Differences between Homebrew and Comercial Game Developers?

[+Random Terrain]

In the case of 2600 games, randomization is an easy way to give decent bang for one's buck, but it's not the only way. I doubt that many people who bought Castlevania felt cheated by having purchased an extremely linear game, because everything in the game worked together well to reinforce the gameplay mechanics and the challenge they presented. You'd probably have more of those kinds of games on the 2600 if not for the ROM size limitations. Some of the most-beloved games of all time, such as the Mario series, thrive on linearity, yet people still go back to play them because the experience doesn't get old because it's so superbly-crafted.

 

Those 'games' aren't really games. They are Static Action Puzzles. They are great for people who like to do the same puzzle over and over again. I'm not interested in having another 5,000 page discussion about why I think video games should be even better and more replayable than board games and Choose Your Own Adventure books.

 

There is a good chance that I have a reply to just about anything anyone has to say on the subject here:

 

www.randomterrain.com/game-design.html#controlled_randomness_and_freedom

[Cybearg]

Those 'games' aren't really games.

If it's interactive and it has actions that the player performs, it's a game. Different kinds of games have different mechanics and types of challenges. Some game challenge relies on memory, some reflexes, some strategic thinking, but they're all games.

 

Claiming that games must focus on randomization cuts you to a very narrow selection of possible game experiences that don't even begin to explore the full range of emotional and storytelling possibilities that arise from games that revolve around meticulous planning rather than randomization engines.

 

Some examples of classic 2600 games that don't rely on randomization:

 

Breakout

Super Breakout

Pacman

Pitfall

Space Invaders

Warlords

 

Personally, the most fun I've had with a 2600 game has been with Super Breakout, even though the playfield is exactly the same each time.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Cybearg

[raindog]

Yeah, this is pretty clearly one of those "different people's brains are different" debates, which is why I left it alone after my response.

 

I understand campaigning for something that seems blindingly obvious to me but makes no sense to 90% of the world. I do it all the time. When I play games, the kind that are designed to be played for more than 5 minutes at a clip, I want blue skies, little to no violence, a compelling story, a relaxed pace that allows me to explore a world I can get to know and revisit at my leisure, and puzzles that are hard enough to make me want to look up hints on forums -- which can exist only because the same puzzles are in the same places in everyone's game. I strongly dislike brown and gray, head shots, blood spatter, "press X to not die", twitch timing, and randomization to keep me on my toes. I don't want to game on my toes. I want to game on my ass. I don't want to pretend I'm somewhere that's uglier than my living room. I want paradise. I don't want to engage enemies or find cover. I want to be transported to another fully realized place that I can go back to again and again. I don't want the game to be different when I go back any more than I want the cabin we rent up the road from Funspot to be different when we go back, or the place we stay on the cape.

 

(If you've played even the demo, you can see why Fez is my favorite game of this generation, if not all time. It does have a random component, by the way. Black holes randomly appear when you go into some levels. They irritate me. I keep exiting and re-entering until they go away, even reloading if I have to.)

 

And everything about what I like in games is a rarity now, except for everyone sharing a common experience and hints on forums.

 

For the casual games I play standing in a queue, my definition of which includes pretty much all console and arcade games before the release of the first Zelda, I like bright colors on a dark background, extremely tight and responsive controls, and patterns I can memorize because my reflexes aren't good enough for Rip-Off or Super Hexagon. Sadly, I'm not 13 anymore, though on the plus side, I do have Maker's Mark, leather bars and some disposable income now.

[+Random Terrain]

OK, one more reply, but that's it.

 

 

If it's interactive and it has actions that the player performs, it's a game. Different kinds of games have different mechanics and types of challenges. Some game challenge relies on memory, some reflexes, some strategic thinking, but they're all games.

 

An interactive movie where you have very little input is not a game. And have you ever played a modern 'game' that has a ton of cutscenes that you can't skip and the parts between the cutscenes that are supposed to be the game hardly give you anything to do? That's also not a game.

 

 

 

 

Claiming that games must focus on randomization cuts you to a very narrow selection of possible game experiences that don't even begin to explore the full range of emotional and storytelling possibilities that arise from games that revolve around meticulous planning rather than randomization engines.

 

In the couple of decades before video games became hugely popular, it seemed like most people played card games or board games and a lot of those board games used dice (and some used cards too, like Monopoly). It was hard to find a game that didn't include randomness of some kind.

 

You seem to be making the same mistake that many others have made. Using controlled randomness doesn't remove meticulous planning. Did you look at this section:

 

www.randomterrain.com/game-design.html#controlled_randomness_and_freedom

 

If you did, you would have seen the part about Murder on the Zinderneuf. Modern games could go beyond what they did, but they usually don't even come close.

 

 

 

 

Some examples of classic 2600 games that don't rely on randomization:

 

Breakout

Super Breakout

Pacman

Pitfall

Space Invaders

Warlords

 

Personally, the most fun I've had with a 2600 game has been with Super Breakout, even though the playfield is exactly the same each time.

 

You can't count on the ball bouncing exactly the same way every time when you play Breakout, Super Breakout, and Warlords. They seem to be similar to pinball (a combination of luck and skill). You can't count on the ghosts in Atari 2600 Pac-Man to do the same thing every time. The Space Invaders might march the same way every time, but their shots don't always come from the same aliens. Restart the game over and over without moving and you'll see shots coming down from different locations.

 

I already have a section about Pitfall on my web site, so no need to go into it here. You could list every popular classic Atari 2600 game that seems to be devoid of randomness, but it would be a waste of time. I was disappointed in them back when they were new. The fact that they were popular is meaningless.

 

 

Related quotes:

 

If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

~Anatole France

 

Duration is not a test of truth or falsehood.

~Anne Morrow Lindbergh

 

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

~Abraham Lincoln

[Cybearg]

You can't count on the ball bouncing exactly the same way every time when you play Breakout, Super Breakout, and Warlords.

 

If this kind of thing counts as randomness, then I'd be hard-pressed to name a game that doesn't involve randomness. Aliens in Halo may always be in the same place, but they're not always going to dodge the exact same direction. You can't memorize the movements and then play the game with your eyes shut and hope to hit anything. Same goes for the most cookie-cutter, bland triple-A game you care to name.

 

The exception being games that rely on precise repetition, such as Super Meat Boy, and I would never call that a non-game.

 

The kinds of things you complain don't exist in games--freedom, replayability, organized randomness--are in almost every new game out there. It sounds like you have beef against a problem that doesn't exist.

 

If anything, I'd argue that many games are becoming TOO open and free. I have trouble playing games like Skyrim because I grow bored of the fact that I'm not given distinct goals or a strong motivation to accomplish anything, so I wander around for a while, then grow tired of it and quit.

 

If you walk into your local GameStop and grab a game off the shelf, I guarantee you that it will at least involve some form of "controlled randomness."

 

I agree with raindog--Fez is a great game. Another one I've played recently where everything is essentially "the same" is Hotline Miami. I have not had such a pulse-pounding good time with a game since I can remember. If the game didn't have the carefully-designed levels it did, it would be a sloppy mess. The fact that everything is placed and timed with precision is what makes the game click so well.

 

Another good example of a game I had a great time with was Rayman: Origins. I absolutely loved the quick pace, beautiful art, and twisted personality of that game, but, like Super Meat Boy, everything had to be placed with precision. Once you learned the method to accomplish something, you could keep doing it as long as you hit the buttons right, but it's still a superb game and one that I would enjoy going back to play in spite of it not having any randomized changes between playthroughs. In fact, a great deal of the satisfaction is with knowing things well enough that you can work through a level without dying. If things were randomized, deaths likely couldn't be avoided even by the most experienced players.

 

Games like Bit.Trip Runner thrive on memorization and repetition. While that game takes it to an excessive degree for me, I can see the appeal.

 

It sounds like you mostly doesn't like games along the lines of Heavy Rain or Indego Prophesy, which truly ARE interactive movies, though even they have replayability--you may want to go back and see what a different choice would have resulted in. Ditto for Mass Effect. Truly non-replayable movie-games died out with the FMV gaming craze of the 90s.

 

There are some games where excessive randomization would hurt it. One of the articles you mention in your link suggests that RPGs should have random quest generators. This kind of thinking is applicable to old, retro-style games, but not modern games. There is too much complexity in random games for random dungeon generators to yield anything but a bland experience. I don't know if you've played Minecraft, but you can random dungeon-delve there to your heart's content. I would take the poignant dungeons of a game like Baldur's Gate over that bland wandering through endless holes in a split second.

 

I don't know if you consider Dear Esther to be a positive example of randomization in games, but personally I didn't at all care for the randomized story that strove to convoluted any understanding of what was being discussed, and, in my opinion, the fact that the story was randomized robbed it of any substance. It's like trying to find genius in a poetry generator that randomly links together deep-sounding phrases. I'll stick to my Robert Frost, thanks.

 

I'm not asking you to change the kind of games he likes or anything, but rather just to recognize that there is more than one valid way to make a game engaging.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Cybearg

[+Atarius Maximus]

Tonight. Which is great because I didn't get proper sleep and as a bonus managed to rake my neck with an electric shaver. Good times.

Are you back from dinner yet?

[+Gemintronic]

Are you back from dinner yet?

 

I was never quite there in the first place

 

Turns out it was mostly DoD work - not even games. Real life Tank Combat doesn't interest me. I had more fun talking with a retired Electrical Engineer at the table discussing magnetic drums and working on the PDP-8. Good times.

 

Besides the good advice I enjoyed Cybearg pestering R.T. (unintentionally and with the best of intentions). While our opinions can diverge at times getting a healthy discussion going enriches us all as game makers.

[+Atarius Maximus]

I was never quite there in the first place

 

Turns out it was mostly DoD work - not even games. Real life Tank Combat doesn't interest me. I had more fun talking with a retired Electrical Engineer at the table discussing magnetic drums and working on the PDP-8. Good times.

 

Besides the good advice I enjoyed Cybearg pestering R.T. (unintentionally and with the best of intentions). While our opinions can diverge at times getting a healthy discussion going enriches us all as game makers.

Glad it turned out ok, even it it wasn't what you were expecting. I enjoyed reading RT and Cybearg's debates in this thread as well. With that said, I think I'll stay out of it.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

By RT's definition, Boulder Dash is not a game.

 

No comment.

[+Gemintronic]

By RT's definition, Boulder Dash is not a game.

 

No comment.

 

I think he might have been overstating the point. It IS a game in the same way a puzzle is a game. However, Atari games should be games in the sense of Chess. There are infinite possibilities and unexpected consequences. Post Atari games are static, linear and devoid of lasting enjoyment.

 

The only thing wrong with Boulderdash in R.T.s terms is that someday I'll get tired of each level. Nothing new will surprise me. Games with relatively static solutions eventually become unplayable.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I think he might have been overstating the point. It IS a game in the same way a puzzle is a game. However, Atari games should be games in the sense of Chess. There are infinite possibilities and unexpected consequences.

In theory, yes. Practically only a limited number of strategies make sense. So any non-completely random game becomes very limited in randomness soon.

 

Chess is a good example. If you really want to master it, you have to memorize a very limited number of pattern for the start and end game. The middle-game is more free, but usually still within certain bounds due to the pattern of the other parts.

 

The only thing wrong with Boulderdash in R.T.s terms is that someday I'll get tired of each level. Nothing new will surprise me.

True. The same is true for random games. The randomness has to be controlled to make sense. Therefore effectively only a very limited number of the theoretically combinations is really used. The human brain soon realizes any patterns behind the controlled randomness and adopts to it.

 

So there is not much difference between a game that offers a big number of well designed and play tested levels/maps etc.and a game that generates those levels on the fly. Except that the generation usually saves space (that's one reason why it was used so much for Atari 2600 games) but is less predictable in the result. Therefore the parameters have to be limited a lot by the developer to avoid unplayable results. In the end, a manually done design offers more flexibility and variations than a generated one, because the designer can explore weird, risky combinations which wouldn't work when generated randomly.

[jdrose]

Game design. Someone could probably design on Masters course on that subject.

 

My personal favorite games are Galaga and Phoenix. Not sure what that says about me, pretty simple fellow I guess.

 

For some reason I find Shootin' Gallery (Imagic) and the Midnight Magic pinball games satisfying to play. Simple and straightforward. They keep you engaged without being too complicated. My brain seems to groove on those kinds of games. Playability and game mechanics are an important reason they are fun. You are not fighting to play the game. It just happens.

Edited March 23, 2013 by jdrose