as complicated as Call if Duty or Skyrim and even mineceaft. We see people develop this conscious experience into a subconscious, repetitive interaction. The engagement leaves us over time and we eventually play games on second nature. Sure this is an inevitability with all games if you play long enough but the margin is decreasing rapidly as we progress over the years. Where once we could replay super Mario over and over and be actively engaged in even the most simple gameplay, we now get tired of the latest FPS and can play it with zero active engagement in a mere few hours. So regardless of the cause of this swap, whether it be tech growth and dependency on stimulation on a constant level (i.e. smartphones, mobile platforms, social networking) or just our interest in gaming on the decline, it is an inevitable truth that we, as gamers, require more involvement and stimulation in our games. So as we move forward we see things fall apart. Simulation music games, platformers, puzzle games, fighting games and even turn based RPGs. So how do we keep people interested in these older modes of gaming? How do we keep the stimulation alive? Puzzle games have found a great home in mobile gaming. Effectively keeping them relevant and quite successful. Music games didn't really make it out without some injury and fighting games hold their cult following and remain standing, but on shaky ground. But where does this put turn based RPGs? A classic in gaming. A narritive and once thought to be enthralling experience that kept players involved through story and semi-strategic combat. With less interest in narritive and the turn based idea, it is understandable why they would be on the decline. No arguments on why. We have already established the why. Lack of engagement leads to disinterest over time and in a genre that is based on investment of fifty to sixty hours, time is not a resourse players are willing to spend. "Why would I spend fifty-five hours playing this just to finish the story when i can play the new Call of Duty and finish a game in ten minutes with all the satisfaction of wiping the floor with my opponent?" And we can do this without even thinking. We can simply let our reflexes do the talking and reap the benefits. So how can we bring new light to a dim idea? How can we revive a dying breed? And if there is a way, is it even worth the effort? We have seen so much innovation in new directions but there are only so many directions you can go. Eventually we will need to turn around and use ideas that we may have thought were laid to rest to achieve innovation. Ideas that we may have thought have no place in gaming today on a mainstream level. So perhaps we should look at some of our works and strive to utilize these ideas while they are on a decline because who knows, maybe five years from now the demographic will return and those of us who invested will have an advantage on the competition
  9. Mattkancode

    Turn-Based Tactical Game Turn Structure

    The phase approach is more simple and more easily comprehended, although i feel that if you wish to.approach this on a tactical level specifically then it may not be idea. The action point method allows for more freedom and development on the field. But why not create your own hybrid. Innovation has never hurt anyone.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!