Here I am for a belated part two. I apologize for taking so long but I hope it will be worth the wait. I mentioned that one issue that comes up in the role system is simply that the roles themselves can get in the way and screw things up trying to keep everything balanced. This area is a bit more subjective but can do a lot to impact fun as well as being common in video games as well as tabletop games. In essence it's a matter of things feeling overly similar, or 'samey'. IE two classes that are supposed to be different and distinct end up feeling identical in results and play.
In tabletop games I would argue this is somewhat easier to notice than it is in video games, the main reason I say this is that a video game can mask similar mechanics with graphics and thematic things that a tabletop game has to do a lot more work to conjure. Now things feeling samey is somewhat subject to interpretation and it can come from a lot of different things and have different levels of annoyance or frustration for the person working on things. Some matter more and some matter less, and I will try to address them quickly.
One area is when different classes in the same role start to feel samey, this could be due to similar mechanics or just because build information and damage output end up near identical. This can be frustrating in some regards but it isn't necessarily a major issue. In video games the mechanics, graphics, etc. can be utilized to make the differing classes seem more dissimilar while their overall output is about identical. In a tabletop game this is somewhat more obvious but it can be fairly manageable so long as the gameplay elements keep the classes feeling distinct or at least different enough so that the player doesn't wonder why there are two classes if they functionally do the same thing and are identical in most regards.
Another area has to do with different aspects of the same class, IE if there are different build options but both end up being about the same. On the one hand this can be somewhat expected, but when literally everything seems to be identical a problem crops up, the variant options seem superfluous when the end result is the same. It can make the player feel like their choice meant nothing and it can also feel like the book or supplement that the new option was put in was ultimately a waste. The way this can happen is if power choices, augmentation options etc. end up with a character functionally identical mechanically to the build of another type.
The basic problem is this, if classes feel samey, or if allegedly different options for the same class feel samey, it means that the designers screwed up. Part of the fun in a game that offers customization is making a character that feels unique, that is YOUR character, when the ability to do that is compromised the game suffers a bit. It gets worse when this sort of thing ends up being a means to nip system mastery in the bud, essentially making any abilities that improve hitting, defenses, etc. as a necessary and assumed thing, thus ensuring that there will be little to no ability to make your character 'better' than anyone else. The reason I link this as a problem the role system faces or at least tends to conjure more is that roles by nature have limits and locks on them, a healer should not be doing more damage than a straight damage dealer for example and this can lead to overreaction by designers and a fear that any customization could break the roles set up.
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
What makes a good game
A question that can come up relatively often is what makes a good game? What makes a game better or more interesting? Why do we choose some games over others? The most obvious answer is how fun a game is but fun has the problem of being somewhat subjective as well as being rather difficult to quantify, so my focus is going to be more on aspects of fun, IE what makes different games fun/not fun.
One basic part on the idea of fun might be participation, IE being able to be and stay involved in the game. This is why I've met some people who hate monopoly because it is very easy to be eliminated from the game and the game itself can take hours (or that lovely record setting months). It does get a bit hard to enjoy a game when you can get knocked out of it and be forced to watch everyone else. This is dull, not to mention frustrating, in fact this is probably where a lot of relatively well known variant and house rules come from to help keep people in the game longer. RPGs have similar elements, most players hate being hit by things that remove them from combat or enemies that they are unable to affect.
Another area could be random chance vs. stability. IE how much random chance (dice rolling, drawing cards, position in turn order) affects the game versus relatively stable rules that affect everyone more or less equally. A game that is perfectly stable gets dull, everyone moves X squares, etc. it can feel incredibly dull. One example I see people use is Risk, almost anyone that has played it normally wants to start in australia because that lets you constantly build up large numbers of troops. While there is the element of dice rolls in risk there is still the problem that no matter what some areas are just hands down better regardless of chance. However, go too far on the side of random chance and you can develop issues of your own. Random dice rolls/card draws/RNG decisions start making any hope of strategy or planning moot. One example there might be the Handheld RPG game Lunar Dragon which didn't even let you target enemies, you hit attack and your characters bounced randomy attacking different targets, focus fire and strategic assaults were out.
The last big area I can see is in the idea of games playing to strengths. People enjoy showing off talents that they have. Those with an encyclopedic knowledge of various subjects are likely to enjoy trivial pursuit for example. Those who are good at persuasion are likely to enjoy games like Malarkey. That being said I kind of want to know what my readers, if I have any, think. If you feel that there are other elements of what make a good game or make a game fun, feel free to reply.
One basic part on the idea of fun might be participation, IE being able to be and stay involved in the game. This is why I've met some people who hate monopoly because it is very easy to be eliminated from the game and the game itself can take hours (or that lovely record setting months). It does get a bit hard to enjoy a game when you can get knocked out of it and be forced to watch everyone else. This is dull, not to mention frustrating, in fact this is probably where a lot of relatively well known variant and house rules come from to help keep people in the game longer. RPGs have similar elements, most players hate being hit by things that remove them from combat or enemies that they are unable to affect.
Another area could be random chance vs. stability. IE how much random chance (dice rolling, drawing cards, position in turn order) affects the game versus relatively stable rules that affect everyone more or less equally. A game that is perfectly stable gets dull, everyone moves X squares, etc. it can feel incredibly dull. One example I see people use is Risk, almost anyone that has played it normally wants to start in australia because that lets you constantly build up large numbers of troops. While there is the element of dice rolls in risk there is still the problem that no matter what some areas are just hands down better regardless of chance. However, go too far on the side of random chance and you can develop issues of your own. Random dice rolls/card draws/RNG decisions start making any hope of strategy or planning moot. One example there might be the Handheld RPG game Lunar Dragon which didn't even let you target enemies, you hit attack and your characters bounced randomy attacking different targets, focus fire and strategic assaults were out.
The last big area I can see is in the idea of games playing to strengths. People enjoy showing off talents that they have. Those with an encyclopedic knowledge of various subjects are likely to enjoy trivial pursuit for example. Those who are good at persuasion are likely to enjoy games like Malarkey. That being said I kind of want to know what my readers, if I have any, think. If you feel that there are other elements of what make a good game or make a game fun, feel free to reply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
