|
What Makes a Good Game
|
|
Posted on 1 September 1998
The following text was written by Alan Wong
: This has eluded many of us for a long time. What makes a good game? I
started to think how we can all come together to create the elusive good game when I was
responding to an Article here at ticalc.org. From writing my response, it hit me. Why not
write a whole article devoted to the good game, and so I also thought of ways to quickly
make good games, which introduced me to the engine, which we do not have as of yet. Sure
we have side scrollers, but their coding is different, since they are not made in the same
way. Then I thought, what do we need to make these engines, and here comes talent, time,
and ideas. And then finally, I thought once more what we need, and I could not believe I
missed this in my initial thought, but it is the most important part, fun. Making an
equation, I came up with this: Calculators + Engines + Talent + Time + Ideas +
FUN = Good Games To an extent, this is important. I did not include sound and
graphics since the TI calcs are not very good in those areas, and they are not as
important as the other parts of the equation. There are some good graphics out there, but
in making an actual game, the graphics should be toned down a bit for playability (1 fps
for a game is not that good), and sound is basically out of the question (I would look
kinda stupid wearing headphones attached to my calc, non?). I also have ideas about these
two, but first, lets look at my initial spark of light on the subject, caused by the
comment. In the following paragraphs in italics, is my comment to Why Big Assembly Coding Projects Are Possible by Gerard
Imbert. Read if you haven't read it, since I will base my later ideas on this.
Well, if I knew 86 assembly like the back of my hand (which I don't by the way) I
would code a big project (and I have a ton that I'd like to do, but I'll get to that
later). I believe that the 92 is not the only calc that is not getting a lot of
attention. So far, I've seen a lot of games for the 82 (ffx, and lots of new ones in the
past several weeks) and the 83. The 85 is now starting to gain some ground (a new rpg).
But the 86 is lacking a bit in the big programming part (although Joltima is one big one).
But what I am getting to may not be an idea many have come across. This idea, I
believe will give us calc owners with many good games and even let us inexperienced guys
have a chance. What I'm talking about is the engine. No, not cars, but game skeletons. If
ticalc.org can somehow get a team of super talented programmers (and I know quite a lot of
names in that category) to come together and make the basic engines (side scroll, rpg over
head, fighting, first person perspectives, myst type, and blah blah blah blah), then all
the other people have to do to make a good game is add several elements (art, levels,
story/plot, and FUN). This may help extend the amount of games, plus introduce the
beginners, instead of dropping them into a pool of code (which I hate... but o'well).
Now that I have pushed forth my idea, maybe someone can pick it up. Now, lets add my
idea of games that all the calcs need in their gallery. One, has anyone heard of
Castlevania? Wow, good side scroller to pass the time away. Next, let us see a spin off
from the Myst type games, those will help speed up the science classes. What about the
RPG's? I have one I want to make, but I have no talent whatsoever. This is Pokemon (Pocket
Monsters) for gameboy. In this game, we can take advantage to the short distance between
people in classes, and the link ports. This game has a person collect an insane number of
monsters (near 200), and build their levels one by one. Then the fun comes, battle between
calcs for monster superiority. And last but not least, what about a book. What about
putting a whole book into the little calculator to read and pass the class time. This is
very possible (not with huge books though). Anyway, this is my opinion (and I
hope I spelled everything right.. hehe) and I would hope that everyone takes this
seriously, and spawn big projects on all calcs by forming the skeleton for great games.
And for inspiration for new games, just check out the gameboy games, since the calcs and
the gameboy are almost the same, or you can come to me... Well, now that
you've seen my opinion, I would like to expand greatly (read, greatly, meaning large
amounts of text). The title of this was "Calculators + Engines + Talent + Time + Ideas +
FUN = Good Games" (I shortened it afterwards), and basically, this equation is right.
First, you have your calculators (an obvious ingredient), but what comes after are the
more taxing elements, all leading up to the final product (hopefully). But why am I
writing this? Well, everyone wants good games, and I'm going to give you my opinion as
unbiased as I can. Let's start with the engine. In the comment in italics, I
said that it would help the beginners start and also help many game projects to get
started, and that is right. But most importantly, this engine will give us one thing
lacking (IMHO) in the calc world now, speed. A good game is few and far between, and by
creating flexible engine types, we can role out good games after several weeks to one or
two months of work. Note, I said good, since a game can be a technical feat, but still
quote unquote "suck". Anyway, this engine should allow lots of games to be completed in
short amounts of time, which lets us have more games to take to class and show off to
friends (hehe). This since the production of the game will (read very carefully) be based
basically on art, level and sprite design, and making it fun, instead of making it work.
The next several things can be put into a clump. Talent, time, and ideas are
important, but can be put together. Talent is needed, since a good engine can still churn
out bad games. Here's an example. Say we have a mario / sqrxz type engine. One person puts
a lot of time to make good sprites and levels, and these levels are challenging (like in
sqrxz *cough*praise*cough*). And another person makes a game with this non animated sprite
and a flat level with a couple enemies, and one can finish it in a couple seconds. You
tell me which is fun (which is talked about later). Next, time is the essence. No one has
enough of this. But with the engine out of the way, more time can be spent making the game
itself and making it fun, instead of making it work through tedious testing. Finally,
ideas are important. Would you rather play a game with its own world and interact in it
like a real world (The Legend of Zelda 64: Ocarina of Time, by Nintendo), or a game that
is like an interactive movie with slick cg (Final Fantasy 7 and 8, by Square), or would
you rather choose a game that was thrown together with no good idea at all, more like a
jumble of what a game could have been (too many games to mention, but one is ET on the
Atari). Anyway, what I'm getting at is that ideas are important too. Let's try to stop
copying, and try to improve games. If you think I'm contradicting myself, I'm not. Even if
we use the same engines, we can still improve games in many ways (which I will get to
later). Now for the biggest chunk of the good game factor. I would personally
put it at 99% of the good game factor, but some may give it slightly less, but no matter
what, this will make or break a game. This is the fun in a game. With out this, why even
play the game? Just dump it for more space on your calc, or use it as a door stop or
Frisbee. In the most recent issue of Nintendo Power, Volume 111, they interview one of the
best in the video game industry. He is Shigeru Miyamoto, and he recently won the Hall of
Fame award in a new awards program for the video game industry, The Academy of Interactive
Arts and Sciences. In the interview, he explained one way he makes games fun. This is to
balance a game with 70% objectives and 30% surprises. Also in the interview, he says he
wants to create a miniature world in a game, much like what he is doing with Zelda 64
(coming out November 23 this year by the way), and also that he stresses actual
interactive action and immersion (another words, fun) into the game rather than the cg
movies, fmv movies, plot, story, etc. since the latter only adds to this action and
immersion. He wants us to play a game rather than watch a movie. If all this sounds a
little too advanced for our little wimpy calculator compared to the Sony PlayStation,
Nintendo64, and the upcoming Sega DreamCast, it might be. But fun is fun, and if we could
some how get the fun into a game (and this may come in many forms, who knew dropping
blocks was fun?) then we could have the ultimate achievement, the good game. Now
the equate for this is the good game. These can come in many forms, and here is a quick
list of games that sold well for consoles - Zelda, Mario, Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior,
Castlevania, and many more. These are classics in many of our minds, but what makes them
good? Good question, but there is no answer. The things in the equation are only quick
overviews of my opinion, but there are so many other things, such as graphics and sound
(maybe not for the calcs). These add to the immersion. As long as you keep in mind what
games are for you should have no problem churning out good games. And this you is to all
of you (and me), since working together is one way to make good games, since you have many
opinions on good games, rather than just one. Any way, the thing about games is to make
them fun. We play games to be entertained. This is why fun is so important. If you keep in
mind what makes your day, and what makes our days, then you have one part of the many
parts of good games. Then lets think of other possibilities, like our natural tendencies
(bloody games seem to get more attention - Mortal Kombat). All in all, anyone should be
able to make a good game. If you remember back to the beginning of this article,
I mentioned graphics and sound are not as important as the rest of the parts. This is
true, graphics and sound only add to the fun. But here is a radical idea (just like the
engines idea). Why can't we have several groups of people concentrate on one aspect of the
game? I can't program, and I don't expect myself to be good enough to make a good game for
a while, but I can do computer art effectively. So why not have some people just make
graphics as good as the calc can handle, and the other people make sound effects (if
needed). Then we can have archives of sprites and graphics for use with the engines just
to speed the process along a bit. I'm not saying that making a Frankenstien game (put
pieces together) is the way to go, but with this graphics library and engines library, we
can concentrate on the fun of the game, not the technical stuff. This concludes
my huge article on what a good is game is and some ideas on getting to this dream on the
calc even with such a somewhat limited backing (face it, not everyone on the planet has
one, and not everyone that has one even has a clue how these games are made or even knows
they exist). Here now is a list of what I think are possible games that can be made on the
calc and still be fun (some mentioned in the above italics): - Final
Fantasy (give us some ports PLEASE!!)
- Pocket Monsters (Pokemon - really really good
game, huge backing in Japan)
- Castlevania (no one gets bored of a hack and slash or
whip game, just make new levels and bingo, instant new game)
- First Person Perspective
(maybe we can get a multiplayer action going on now, lets make a 4 port connector for 4
people in the same game - hint hint hint hint)
- Simple Board Games (I'm tired of
finding that second player, why not add an AI? Don't make the Space Odyssey one though..)
- Puzzle Games (sure fire way to get us through classes, but just make new types, not
clones of Tetris)
- And finally, something that might not be even possible, but at least
someone can prove me wrong... A type of Mario 64 game.
- And maybe a slide show movie
and etext books on the calc can help a bit.
Anyway, have fun programming
and making games, and I really hope you all consider these ideas (since it took me forever
to write, but hey, I got stuff to get off my chest). Feel free to respond and add other
pieces to the good game puzzle. And finally (real this time), nothing is impossible, it
just seems that way until someone achieves the impossible.
|
|
|
Reply to this item
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
BlueRaven
|
|
I agree with this article completely. I have been a gamer for many years now, on console, PC, TI, and others. I could care less about "killer graphics and sound." I just want a game that is fun and challenging and that has hours of gameplay. Good graphics do help, but why would you want a game that looks fanstasic but has little or no challenge or enjoyment. I believe we are going to enter a period now where we see more games being developed for TI calcs. Why? Well mainly because school is starting now in a lot of areas and many people will be buying calculators, mostly TI. I wouldn't say TI calculators don't have good graphics, because some of the games produced from them look like gameboy games (Mario86 for example). I just think more people should program bigger games that last longer rather than small games and forget about them to develop other games. I am learning z80 and 68K now (don't ask why I am learning them both at the same time :o)) After I get the feel for them, I most likely being work on a decent RPG for the 86 and 89 with some friends of mine.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 04:21 GMT
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Piloter
|
|
Heh. I agree several hundred percent. I play Unreal on my comp here, but I play (*GASP*) Nethack and Moria and Doom a lot more....why? Because they're small, they're entertaining, and I like 'em. As far as my humble request for a game, how about a conversion of something like Scorched Earth to the '85 or '92? Y'know, with tons of weapons, ability to buy more.....
probably '92, I mean, if Phoenix can have the weapons shop, it stands to reason a tank-like game could be ported over. Fun, small, and a great idea. Heck, how about somebody writing an ASM text-based RPG? Kinda a waste of the language, true, but it could be /very/ complex and not take up very much space....just some thoughts.
--Piloter
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 October 1998, 05:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Nihilist9
|
|
You talk about porting a scorched earth type game and maybe an ASM game that's text based. Remember Drug Wars(83)? what about making a graphical asm game whare you could fly on airplanes, where maybe you could actually deal on the plane and run into trouble there. The whole game would be over-head view. You could also run down alleys and streets, go into stores and buildings, ride in taxies, get into a police chases, rob banks, take hostages(kinda morbib, al'well), hijack buses and planes and cars, plant bombs and apply bombthreats, shoplift, get lots of weapons and drugs, barter, borrow money, escape from jail if you ever got caught, and accuulate a lot of money from sales, either beat someones high score or beat the game which would somehow work up to riot status and a state of marshall law. It would be an action packed game based on the old basic text-based one. Ooh-yeah and don't forget the ability to save exact placement in game. How's it sound?
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
23 January 1999, 18:26 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
David Phillips
|
|
I would have to disagree with your engine idea. First, making a game engine, especially a side scroller, takes alot of time. And I am talking from experience here.
Just changing the graphics and making new levels doesn't make a new game. Ever played a Doom or Quake mod, or even a total conversion? It's still Doom or Quake, but with different graphics.
Now, there is the case of using a base engine for a new game, as in Heretic or Hexen. But this requires much more programming as well. If you think it's hard enough to write an engine of your own, try to figure out someone else's code that isn't commented and add stuff to it. In most cases it would be better to write a new game yourself from scratch.
You were right on the mark with the teams approach , though. Almost anyone programming a game doesn't want to mess with making graphics or levels. They want to code the engine, then let someone else come up with the grapics, levels and other ideas.
My suggestion would be for ticalc.org to have a list of programmers, artists and level makers who would be available to team up to make a game. For example, say you are writting a side scroller and need someone to do the graphics and levels, you could check the list to see who would be available to help you out. This would be better than using the assembly lists to team up.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 04:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
garry hatch
|
|
i agree with your team idea, it would be WONDERFUL to have a little board like that that you could find a partner to work on a game with you, like a programmer, see, i cant prgramm worth **** but i can make amazing graphocs on the calcs, im an artist, and it would be cool to be able to make a game like that... just go through a list and pick a guy or 2 to help make the next cool game! or if the list gets big, get 15 guys together (10 programmers and some artists and stuff) and write a huge amazing game, thats almost mindblowing to find on a calc... i would love to see a 3d quake engine on my 89 (if i ever get it) i know it would be hard, but with say 4 programmers working on it, it would be much easier... i say ticalc should try it....
~Doomsday
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
1 September 1998, 05:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Article: What Makes a Good Game
|
dBucKy 
|
|
I think all these ideas are great, and about the teamwork thing. I could make a website where programmers, artists, etc., can create accounts and then partner up with other people who want to work on a project together. It would be organized by calc(83+,85,86,89,92,etc.) and by what type of game you would want to make. It might be slow to start off with, but if a lot of people start to sign up, this could really start something. If you think it is a good idea and want me to make the website just email me or post back here!!!!
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
11 May 2004, 01:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Quake mod make big changes...
|
|
David Phillips
|
|
I don't want to get too far off the topic of calculator games, but let me clear up this issue of quake mods.
First off, I agree that Quake mods do partially or completely change the type of game. But, they are still running using the Quake engine, and have all the limitations of Quake, plus more, because the Quake engine was not designed specifically for that type of game.
Quake was an amazing technical accomplishment. It had three ground-breaking aspects: great 3D-engine, TCP/IP server/client model, and QuakeC (or .DLL's, as in Quake II). The use of QuakeC to build mods as you are talking about is amazing, yet impossible on the calc.
To write a game with plug-in modules such as QuakeC would be like running a basic program in the middle of a game. The calc is too slow and small (memory-wise) to handle such a thing. The other option, plug-in asm modules, would be very difficult as well.
Writting an AI module for a game, for example, would be almost as difficult as writting the game engine itself. It also be error prone with a chance of crashing the calc. And, it would be slow, because to use modules, the game must be much more general-case.
I'm sure this isn't very clear, so feel free to email me for more info. This is all experience here. I've read through ALL of the Quake C source code, written several asm programs including a side scroller (not yet released), written several games for the PC and designed a scripting or programming language to be interpreted by a game, so I'm sure I left out a few details here.
It's not too hard to learn asm. If you choose not to learn it, then you are stuck making levels for other people's games--there is no easy way out, at least not on a 6-Mhz Z80 (or 10-Mhz M68000) calc.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 05:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
Harper Maddox
(Web Page)
|
|
I absolutely LOVE your idea of a page showing all the programmers, artists, etc. So games could be made easily. This would make it infinitely easier to get a game finished (you can tell i get bored easily, if you've seen the number of demos i have available) But If we have a page full of people (not arrogant enough to let someone else finish their game, or help speed up production) working together in a organized manner, then it will be amazing what we can accomplish. Whoever makes this page should include data about the programmer, artist, etc. in this manner: name, email, ICQ #, homepage, and then information about current projects, and past successes, listing what calc they were for, and linking to archived files. This would be an easy way to find the skill level of the programmer who you might want to work on a project with. Anyone interested should do something about it. I'd start a page myself if enough people are interested. In short, I think a Ti Programmer Database (TIPD) would be a great idea, and I would be a major supporter. Thanks,
-harper maddox
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 17:20 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|
