Can you give some examples of what you consider to be good game design compared with some things you’d consider to be bad game design?
What does good game design mean to you?
Can you give some examples of what you consider to be good game design compared with some things you’d consider to be bad game design?
If you have fun, it's good.
>good game design
a fun gameplay loop and concise level design that adds replayability
>bad game design
anything but what I said
A good game as a general rule should always give you the possibility of intuiting an instadeath with a clear head and the right mindset. It is very deflating when you realize a game is just going to kill you and reloads are baked in(unless the game specifically is making trial and error groundhog day play a feature)
Me? I like a lot of quirky characters with zany dialogue.
>object
>not 'objective'
I hate flawed memes that become popular.
it must validate my political views and/or gunt
It's a very broad term but generally speaking good game design will feel like the developer was very purposeful in how they crafted the game. The elements of a game will click and everything makes sense. Bad game design is where a game has a very obvious shortcoming that could have easily been fixed and wasn't simply a result of technical constraints or whatnot.
People bring Super Mario Bros' 1-1 as an example all the time because the very first screen was very deliberately designed. It's guiding the player to do things without feeling like they're being forced to. A lot of game design involves player psychology.
but how were you supposed to know you had to jump on the goomba
The game never tells you to jomp though, so this comic is inaccurate.
The manual tells you the one of the two buttons that you press is to jump though.
How were you supposed to know the game came with a manual?
By reading the instruction booklet.
A NES controller only had two face buttons, so it was reasonably certain that the player would figure out how to jump pretty much immediately by trying both buttons.
Also as the other anon said there were manuals back then.
Take two RPGs with the exact same combat, but one you need to do 100 fights to level up and the level up is random based on what you used the most, while the other RPG the exp you get is escalated by your enemy level and yours and you decide where you'll allocate the points
They have the same combat but the design is completely different and changes how you interact with it
does the intended audience of the game find the game fun
Mass Effect 3 was sure loved by its audience.
I thought the problem people had with that game was more boiled down to how they handled the endings. I would call that more a problem with the writing than of the game design
Having respect for the player's time is such a simple thing and still most devs can't manage it. I would say something about respecting the player's intelligence too but tbh most gamers are as dumb as a bag of bricks.
>most gamers are as dumb as a bag of bricks
thats because most of them these days are brown or russian
most brain rotten morons I've met online are michigan bred white fat fricks though
Just remember that NOA had to include a sealed map and spoilers because Americans couldn't figure Zelda out without being handheld. They then followed up with what was essentially a guide in Nintendo Power. Fun in the west is having 0 challenge. No wonder movie games are so successful.
keep at it anon, im sure if you keep defending japan they will invite you to come live there and give you a harem. must suck being brown, though.
Sucks for the harem, too.
For which game? NES Zelda has a partial map in the manual for the Japanese version. Are you saying it has a full map in the English version?
>examples
In Super Mario 64 there is a literal cameraman following Mario around, visible in the first scene of the game, so rather than telling players they have to control the abstract concept of "the camera" with the C-buttons, they can tell players to essentially move Lakitu. People understand "rotate the camera" as a given in the modern day, but back then very few people had played a 3D game, and no one had played one with camera controls so it was important to relate this brand new concept to an existing concept that people could easily understand. By having players imagine the physical camera Lakitu is holding behind Mario, the new concept was made very intuitive.
>the camera in mario 64
>intuitive
i love the game but it easily has one of the worst cameras i've ever seen
Here's an idea I had years ago.
>A puzzle requires you to use apples to hit something out of a taller tree
>The apple in question will spawn every time it's destroyed or claimed as an item
>The apple can also be eaten for health
>In a particular situation, the player can eat the apple to heal themselves indefinitely though inventory space is limited so you can't just take 999 apples
Basically anything that allows for multiple scenarios.
And you've remembered that idea...all this time.
Yes. That is what the memory is capable of doing. I remember the exact day I got my first job and what I wore that same day. This was thirteen years ago.
The fact that you remembered that...is more impressive than the idea itself.
I think a lot, it's just what I do. Call it autistic but it is what it is.
>good game design
Responsive controls, input over animation, fun mobility, fun gameplay example Just Cause 2-3-4
>bad game design
Sluggish controls, animation over input, shit mobility, shit gameplay example RDR2