Depends on who you want to pander to. Casual games aren't objectively worse games.
I'd say no matter who you pander to, good game design is being able to find the the spot where the game is most rewarding on a spectrum with frustrating on one end and nonengaging on the other
Bad design: dark souls 2 >Enemies are expected to despawn after 12 kills so they thought it would be smart to create small rooms where 9 soldiers would aggro when you walked in. >Attaching iframe rolling to a stat so if you don't level it your hitbox is the size of a smart car which is where those complaints of broken hitboxes came from >Mimic chests look exactly like regular chests but with very small teeth you cannot actually see, and they instant kill you no matter what level you are. If you attack them in the front they will still do their instant kill move. >Levels where you constantly get trapped in narrow hallways and 5 enemies you didn't see get aggroed from a hidden room and gank your shit >The black Smith that attunes weapons can easily be missed
Good design: dark souls 1 >Every trap and enemy is ways visible before you trigger them >Mimic chests breath which is a better visual cue. Attacking them .Ames them stand up so you only get 2 free shots and then it's a fair fight. >No blacksmith can be missed
Dark Souls expects you to play intelligently and be observant of your surroundings
Dark Souls 2 is just a really long Jackass skit, you can practically hear the devs snickering behind the camera as you cautiously enter a room only to have some completely unknowable ambush burst out of walls/the ground
Fricking this. Dark souls 1 was the first game I ever played where ever encounter felt like a lot of thought was put in to make you consider all your options and plan ahead.
And ds2 just shitted all over it. Enemy placement is MMO tier. That lava castle is probably the worst one in the entire game. You aggro 1 knight and you have to spend the next few minutes fighting 8 or so knights in the entire area that run towards you from fricking ridiculous distances. There's nothing smart about it, it's just trying to be "difficult" by swarming you.
Bad game design >Kill a much higher level enemy than you in an RPG >Dont get an item from that enemy beacuse game is fricking gay and doesnt want you to destroy its 'carefully craftedintended progression system'
Good game design >Kill some homosexual in an end game gear >Game lets you use it without being a homosexual about it
Somewhat related but I fricking hated how Bravely Default 2's weight system made it so that the hard earned strong loot you get from fighting red glowing overworld bosses is unusable when you first get it. Super gay.
>Making the game easier if the player plays poorly. Makes it possible to game the system and players will play bad on purpose because it's the optimal solution. Example: any adaptive difficulty shit >Adding a mechanic and then absolutely fricking it in the ass with another mechanic. Example: level scaling >Haphazard "progression" systems that add unintended disadvantages. Example: water-element spell that is strong against fire enemies gets "upgraded" with an added fire effect that heals them
Bad game design: Cheap difficulty, overreliance on cheese mechanics, lack of good and proper level design, poorly thought combat mechanics, bad hitboxes, uninteresting quest systems
To name a few
Good game design: Entertaining combat, well crafted quest systems, good leveling mechanics (no grinding, that's dogshit game design), good hitboxes, deep customization on your system, good level design.
Bad design
Thinking that adding more items, gadgets and tricks makes your game complex. When really it just takes away the challenge and complexity that the beginning had. Games like asscreed throw you 80 different get out of jail cards so you'll literally never die.
When your end game is easier and more simple than the beginning you fricked up. Having less can be more.
Death stranding in the beginning is an excellent game. Your options are limited and enemies pose a series challenge. You focus on using the environment to escape, hide or fight.
By the end game you have overpowered vehicles, exoskeletons that remove all weight or terrain challenge, weapons that go against the game design itself.
And worst of all, ziplines. Literally ruined the entire fricking game. It's supposed to be a hiking sim, and they just added something that removes all the hiking from the game. What the frick were they thinking
Does the game respect your time?
If the game has good pacing between narrative and gameplay, and doesn't feel like a grind to progress, it's probably good game design. If you get frustrated from road blocks, like narrative sections taking you out of the gameplay for too long, feeling like you have to repeat content too much, or simply aren't enjoying the intended gameplay loop, it's probably bad game design.
Other factors like character design, a good story, replayability, etc., are all secondary factors.
I'm just here for Carla, the greatest elven healer of all time, and also an extremely cute and pleasant treasure of the universe. Not everyone can appreciate her charms. You have to be cultured.
>the greatest elven healer of all time
b***h she's not even a healer, she acts and casts like a goddamn warlock and only casts 2 actual healing spells in the entire season - during the two non-canon anime original episodes.
If a big burly dude breaks into your house and rapes you every time you boot up the game thats bad game design
Good game design = Karla sex
She's like 14 you pedo
That's a compliment.
that doesnt even make sense, shes an elf, so she would be at least 50 or more in human years.
plus elves are not real.
What even is a game
Nah
Futa is the gayest fricking shit.
Kys troon
Kys obsession schizo-kun
You the gay one.
This. Frick homosexuals putting dicks on otherwise hot women.
It’s simple
Cute girls = good game
Ugly women = bad game
Good game design: Mega Man X
Bad game design: Mega Man X3
if i like it, it's good. if you like it, it's bad
Depends on who you want to pander to. Casual games aren't objectively worse games.
I'd say no matter who you pander to, good game design is being able to find the the spot where the game is most rewarding on a spectrum with frustrating on one end and nonengaging on the other
Good game design = stuff I like
Bad game design = stuff others like
Bad design: dark souls 2
>Enemies are expected to despawn after 12 kills so they thought it would be smart to create small rooms where 9 soldiers would aggro when you walked in.
>Attaching iframe rolling to a stat so if you don't level it your hitbox is the size of a smart car which is where those complaints of broken hitboxes came from
>Mimic chests look exactly like regular chests but with very small teeth you cannot actually see, and they instant kill you no matter what level you are. If you attack them in the front they will still do their instant kill move.
>Levels where you constantly get trapped in narrow hallways and 5 enemies you didn't see get aggroed from a hidden room and gank your shit
>The black Smith that attunes weapons can easily be missed
Good design: dark souls 1
>Every trap and enemy is ways visible before you trigger them
>Mimic chests breath which is a better visual cue. Attacking them .Ames them stand up so you only get 2 free shots and then it's a fair fight.
>No blacksmith can be missed
Don't forget that you can break chests in Dark Souls 2 destroying their contents thus disincentivizing you from using attacks to check for mimics
Dark Souls expects you to play intelligently and be observant of your surroundings
Dark Souls 2 is just a really long Jackass skit, you can practically hear the devs snickering behind the camera as you cautiously enter a room only to have some completely unknowable ambush burst out of walls/the ground
Fricking this. Dark souls 1 was the first game I ever played where ever encounter felt like a lot of thought was put in to make you consider all your options and plan ahead.
And ds2 just shitted all over it. Enemy placement is MMO tier. That lava castle is probably the worst one in the entire game. You aggro 1 knight and you have to spend the next few minutes fighting 8 or so knights in the entire area that run towards you from fricking ridiculous distances. There's nothing smart about it, it's just trying to be "difficult" by swarming you.
>mad 'cuz bad
Good game design = Fun
Bad game design = Not fun
what is fun?
Good game design
F IS FOR FRIENDS WHO DO STUFF TOGETHER
Ludonarrative dissonance.
Bad game design
>Kill a much higher level enemy than you in an RPG
>Dont get an item from that enemy beacuse game is fricking gay and doesnt want you to destroy its 'carefully craftedintended progression system'
Good game design
>Kill some homosexual in an end game gear
>Game lets you use it without being a homosexual about it
Somewhat related but I fricking hated how Bravely Default 2's weight system made it so that the hard earned strong loot you get from fighting red glowing overworld bosses is unusable when you first get it. Super gay.
If I like it then it was good game design
If I dislike it then it was bad game design.
I don't know what I like or dislike
I know what I like.
I want to touch her ears
>Making the game easier if the player plays poorly. Makes it possible to game the system and players will play bad on purpose because it's the optimal solution. Example: any adaptive difficulty shit
>Adding a mechanic and then absolutely fricking it in the ass with another mechanic. Example: level scaling
>Haphazard "progression" systems that add unintended disadvantages. Example: water-element spell that is strong against fire enemies gets "upgraded" with an added fire effect that heals them
Good design = I like it
Bad design = I don't like it
I want to lick her ears
>Good game design
>It's fun
>Shit game design
>It's not fun
Bad game design: Cheap difficulty, overreliance on cheese mechanics, lack of good and proper level design, poorly thought combat mechanics, bad hitboxes, uninteresting quest systems
To name a few
Good game design: Entertaining combat, well crafted quest systems, good leveling mechanics (no grinding, that's dogshit game design), good hitboxes, deep customization on your system, good level design.
Bad design
Thinking that adding more items, gadgets and tricks makes your game complex. When really it just takes away the challenge and complexity that the beginning had. Games like asscreed throw you 80 different get out of jail cards so you'll literally never die.
When your end game is easier and more simple than the beginning you fricked up. Having less can be more.
Death stranding in the beginning is an excellent game. Your options are limited and enemies pose a series challenge. You focus on using the environment to escape, hide or fight.
By the end game you have overpowered vehicles, exoskeletons that remove all weight or terrain challenge, weapons that go against the game design itself.
And worst of all, ziplines. Literally ruined the entire fricking game. It's supposed to be a hiking sim, and they just added something that removes all the hiking from the game. What the frick were they thinking
bad game design = i don't like
good game design = i like
also karla is for correctional anal
Bad game design = you
Good game design = me
Does the game respect your time?
If the game has good pacing between narrative and gameplay, and doesn't feel like a grind to progress, it's probably good game design. If you get frustrated from road blocks, like narrative sections taking you out of the gameplay for too long, feeling like you have to repeat content too much, or simply aren't enjoying the intended gameplay loop, it's probably bad game design.
Other factors like character design, a good story, replayability, etc., are all secondary factors.
good design problems
bad design puzzles
Bad design: Having black characters
Good design: Having a white male protagonist
I'm just here for Carla, the greatest elven healer of all time, and also an extremely cute and pleasant treasure of the universe. Not everyone can appreciate her charms. You have to be cultured.
Are you kidding me? She is one of the worst healers of all time and has a notable lack of grace in how she handles problems that arise.
Sounds like you got filtered by her greatness.
>the greatest elven healer of all time
b***h she's not even a healer, she acts and casts like a goddamn warlock and only casts 2 actual healing spells in the entire season - during the two non-canon anime original episodes.
>What even is good/bad ga-ACK!
what fotm is this
down bad for my healer
How I met your mother
Clearly not fotm if you need to ask this question.
good is everything i like
bad is what i don't like
Good:
Attractive elf in my party.
Bad:
Ugly mutt "elf" in my party.