|
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"
|
|
me
|
|
If you want gameboy games, the best thing to do would be to download emulators and roms, and then look at the source. The size of the roms would however, make them hard to port to any calc but the 86, 89, 92, and 92+ though...
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 02:49 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Justin Yorke
|
|
Yes, all of these things are very important (esp. replay, because I have the only link among TI-82 users in my school, so everyone else has to keep their games for as long as I do) You have to be able to play it again and again. Ztetris, Columns, and Diamonds are good examples. Also important is 2 Player mode! It is so great that I can fire up Ztetris on my 82 and play against my friends on their 83s/85s/86s!!! I would like any comments on this idea. Thanx for reading!
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 04:18 GMT
|
|
|
New calculater?
|
|
Dave
|
|
I'm thinking of getting a TI-86... but I don't know if it's worth $120... I have a TI-83 now, but I would like some of the extra features that are on the ti-86... not to mention the extra memory ;)
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 06:00 GMT
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Re: New calculater?
|
|
david
|
|
The 86 is an extrememly good calculator. Plenty of memory, a high contast screen, and a multitude of games make this one of the best caclulators that TI make. I know, I have one. (as well as an 83) However, the 89 is a lot faster, has a higher resolution screen and about twice as much memory available to the user. In other words, on hell of gaming platform. Also, it excels in math as well, with 3d grapghing and such. It is a bit tough to use though. If you are upgrading from an 83, I am sure you have gotten familiar with the 83's menues. Well, with the 86, you can forget them. Until you get used to programing, it is very slow and tedious. If I could go back in time, and assuming the 89 existed then, I would have gotten an 89 instead of an 86. Only because of the andvanced features, and the ti-92 like interface. But, hey, your choice. Although, I might as well mention, if you get an 89, chances are you'll never have to buy another calc for anything.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
8 October 1998, 04:26 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Cameron McCormack
|
|
I think you've got a good idea there. I, with a friend of mine, have been trying to make a 3D engine for the last few days or so on the TI-82. I've started it on the PC, and it's reasonable (for a simple line art program anyway). But you have to understand that this engine runs reasonably on my P120 written in Turbo Pascal. For any program to be worthwhile on the calculator it would have to be damned fast. Just the trigonometric calculations which are required to create the illusion of three dimensions take a long time, especially on your average 6 MHz Z80.
Still, I'm pressing forward regardless to see what can happen. If a 3D engine is viable, it would be a great idea to keep it as an engine for everyone to use.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 06:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Christopher Kalos
|
|
Trig tables help. but a floating point operation (flop) is still a flop. Of course, some really tight assembly COULD handle wireframes with backface culling, but that's about it. use sprites for the weapons and so on to save space, and still, BSP's will cause a lot of problems to use in a homemade engine. But go for it, it can help. And limit the trig table a bit. SAve memory, lose a bit of accuracy, and keep speed. It's doable, but tough. I've done it so that I have polyhedra bouncing about on a 286, but that's still beter than a z80.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 September 1998, 05:37 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Cody Zimmerman
|
|
I think the key to a good game is Wong's equation plus Replay Value but also I think a game with mixed genres would be excellent. Like 007 in BASIC for the 83. You started out driving then you were at a shooting gallery killing thugs then you were at third person perspective trying to kill 006. It was great (though slow and the graphics sucked) because you did multiple game genres in one game! I have an idea for an assembly game but don't assembly based on what I just said. If anyone is interested in programming this game e-mail me (CZ8486@aol.com) and I'll give you my ideas for the game and an overview on levels and stuff. And you can give me ideas on how to change or improve the game to make it better.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 15:03 GMT
|
|
|
Re: Article: "What Makes a Good Game"
|
|
Cody Zimmerman
|
|
Oops!! I mean:
I think the key to a good game is Wong's equation plus Replay Value but also I think a game with mixed genres would be excellent. Like 007 in BASIC for the 83. You started out driving then you were at a shooting gallery killing thugs then you were at third person perspective trying to kill 006. It was great (though slow and the graphics sucked) because you did multiple game genres in one game! I have an idea for an assembly game (but I don't know assembly) based on what I just said. If anyone is interested in programming this game e-mail me (CZ8486@aol.com) and I'll give you my ideas for the game and an overview on levels and stuff. And you can give me ideas on how to change or improve the game to make it better.
|
|
Reply to this comment
|
2 September 1998, 15:04 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|
