Sorry your browser is not supported!

@fallen one:

I don't think you can actually put "Psychological Needs" in with the other categories. If anything, the three I listed are the broken down components of the psychological needs. They all play a role in fulfilling certain parts of those "needs".

Also, I personally hate it when games try too hard to fulfill what it is that the player desires most.

If the player JUST wanted to have control over their environment, then giving it to them will prove to be boring. There's nothing to drive the player if their desire has already been met. Games should take away some portions of control from the player and force the player to progress farther into the game in order to regain that control, or to earn themselves further control.

There needs to be a "goal", no matter how vague that goal may be. "Open-ended" games all have some sort of goal, or set of goals for the player to seek out and enjoy themselves with the rewards of achieving said goal. Freelancer style games tend to hide the fact that they, too, have a goal for the player. The player designs their own goals in this type of game. "I want the next best spacecraft" or "I want to make 10,000,000,000 credits" or even "I want to go kill other players and get away with it", there are lots of things for the player to shoot for, to strive for.

In most story-based games, the goal is to see where this is all leading. In most gameplay games, the goal is to achieve MORE gameplay (Via unlocking parts of the games). In most media based games, the goal is to..... well, I have no clue because I don't play them, lol.

I think by removing some of the player's needs at certain prime points in the game, the player will become frustrated and become even more determined to get that control back, especially if they're proposed with more control by doing so. Take Half-Life games for example. At many points, the player will lose weapons, or be forced to utilise a certain weapon to point of running out of ammo, thus forcing them to find their weapons again or to search for more ammo. In both cases, you've effectively removed part of the player's "control" and "need" for weaponry. If applied correctly, you can effectively boost player addiction and by rewarding them for their efforts you can boost their moral and enjoyment of the game.


The one and only,

Apples and Oranges. Arcade type games do not require much if any story. And while I think the only type of game that requires a storyline to be effective is an RPG, I would say that a good story enhances the gaming experience.

I think you can make a game more challenging because of a storyline. The more complex the game is, the more there is a need of a story to explain what and why. For an FPS the exception would be a pure run-n-gun game.

I think an important point to note while we go back and forth over game development merits is, we are in a new class of games. I don't think you can truly say that you're an FPS if you include puzzles, interaction with npc's, importance on environment, and investigation. Those are elements of adventure gaming. So if you combine reflex-based interaction with the previously mentioned elements, I think you've got a hybrid of an FPS. (imho)

The eye and ear candy that evolved with technology was meant to enhance the gaming experience, not redefine it. However it did redefine it. But it appears that the success of games like WoW have redefined gaming once again.

The success of the Wii has shown that in arcade style games, gameplay is more important than mega-million color graphics. I don't know if this will transfer into the PC market or not. One thing that the Wii has proven, is that it's never too late to change the market with a new idea, no matter how unpopular. I'm sure there was a lot of pressure to try to keep up with, or out-do the PS3. I love my Wii, and because of it's use of the accelerometer it's now opened the door to gaming on the iPhone.

I'd love to live forever just to keep watching technology evolve. Who could have predicted the state of gaming now back in 70's when daddy was playing Pong???

Hm...I quit reading this thread after fallen one's posts turned into rants about society. I'm sorry, I'm here for game development, not skewed politics.

Just my opinion.

Thanks for letting us know.

I've actually learned a few things in this thread. It was a good break from the "Will my hardware run X10" posts that we're constantly hit with.

And while most of the discussion has been philosophical, it's all been germane to building a game in fpsc. With nearly 800 views, apparently much of the diatribe is of some interest to many. But as with all board posts, take everything with a grain of salt.

Actually, on second thought, you're right, never mind. It's just fallen one's posts that drive me mad, there were some good posts that I read here.

Uthink, you make a decent point, but today's games do not fall under a single genre. Developers seem to think that by combining genres, then their games will stand out and sell more, and at the same time they neglect many core aspects that make a game what it is.

FPS-RPGs were one of them and while some games succeeded at the idea, many never even got a glance. One of the earlier combinations was a Platformer-RPG, which didn't catch on for quite a while. In fact, the first games of that type are rarely ever mentioned because they couldn't quite find a cherry to put on top and make it appealing.


As for the Wii, I doubt Nintendo even tried to compete with the PS3. I believe it was Sony that was competing with Nintendo, making last-minute changes to match the Wii's new innovation. If I had developed something like the Wii, I know I wouldn't be put off by worrying about meager competitors. Nintendo finally realized what the market needed and it sure as heck wasn't "Pump up the graphics and people'll buy it!" They went above and beyond with their new console. They increased the graphics a bit like always, they added online just like everyone else, a channel system like everyone else, shrank the console even more than last time (I expected Nintendo to do no less), and then they even went out of their way to innovate a new control scheme. Not only did they match the features of their competitors AND bring something new to the table, but they packed it all into a tiny box. I can't begin to express how stupid I think it is to have an overly sized brick sitting on your table that does nothing more than play DVDs/BluRays and play some video games. We've HAD the technology to miniaturize electronics for a LONG time now, why the heck don't we actually USE it the first time instead of reselling the system a year later just because they made it smaller???


And I wouldn't exactly say that WoW redefined ANYthing. In my eyes, having played it for a few months, it was nothing more than yet another MMO rendition based around the Warcraft universe. EverQuest was the game that redefined MMOs forever. And as good as that sounds, I think they completely screwed over EverQuest II, trying WAY too hard to bring ever more realism to the game. They added in-depth crafting, houses, material gathering points, and larger zones than I knew what to think of. All in all, it was a great game, but it was just too linear for an MMO. The crafting needed very specific materials based upon the level of crafting you were trying for. Materials for crafting were all too easy to get. You mine some rocks and you'll ALWAYS get what you expect to get. Have some variety, guys!! You got hundreds of armor that a level 5 character can equip yet you can't make more than 2 mined materials per crafting level. Geez! And where the heck am I supposed to level?! "Well what level are you?", "Why, I am level 16.", "Then you should go to <insert name of zone and location>, that's where the level 16 monsters are!" You see where I'm going here? Back in EQ1, there were SO many different possible places to go and level, but in EQ2 not ONLY do you get 0.001% exp per kill and force you to level up on quests but the only possible places to level are based upon whether you're evil or good. It's so linear! EQ1 isn't even any good to me anymore, they came out with so much stuff, I left for a couple years, came back and suddenly you could teleport to ANYWHERE on the whole planet with very little traveling. What the heck happened to having to ride the BOAT to get between continents? They get rid of the nice in-depth parts and start adding rediculous in-depth stuff. They depricate their own ideas, it's just stupid. FFXI messed up for me because you had NO options for gear, if you were level 1, then you wore the newbie gear, once you got to level 5 then you wore the level 5 gear, and once you got to level 10 you wear the level 10 gear... EVERYONE has the same friggin gear on! You can TELL around what level people are just based on what they're wearing! It's rediculous.

Needless to say, I'm STILL waiting for an MMO to come along and "redefine" things.


The one and only,

I agree with that entire paragraph.

But at some point, you can't really come up with anything new. I mean, almost every idea has been used before. Like, if you used the ability to zoom out and look at the battlefield and command your squad from there in your FPS, it would be considered a combination of the FPS and RTS genres. I think, to truly come up with a new idea for a game, it requires innovation on the hardware side before the software side, like the Wii.

EDIT:



I would look up "Darkfall". Some of the ideas seem great, though the videos on their site are old. It also seems like the ultimate April Fool's joke, or some crazy vaporware thing. Some of the features just don't seem feasible in an MMO, with the whole server traffic/internet reliant thing going on with the "O" part of the abbreviation.

Technically we'd probably have to say the MUDs created MMOs, and games like Air Warrior redfined them. I guess I gave Wow it's due because it's popularity created change in pop culture. If we stick closer to the style of EverQuest and Wow, you'd have to go back to the early 80's and an MIT project called "Thesis of Terror". While it's not really an MMO, it was the first to introduce multiplayer rpg gaming to computers. And it really is a perfect example of the author being influenced by many existing games to come up with something unique in gameplay, and media. I won't venture into "story" since I've never played it. However I did once fire up a rather old, grungy, and dusty descendant of Thesis of Terror that was called Gauntlet. I really fell in love with that game. Wish I had the money to collect some of the old arcade games.


Looks pretty cool. And the history section on Wikipedia shows just how long it can take a small team to get their game to commercial viability.

Coming up with something new isn't hard at all, it's just that people aren't used to it. Everyone enjoys the games that are out today and are stuck thinking along the lines that are ebing portrayed by the games they've played. If you love RTS games, then more than likely you're going to want to make a game that's heavily influenced by an RTS.

Thinking outside of the box... like, REALLY thinking out of the box, is very rare nowadays. People have the mindset that everything has already been done. Anyone see "Around the World in 80 Days" with Jackie Chan? One line in that movie made me think completely differently about a lot of things:
"Everything TO be discovered has BEEN discovered."

Looking at it from our time and age, it's complete BS, but do many people actually make the connection to anything in real life?
There are literally an infinite amount of UNIQUE game genres that can be made. We just can't get to them because we're too busy enjoying the ones people have already made and trying to make our own of that same genre.

To anyone who says, "Don't fix something that isn't broken," I say, "I'm not FIXING, I'm IMPROVING!"


The one and only,

This was asked on the boards, right, I see a lot of presumptions about what a video game should be, this person sounds like they are very much in the games must be like the commercial games I see being put out by the major companies, and that's exactly where you are going wrong.

Ill answer some of his questions,



No you don't need them, why not pose still frames, why do they have to be animated, when you read a comic book you don't shout this sucks, its not moving, or when reading a book that doesn't move, I'm sure youve see films that use writing to tell the story, ahem cough, Star Wars, though that was nicked from the 1930s flash Gordan serials, why not use a camera to take images for the cutscenes, like in Max Payne, or draw the images, why not do the cut scene as a radio play, perhaps using images in a slide show,



The boards are full of free models and packs to buy, you can make a game without making a single thing, or use what skills you do have, perhaps make a minimalist game, does the game have to look life like, Ive a single word here, its a filthy word, it may shock some of you, to some of you it may be a new concept a new radical idea that you have never heard of before, brace yourself, here it comes.

Impressionism.

Yes that's right, realism art ended and and new forms emerged, guess what, you don't have to make literalist, realism, it looks just like real life (c) games, its like video game makers only understand photographs and any graphical representations throw their heads out of whack.

See this web page here, it will sort your head box out.
Videogame Aesthetics: We're All Going to Die!
http://modetwo.net/users/nachimir/vga/

You are making yourself problems, like I said in the original post on this thread, stop following someones tail you can never catch, dance to the beat of your own drum, not someone else's.



Copyright notice, real life (c) is a company owned by God industries, all trademarks and copyrights apply..

I wonder why there isn't a board specifically for team requests?
There are a number of people who are struggling with being a jack of all trades. Perhaps that's why we see so few quality games get finished?

@UThink:

We HAD a Team Request board, but the community as a whole condemned it themselves. EVERYONE was putting up a request and NO ONE (almost) was willing to join any teams.

They abused the board to no end and it ended up closing down.

And to make this perfectly clear, I don't see any reason why they'd bring it back. The same thing is going to happen again. Everyone who bought FPSC bought it for the soul reason of making their OWN games, not participating in the creation of someone else's.

Yeah, there will be a few projects that sound good enough for people to join, but the board will become too populated, too fast, and the ones that can survive won't because of all the other BS requests. And don't even try to say "Well, don't let people start a Team Request unless they have a decent start," because I know if I was a moderator, I sure as heck wouldn't want to sift through all of the team requests just to find out if they are worthy of being there.


Leave it alone, it's been discussed in full before. You can do a search if you so desire.


The one and only,

I suspected as much. I couldn't imagine anyone putting a lot of hours into someone else's project.