DOS Games Discussion

[KAN]

An interesting article, along with examples of excellent (old) games and why modern game publishers won't bother to make such games.

However, this thread is not about "zomg nuu gamez suckz" or "old games rule!". Instead, I hope this could be something positive: ideas to make good games. Who knows, some idealistic developers would someday stumble into this thread and make good games like those of the old times.

As for myself, I'm not a game-designing guru. I'm just an old game lover who try to learn what makes Sword of Samurai addicting and Doom 3 repetitive and boring. Nonetheless, this is what I think would make a good game:

(1) The game should have multiple layers (or at least two "main" layers) where the layers dynamically interact with each other; ie, what happens in a layer should dynamically affect other layers.


(2) The top layer is strategic level, when you call the shots, make decision, allocate resources, etc to reach "the ultimate goal". Also, there should be many ways to reach the "ultimate goal". For instance, in Civilization, military conquest or territory size are not the only parameters that define your success.


(3) The bottom layer is the "action game" part, where you ain't shooting things around because the level script says so. Instead, the parameters and objectives should be dynamically defined by the decision you make in the strategic level.

In turn, your success (or failure) in executing those action parts should dynamically affect your strategic position as well. Losing in the action part should not always mean "game over" or "restart that level again". Instead, the game should give you the opportunity to exact revenge later.


(4) Between two layers, you can insert more layers (or sub-layers) where you explore the world and interact with its environment. Otherwise, if you want to make a "seamless" game world, you can integrate the exploration part with the action part.


(5) The computer AI should be smart and proactive. In Sword of the Samurai, your AI rivals want to be Shogun too! Thus, you don't play the "mini action games" merely to execute your plan; sometimes you are forced to do the action parts to defend yourself from your rival's offensive move. IMO, this adds more depth than just "enemies who actively seek you" in more refined FPS.


(6) The game should have random events and/or "enemy-generated events" that affect your strategy. Some of those events should act as "bonus" instead of mandatory things. You should be able to choose to react to an event, or just ignore it and proceed with your initial plan. If you choose to ignore the event, it should not always ruin your strategic position.


(7) It's always nice to have smart friendly AI and alliances that matter. Games like EF2000 V2.0 has smart opposing AI, but annoyingly weak wingmen AI. In Gunship 2000, on the other hand, the friendly AI is pretty smart to help you when your hands are full.


(8) Since the game is multi-layered, each layer should be simple enough for the player to learn. For example, the action layer should not necessarily be an uber-realistic flightsim. There are reasons why I turn down all the flight-realited realism in Falcon 4.0, because I simply want to play the action as the result of my strategic decision, without having to struggle with realism. Complexity should be an option instead of requirement.


So whatcha think?

[Larry Laffer]

Heh, you've more or less described the first two installments in the X-COM series.


But the thing is, games nowadays are made to squeeze as much of a buck out of the consumers. And for that matter, they're rushed, half-assed and mostly, bad. You've probably noticed that nowadays games tend to be directed towards the little kids, stay-at-home moms and grandparents. Why? Because they don't care if a game is good, if it has depth. Is it polished? Well that's awwwwwright! And don't make it too complex or god-forbid, difficult. We wouldn't want our game buyers and/or subscription payers get too stressed up and stop giving us money.


Now, I like to consider myself a sorta-hardcore gamer, I just can't bring myself to play a simple game for more than 5 minutes. And that's just why I haven't bought a game in forever(bar some weeks' ago WotLK, which is bittersweet). They're simply not worth my money.



edit: eh, yea, I know I kinda strayed off the topic here, but I felt that had to be said just once more.

[Dogbreath]

*cough* Larry bought Wrath of the Bitch King? *cough*

hehehe... sucker.

I agree with the OP. Another thing to add, possibly, is that when a story is involved (this is mostly with RPGs), the story layer should be dynamic as well, and the plot should vary significantly based on YOUR actions.

For example, in Wing Commander, you usually play 12-15 missions in a given game, but every game not only are the missions strategically different, but the entire story plays out differently, depending on how you act. (Wingmen you meet, ships you fly, briefings, promotions, relationships, etc.)

Or in Chrono Trigger, there are not only (at least) 8 endings, but pretty much the entire second half of the story is up to you. Even more so with Baldur's Gate 2, which has conversations and story arcs designed for each of the possible 18-20 people you might choose to journey with you. Not just conversations between them and you, but between each other.

Compare that to a lot of modern RPGs. Dungeon Siege, for example, despite calling itself an "RPG" lets you do almost no real role playing. In fact, I almost want to call games like that "stat-based action games" as there's no plot, and the entire game you're literally funneled through one straight, tube-like dungeon after another.

[dosraider]

[Larry Laffer]

[dosraider]

[Larry Laffer]

But... you don't really fit into the ordinary "grandparents" category, no?



Hells, I'm still having trouble deciding in what category you belong...

[KAN]

[Dogbreath]

[KAN]

[Larry Laffer]

[KAN]

[Dogbreath]

Larry: Play System Shock 2.

I think what makes a good fps from a bad one is a really interesting environs. I actually really liked Half-Life 1 and was bored by Half-Life 2 for this exact reason. Black Mesa was just so friggin cool, had such a diverse and fun to explore setup, and the plot was so engaging, it drew you in. I just like shooting things, too. A lot of the levels are more about exploring than shooting.

System Shock 2 is like that too, but better. You're in a huge spaceship, trying to figure out the identify of the alien "many" while dodging cyborgs and a hostile AI. Dead Space completely ripped off the idea, but the original SS2 is still excellent.

[Eminutia]

I just finished Crusader: No Remorse, and that game had a huge impact on the way I see games. I think this game will live down the ages as one of the most mind-blowing, longer-than-you-think, destroy everything games. Here's a list of things I liked in this game (and what any good developer should add into his/her game):

1. Right off the bat, music. Necros capped the first level, and its a ruff tune to say the least. Without good music, it just doesn't compliment the environment. I'm sure you will have to let the musician play the game before they compose the music (I don't know if that's the way it works, I'm pretty new to developing..Actually I don't develop, I just program..stuff like number programs..pretty modest)

2. Isometric view. I would like to see some more isometric-view-based games on the market these days. Everything is just so dag 3D. It's a bore, after a while, it turned me off of new games, and that's how I found my way into this forum.

3. Lot's of weapons and equipment. The more ways to destroy a foe, the more I will want to come back and "play to discover".

4. Interactive environment. There wasnt one peice of furniture or anything else that I couldn't damage (or completely destroy) in the room. Everything that I blasted turned into wreckage. Joy!

5. A story like the energizer bunny. It just kept going and going..

..and so if you want to design a game, these elements are pretty simple to add, but they can make a game into an experience. Just imho..

[fauvem]

*Shrugs* Not Sure what makes a good game but this thread kinda sounds like it belongs in the Game Creation Subforum