Support NeoGAF

[Vinci]

- Don't waste my time. If you have cutscenes, let me skip them; if you cannot communicate intelligently how I play your game, say so on the damn box so I can avoid having to undergo another damn tutorial; if your game doesn't get good till four hours in, excise the first three hours and/or put that information on the damn box. If you include padding, ie. things to do which seem utterly divorced from any sense of progression or fun, I will want to remove your fucking eyes.

That's pretty much my only real design philosophy.

 

[sflufan]

- The less the protagonist speakes, the better.
- The silent protagonist is a MUST in an FPS games.
- Quick save/save anywhere should be mandatory.

 

[sinseers]

I see where you're getting at, but while I notice the difference between 30 and 60fps. I couldn't care less what it runs at. Coming to GAF was the first time I realised anyone truly cared about something I had always seen as trivial.

I'm growing to care less these days, but I used to a FPS Nazi. No 60FPS no buy was my policy. As I got older I got a little more forgiving (PGR3 and 4 loosened me up). I'm willing to trade FPS for some superb detail and lighting even though in the back of my brain, that little voice will whisper (damn.....this would look totally sick at 60FPS). Now when I finally get one of those 240hz HDTVs, it won't matter anymore.

 

[selig]

Making the player smile should be the first priority.

Aerith dies.
outOvOrder smiles.

- The less the protagonist speakes, the better.

Except for tightly scripted JRPGs, where it´s fucking ridiculous if you have a super uber story, drama total, and your main character doesnt say a word.

 

[Forearm Star]

Games should be fun. There's my damn philosophy.

You should write a book!
I'd buy 2 copies!~

 

[HK-47]

for rpg's, every stat and every loot should matter and affect gameplay a whole fucking lot (see: pokemon, fallout 3). there should never be loot that does so little that you dont even care to pick it up

lol wut???

Game Design Philosophies I subscribe to:


- Fun Factor (Objective Statement but the gamer should be able to experience some pure enjoyment out of the game)

wut lol???

 

[kamspy]

Are you kidding me? I have never ever cared about 60fps. Couldn't care less if it was 30 or 60 fps. Not everyone cares about FPS as much as you. Of course this is all from my point of view but I highly doubt outside of the gaming forums and the elitist bubble FPS truly matters. As long as it isn't running complete garbage then it will be fine. CoD would've held up completely fine and would be in the exact position it is in now 60fps or not.

It's not about FPS, it's about responsiveness. Since COD draws 60 frames a second, you're getting twice the controller->screen responsiveness that you'd get from a 30fps game.


It's about how it affects gameplay for me, not visuals. Imagine DMC or SF4 at 25 fps. Yuck bro.

 

[Lijik]

-Tutorials, if they must exist, should never halt the game (be it by slowing down the pace considerably or stopping it outright for a cutscene to explain the concept) and should never teach techniques until they are necessary.
-Furthermore, tutorial prompts that teach a concept the character would have already understood to get to said prompt should not exist. I can't remember what game it was, but one time a game had a character tell me how to talk to NPCs after I already initiated the conversation with him. In more recent memory, Monster Hunter Tri had a prompt that told me the control stick was used for movement shortly after I walked into the woods area.
-Stable and high framerate. While I don't mind 30fps, I infinitely prefer it when games that play at 60fps
-If the cutscene starts, ends, or solely consists of the playable character performing an action I could just as easily do myself then just let me do the action.
-Do not rely on cutscenes to tell the story.
-MAKE SURE ANY ONSCREEN TEXT IS A READABLE SIZE AND POSITIONED WELL.

- All games should be non-linear and open-world.

Good joke on the open-world bit.

 

[BobsRevenge]

- There should be an auteur type of thing going on so that what we get have an appreciable vision behind games.

Design by committee and focus groups are making big games feel too manufactured.

I dunno, that's pretty much it for me, but it's huge. If there is a strong vision behind something, whether it is a puzzle game, platformer, FPS, whatever, that is mature and well considered, that game is much more likely to be worth playing. I'm so tired of how manufactured things feel these days, and I would appreciate more personal experiences. The rest would follow.

 

[digita1alchemy]

"Create freedom inside restriction."

 

[clashfan]

Making a game "fun" doesn't make it a good game.

 

[Government-man]

• You should be able to save everywhere, except during important fights, though the game should autosave before said fight
• Pausing should be possible at all times, ala the Wii Menu.
• In FPS the feel of the weapons are very important, recoil, weight, animation, sound etc
• There can never bee to much gore
• The controls should always be tight and responsive

More abstract philosophies

• Immersion is very important, the game world should optimally engulf you totally
• The feeling of 'just on more turn' ala Civilization (not only applicable to turn-based games)
• Sexuality should play a bigger role than it has in the past in mature games, I like the direction of the Witcher, it's stupid that extreme violence is taboo whilst sex is not (remember the stir of the hot coffee mod)

 

[BobsRevenge]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Give me more options in a set-up scenario, like Crysis or something, but do not make all games open world. Too many of them resort to allowing the player to make their own fun that they forget to make a good game. Infamous is the only open world game I've ever enjoyed. I'm all for less linearity, as long as it is presented and paced well. Open world rarely allows for this.

But, that is a good game.

 

[alr1ght]

In FPS games, aiming should be necessary
Slightly stylized humans > Completely "realistic" humans
Make your 3PS control like Uncharted 2
Triple buffer, whatever, but no tearing
I don't want to micromanage my inventory

 

[FormallyMegadrive]

It's not about FPS, it's about responsiveness. Since COD draws 60 frames a second, you're getting twice the controller->screen responsiveness that you'd get from a 30fps game.


It's about how it affects gameplay for me, not visuals. Imagine DMC or SF4 at 25 fps. Yuck bro.

Yeah I see what you're getting at. I guess it really comes down to personal preference depending on what genre of game you play, how you play said game and if it matters in any case to you.

 

[HK-47]

- There should be an auteur type of thing going on so that what we get have an appreciable vision behind games.

Design by committee and focus groups are making big games feel too manufactured.

I dunno, that's pretty much it for me, but it's huge. If there is a strong vision behind something, whether it is a puzzle game, platformer, FPS, whatever, that is mature and well considered, that game is much more likely to be worth playing. I'm so tired of how manufactured things feel these days, and I would appreciate more personal experiences. The rest would follow.

Fuck auteur theory. Games are group efforts. The dev team should have the vision.

 

[How About No]

oh and

-Never ever make me backtrack. If I have to go to an old location make it easy to skim past.

I think backtracking can be okay, but only if they make the old area interesting again by switching things up, not just running over the bodies of conquered enemies.

Good backtracking-Returning to the Mansion in Resident Evil 1. Interesting new rooms unlocked, goddamn Hunters everywhere making you rethink the path to your destination.

Bad backtracking-Wandering the island in Resident Evil: Code Veronica. To get somewhere you have to travel empty bridges and pathways, or navigate twisty buildings where something may or may not be blocking your path. And it's not always clear where you are supposed to go, and you may have missed something vital in the previous area.

Good backtracking-Alternate dungeons in the Silent Hill series. Maybe a borderline case, most dungeons are small-ish, and sometimes you get thrown into a twisted dark version of the place. These are the most memorable and iconic parts of the series.

Bad backtracking-The cemetary in Silent Hill Homecoming. You have to go through a confusing cluster of tombs to get to one side of town to the other. It takes a bit to get through, too. There aren't many enemies, either. I think the combat system sucked too, so...

(Oh and I've never played Silent Hill 4, but that has a very bad case too, run through the whole game again with an escort)

 

[readleeb]

I prefer functionality over form

If I can have both then great, but the former should never suffer as a result of the latter

 

[GhaleonQ]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=376513

Love, not levels, whenever possible.

 

[Version 3.0]

I disagree with this one. Silent Hill, for example, was a great experience, but I wouldn't call it "fun", really. I don't think games have to be fun any more than movies or books do.

I disagree with your definition. Silent Hill was fun, as all games should be. If you don't like the word "fun", though, how about "enjoyable"?


Aside from that, though, nearly every reply that says "every game" is wrong. Very few of these concepts can be applied universally.

For example, neither "linear" nor "non-linear" is the wrong way to design a game.

Some games should have tutorials, some don't need them, and some should have them integrated into the game in a subtle way.

"Backtracking" isn't bad. It's all in the implementation. Anyone who disagrees and likes open-world games is contradicting himself.

 

[NinjaFromTheFuture]

-Developers should start projects based on good ideas for compelling/fun gameplay mechanics and nothing else. They should not build a game around a story or theme(s).
-Developers should NOT strive to make games specifically to imitate another game(s), even it is one of their own/Developers should never look to the past to find what to do in the future.

 

[dekjo]

oh and

-Never ever make me backtrack. If I have to go to an old location make it easy to skim past.
-No meaningless battles.

Don't all open world games make you backtrack?

And all battles have meaning. Even the repetitive random battles of a jrpg give you experience, which gives them value.

 

[sinseers]

-MAKE SURE ANY ONSCREEN TEXT IS A READABLE SIZE AND POSITIONED WELL.

This is the definitive design recommendation for this console generation. I concur whole-heartedly.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Fuck auteur theory. Games are group efforts. The dev team should have the vision.

The dev team should understand the vision, but one person should be in charge of it. Generally the more people that have their hands in that, the more shallow and broad it'll be.

A camel is a horse designed by committee, and all that, you know.

Movies are group efforts just as much as games are, and having directors in their position enables things like Stanley Kubrick's and Martin Scorsese's output to happen.

Of course, it allows Bay's films to be more marketable, but at least I know not to see them. :lol

 

[HK-47]

I disagree with your definition. Silent Hill was fun, as all games should be. If you don't like the word "fun", though, how about "enjoyable"?


Aside from that, though, nearly every reply that says "every game" is wrong. Very few of these concepts can be applied universally.

For example, neither "linear" nor "non-linear" is the wrong way to design a game.

Some games should have tutorials, some don't need them, and some should have them integrated into the game in a subtle way.

"Backtracking" isn't bad. It's all in the implementation. Anyone who disagrees and likes open-world games is contradicting himself.

Why should a video game have to be fun? I've played games that werent fun or enjoyable, yet I still thought were incredible. So you are boxing games in just the same as those you decry by saying what they have to be.

 

[jon bones]

- All games should be non-linear and open-world.

All games should be linear and closed-ended.

who has time for all that open world stuff anymore?

 

[Eccocid]

- All games should be non-linear and open-world.

No please, those open world games feel like a physics playground with some lame story attached to them You can experience all the game in first 10 hours rest is usually same. oh another hill where i can jump down from ....

 

[Stumpokapow]

Optional new game +, preferably with checklist carry-overs so you can carry over as much or as little as you want, for any game where the player progresses or unlocks during the campaign.

Difficulty multipliers or sliders for any game where enemy difficulty is primarily determined by numerical statistics rather than artificial intelligence. If you have to finish the game once for this to become available, that's fine, but I should be able to make the game so hard it is literally not possible to complete if I choose to.

 

[Tremis]

I think backtracking can be okay, but only if they make the old area interesting again by switching things up, not just running over the bodies of conquered enemies.

Good backtracking-Returning to the Mansion in Resident Evil 1. Interesting new rooms unlocked, goddamn Hunters everywhere making you rethink the path to your destination.

Bad backtracking-Wandering the island in Resident Evil: Code Veronica. To get somewhere you have to travel empty bridges and pathways, or navigate twisty buildings where something may or may not be blocking your path. And it's not always clear where you are supposed to go, and you may have missed something vital in the previous area.

Good backtracking-Alternate dungeons in the Silent Hill series. Maybe a borderline case, most dungeons are small-ish, and sometimes you get thrown into a twisted dark version of the place. These are the most memorable and iconic parts of the series.

Bad backtracking-The cemetary in Silent Hill Homecoming. You have to go through a confusing cluster of tombs to get to one side of town to the other. It takes a bit to get through, too. There aren't many enemies, either. I think the combat system sucked too, so...

(Oh and I've never played Silent Hill 4, but that has a very bad case too, run through the whole game again with an escort)

Oh thank you for responding to that post so I didn't have too. Whenever I hear people saying they hate backtracking, it really irks me. Its not that simple obviously, as you point out. In certain games, just seeing how an environment or its elements may have changed (especially in survival horror, but not necessarily restriced to that genre) since you'd been there last can really add to your level of immersion.

For example, being in a situation you were previously comfortable with now with an unfamiliar or unsettling tone. If you are constantly going through new areas (especially in RE5) you lose an attachment to the enviroment, and exploration seems to suffer as well.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

Tutorials that pause the game with a menu or cutscene should be optional. If a tutorial is mandatory for all players, it should be built into the game without ever slowing down gameplay.

Cutscenes should be used sparingly.

 

[Darklord]

- All games should be non-linear and open-world.

FUCK NO. While I love open-world games I find the story is much better in a linear game.

 

[Dennis]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Give me more options in a set-up scenario, like Crysis or something, but do not make all games open world. Too many of them resort to allowing the player to make their own fun that they forget to make a good game. Infamous is the only open world game I've ever enjoyed. I'm all for less linearity, as long as it is presented and paced well. Open world rarely allows for this.

But I want to make my own fun and I don't care for whatever the developers consider good 'pacing' - which usually means frantically throwing shit at you without breathing room, like COD.

I want worlds to explore at my own pace, and objectives that can be conquered with a variety of different approaches - open-worlds with non-linear gameplay.

I have very high hopes for Fallout: New Vegas

 

[KevinCow]

- A game should always surprise the player. "Wow, I can do that?!" moments rock

There's been a severe lack of those lately. Developers like to show off every remotely interesting feature before they release their games, because otherwise it's not a selling point.

 

[BobsRevenge]

FUCK NO. While I love open-world games I find the story is much better in a linear game.

Shadow of the Colossus and Mafia are both open-world games.

Of course, both are linear, but still open-world.

edit: Actually, Far Cry 2 is non-linear and has a better story than most games. Prince of Persia 08's is pretty decent too. GTA4 is non-linear and has a better story than most games as well (fuck off haters, it does).

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

Don't be afraid to be silly.

 

[jon bones]

No please, those open world games feel like a physics playground with some lame story attached to them You can experience all the game in first 10 hours rest is usually same. oh another hill where i can jump down from ....

exactly, the lack of Cohesive story telling already hurts but then the fact that the gameplay is limited to using this giant sandbox to "see what happens"

half life 2 had it right. you don't feel too corridor-y but you always knew where to go and what to do. no dilly dallying.

There's been a severe lack of those lately. Developers like to show off every remotely interesting feature before they release their games, because otherwise it's not a selling point.

not all dev's fault... most kids here know everything about a game before it even comes out

 

[selig]

Shadow of the Colossus and Mafia are both open-world games.

Of course, both are linear, but still open-world.

SotC is not open world. Open world is a synonym for "lots of options".

The reason why open world games fail at the story-department is because developers suck/dont get the needed money.

Also, SotC doesnt have a story, wtf

 

[Callibretto]

I think I like Kojima's design philosophies the best. not sure what exactly, but his games are replayable, fun, open to experimentation and filled with content. I can replay his games a couple times and still find something new, either through codec, weapon and gadget implementation, boss strategy etc.

compared to my other favorite dev like Naughty Dog and SSM, both of them have pretty similar philosophies in their game. deliver great, fun, linear cinematic experience. their games can be replayable too, but it's more like watching bluray. the experience doesn't change much on repeat play nor do I find something new in my second play.

other than these two philosophies, I also greatly appreciate any extra effort to make the game immersive. which is why I appreciate open world games like Assassin's Creed, The Witcher, and Fallout 3.

 

[Dennis]

FUCK NO. While I love open-world games I find the story is much better in a linear game.

Story matters little to me anymore.

With the death of adventure games, my enjoyment of games comes mostly from exploring open worlds and trying different ways to overcome obstacles.

It is very rare that the story in modern games interest me much. Mass Effect 1+2 would be the most obvious exceptions I can think of.

 

[BobsRevenge]

SotC is not open world. Open world is a synonym for "lots of options".

The reason why open world games fail at the story-department is because developers suck/dont get the needed money.

Also, SotC doesnt have a story, wtf

Open world means open world. SotC does have a story. What?

 

[HK-47]

The dev team should understand the vision, but one person should be in charge of it. Generally the more people that have their hands in that, the more shallow and base it'll be.

A camel is a horse designed by committee, and all that, you know.

Movies are group efforts just as much as games are, and having director's in their position enables things like Stanley Kubrick's and Martin Scorsese's output to happen.

Of course, it allows Bay's films to be more marketable, but at least I know not to see them. :lol

Auteur theory is convenient cause you can just focus on director while ignoring the important contributions of the editor, cinematographer, screenwriters, composer, etc. Which I dont buy.

 

[Ceebs]

"Have some respect for the player. Many of them are not idiots so do not treat them like one by designing for the lowest common denominator."

 

[BobsRevenge]

exactly, the lack of Cohesive story telling already hurts but then the fact that the gameplay is limited to using this giant sandbox to "see what happens"

half life 2 had it right. you don't feel too corridor-y but you always knew where to go and what to do. no dilly dallying.

Half Life 2 feels too directed to me. Everything feels purposeful and forced. I think Crysis hits the sweet spot, because the experiences that come out of it feel more organic. HL2's world feels convenient to the gameplay.

 

[Razor210]

If your game does not immerse the player in the game, you are doing it completely wrong.

 

[Sibylus]

The idea that "Fun" doesn't exist alone - Wonder, awe, fear, pity, sorrow, anger, apprehension, fascination, they're all valid things your game can pursue. "Fun" tends to be applied to any number of dissimilar things anyway, so don't try to catch it in a bottle and measure out discrete quantities of it. The playtest will let you know if something works or if it doesn't.

The idea that tampering with the player and his arsenal is valid - Zapping your weapons into dust, throwing the player into a dark room with a flashlight with a limited battery, your game shouldn't be afraid to do that kind of thing if it's going to do something interesting with it. Following from the two previous examples, respectively, how about a new weapon to play around with in the absence of the others (such as a souped up version of your Gravity Gun in Half-Life 2), or an increased reliance on an NPC (such as Alyx in the low-light environments in Half-Life 2: Episode One). And hell, I liked starting weaponless in every Half-Life game. It made those earlier segments tonally different from later ones, and it helped pace the games wonderfully.

The idea that "Immersion" isn't made of glass - People throw the word around like it's meaningless, and it's often regarded as being so fragile that the slightest thing will shatter it. I disagree. By dint of playing a game, you're making innumerable concessions from square one. A HUD doesn't innately threaten it, nor does a silent protagonist or some other design decision. "Immersion" is only meaningful in a case-by-case basis, there are no hard and fast rules that every single game ought to follow. And again, the playtest will settle all the theory and give you workable solutions. If it distracts, your tests will show it.

The idea that rules and constraints are important - Gamers often severely overemphasize freedom and control. Want to know something revelatory? Your favourite games are often your favourite games because of what they did with their rules and limitations, not the total and utter abandonment of them. Setting limits and working within them is not only practical, it's powerful as well. Define the boundaries of a system and suddenly it becomes a far simpler thing to innovate and create excitement with it. A limitation on a thing is not a limitation on its greatness.

The idea that execution matters more than "pretension" - Don't be afraid of making something that looks "pretentious" or "snobby", it's all bunk. How you execute your idea or concept matters so much more, whether it works as intended or works unexpectedly. If it's overbearing or if it's heavy handed, that is certainly something to think about and weigh carefully, but don't let that stop you from trying in the first place. Don't let the possibility of people dropping the "p word" hold you up. If you execute well the players will recognize it and appreciate the work. Communicate your message well and all will be good.

 

[readleeb]

A character's worth should be measured through his presence in the story and not by the number of zippers on his jacket or the baldness of his head

 

[Drahcir]

- There should be an auteur type of thing going on so that what we get have an appreciable vision behind games.

Design by committee and focus groups are making big games feel too manufactured.

I dunno, that's pretty much it for me, but it's huge. If there is a strong vision behind something, whether it is a puzzle game, platformer, FPS, whatever, that is mature and well considered, that game is much more likely to be worth playing. I'm so tired of how manufactured things feel these days, and I would appreciate more personal experiences. The rest would follow.

I think I like this idea. It's the reason why I now know to pay attention to everything Fumito Ueda works on.

 

[cartman414]

My list for making designs:

- Fuck fun. It is not about the player having fun. Having mechanics that is fun to play with, highscores, leaderboards or any element that is there "just to make it fun" doesn't belong in the design. It only drags away from the experience overall.

- The experience and narrative before anything else

- Gameplay is not king and first priority in game design

- Choice is what makes video games different from every other medium, use it.

- No game-over, no life system, no arbitrary mechanic form the 80's.

Aside from the bolded, and perhaps the last, this just has to be a joke post.

 

[Nuclear Muffin]

There is no such thing as an outdated or "archaic" element of game design.

If a mechanic is rooted in 20+ year old games but still fun, then it's a damn good mechanic! (nothing wrong with restorative health items, not every game needs to have regenerating health FFS!)

There is no such thing as a good "standard" control scheme (second analog stick doesn't always need to be used for camera control) - also your character doesn't need to have full perfect controls all the time (like RE style tank controls) so long as the game is designed around it and does not feel cheap as a result.

You don't always need to use every button on the controller, in fact your game is usually better off when it uses less buttons!

Death/failure should always penalise the player to some extent (With the exception of games like Heavy Rain, where it acts only to change the story and not to penalise the player)

Limited saves, save points and time limits are ok to use. Not every game needs checkpoint and auto save systems!

All cutscenes should be skippable

Tutorials should aim to be as non intrusive as possible

There is no standard formula for making a game Think less about the "science" of game design and more about the experience of the game from the player's perspective. Seek to surprise the player and offer constant new gameplay mechanics and variety in gameplay throughout the game. Gameplay flow is fundamental!

 

[jiggles]

- A limited lives system is always better than an infinite lives one.
- I should be able to save at any time. If I want to stop playing, but the game won't let me without losing progress, you fucked up.
- PAUSING THE GAME SHOULD KILL ALL AUDIO
- All non-competitive games should have puzzles of some sort in their singleplayer.
- Hints should never be given unless specifically asked for. (I'm looking at you, SotC)
- If you can't tell a good story, don't tell a story at all.
- Your online ranking system should never ever award the more experienced players with the best equipment/powerups.