What makes a game ADDICTING?

Game Play & Game Design
#21

Much like art, most peoples’ initial opinion is that there can’t be formal rules and theory that govern what makes something good or bad. Especially in such a creative medium where sucess (‘fun’) is difficult to quantify. However art and games still have their own set of core theory which is needed for something to be good.

Much like art, you must understand the rules before you break them.

#22

I’d say a good idea is the basic element. If you haven’t got a good idea to start with, you’re only able to reproduce other games. This way you won’t be able to make the game as addicting as your “template” game, simply because the people know your template game and they either liked the old one, so they already know all the tricks concerning your game or they didn’t like the old game, so they won’t like your game either.

#23

So how this this apply to ‘genre’ games? You know, like the idea of “A game where you run around, picking up guns and shooting bad guys, with a first person perspective”. It’s done to death, but many times new incarnations of basically the same game are improvements, like Doom was better than Wolfenstein3D, Quake2 was better than Doom, Half-Life was better than Quake2 etc.
I don’t think being innovative in the basic element is mandatory for a successful or ‘fun’ game, and recycling old, proven ideas can be a good starting point.

#24

Yep sure, but you will have to have something new. To make a complete game would be not also very hard but maybe also impossible (because there is already lot’s of stuff out there)

#25

I agree those guidelines are useful but that we need to follow guidelines to make something good is a statement that defies their purpose. Every artist, ultimatly, tries to follow his own sense of what is good (fun in the case of computer games). If you are uninspired then follow a couple of guidelines may help you finding that inspiration back. Otherwise you are just doing something by receipt without much soul in it.

On the oposite field, technology seraches for receipts (techniques) that can be used over and over again with the same pratical results. It wouldn’t be much use for a transistor if its electrical properties couldn’t be predictable and framed into a certain model. The some thing doesn’t apply to games. Once you have played a game genre over and over again, your brain gets used to it and you will need to look for something new. It’s like a natural legal drug and we are legal drug dealers in a certain sense of the word. ;D

#26

quote’s like a natural legal drug and we are legal drug dealers in a certain sense of the word.
[/quote]
Wow I like that one !!!

#27

One axis of truth: The game must seem to easy, yet be hard.

Think about it…Pac-Man, 4 slow-moving ghosts, and a giant screen. How could they possibly catch you? But they do. I must play again!
How about Keno? A large number of numbers are selected, and you only need to get a small subset of them. This is easy! But it’s not.
Texas Hold Em Poker. Oh, this time, I’ll get that Ace pair. Just one more game…I only need to make the best 5 of 7 on the table, how hard can this be???

#28

I think somebody once said that what makes a game great is how the buttons you press translate to onscreen action. Simple, only it really not ;D

#29

* blahblahblahh gets out his signed copy

Doesn’t really tell you what makes a game fun, but contains lots and lots of points and ideas that should get your mind churning away thinking about many different aspects both of fun and of games.

It’s really “a theory of what is a computer game” more than “what is fun”. It makes some good points about why people play games and how - although it also misses out quite a few equally good and important points. This is not so much an omission as it is a deliberatly narrow focus, concentrating on particular aspects.

It certainly doesn’t tell you anything new about why a game is addicting - although, like with everything else it covers, it might well give you some new ideas of your own about why they are addiciting.

It’s an interesting read, but have a pen and paper ready for all the notes it’ll make you want to take down…

#30

Somebody should stick this discussion thread :smiley:

#31

My own thought to what makes a game fun is…

Adrenaline

More precisely, it’s one way to make a game fun. The difficult part is to actually maintain an Adrenaline response in the player without outright shocking his system. (side note: Some people like system shocks. For example, Doom 3 players seem to love it, despite the lack of any other gameplay. I personally find it a turn-off, as do many other players.)

Good ways I can think of to create and maintain an adrenaline rush are:

  • Speed - Ms. PacMan was better than PacMan because it was faster. This is a natural response in humans who always seem to want faster cars, faster planes, faster rollercoasters, etc.
  • Sensory Overload - Action that occurs simultaneously requires that your brain move to a higher state of alert in order to deal with the situation. This isn’t a “fight or flight” response, but rather a ramping up to handle potential danger. (Even if that danger is self-inflicted.)
  • Immersion - If your controls are clunky you’re never going to actually connect with the environment. i.e. It’s very easy to get caught up in a panicing crowd if you’re in the middle of a crowd. It’s not so easy to get caught up in the panic if you’re looking at it out the window of your safe Townhouse.
  • Fantasy - Why is kicking butt as a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle so much more fun than kicking but as a generic character? (e.g. The Cheetah Brothers! Bonus points to anyone who can name the reference.) The answer is that many players have imaginative fantasies about being the characters in the middle of a battle. Video games allow them to live those fantasies to an extent. Multi-player gameplay allows a social aspect of a shared fantasy. (“Hah! Nothing’s sharper than Leo’s swords!” … “That’s nothing! Bad guys, feel my nun-chuck wrath!” … “Pfff. Don would have invented his way out of this situation if he wasn’t stuck fighting with his bo!”)
  • Challenge - Even the best game gets boring the moment it gets repetitive. Many games today play up the Fantasy aspect at the expense of the challenge. Thus you wander through a game beginning to end, but you don’t have to put up much of a fight along the way. Challenge adds to the addiction by getting the player to yell, “Just one more try! I’ll get it next time!” Of course, it’s a balance because the player needs to feel rewarded for accomplishing something. Level bosses are particularly good for this as the player can have a relatively easy time during the level itself, then face a difficult challenge that will stay behind him once it has been overcome. Allowing the player to take damage instead of instant death is another method used to mitigate the gameplay while still providing a challenge. You want to make the player feel like he “almost got it that time.”
  • Rewards - Given that the computer cannot provide anything material, rewards are a difficult thing to provide. Early games used a scoreboard, then relied on the natural competitiveness of players for the feeling of reward. Later games offered new artwork with every “level” that the player reached. Soon, new weapons and powerups were added to the player as he progressed. Eventually, new challenges were found to be an effective way of keeping players interested. (e.g. A need to see what the next boss looks like.) Finally, end game sequences and cut-scenes were used to convince the player to play for the longest time possible.

Obviously, a “fun” game should use a combination of these. A few of my favorites are:

  • Killer Instinct - Speedwise, this game was just incredible. Nothing this fast had ever been seen in a fighting game before. The fact that the speed was mostly an illusion perpetrated by the combo system was irrelevant. Anyone unfamiliar with the game easily succumbed to sensory overload while trying to sort it all out. The game also rewarded players with finishing moves, spectacular scenery, and FMV end-sequences. Challenge increased swiftly to keep the player interested, but was mitigated by the double-life bar and the chance to seek revenge when a finishing move failed.
  • Wing Commander - Who hasn’t fantasized about being in space and fighting battles by the seat of your pants? Wing Commander not only satisfied this fantasy with immersive gameplay and controls, but it also constantly rewarded you with non-linear story sequences, medals, new ships, competition over kill counts, and increasingly challenging “Ace” opponents. Roberts could have kicked this game out the door with its revolutionary gameplay and made a bundle. But he took the time to add all these important details that make it fun to play beyond the Ooos and Ahhhs of technology.
  • Star Trek: Bridge Commander - Okay, who here has never wished he could captain a Federation starship? This game plays to the fantasy, and even rewards players with storyline, new ships, and new weapons. Not to mention authentic voices from the TV show. Gameplay is challenging in many areas, and battles are heated events happening at a (relatively) fast pace. Immersion is complete as you give orders and watch them immediately get carried out. If this game had any flaw, it would be that the challenge isn’t properly balanced. It’s too easy to feel helpless when you lose your ship (causing players to put down the game) while at the same time most missions are far too simple to remain interesting.
  • Command and Conquer - From the moment you launch the installer, bits and pieces are whizzing all over the place causing sensory overload. Rock music is used to accentuate this overload. Gameplay is extremely fast paced with a strong sense of urgency, and the design allows players to live the experience of being a battlefield commander of sorts. The player is rewarded with cut-scene sequences, varied gameplay (e.g. In one mission you have nothing more than a single marine!), and ever increasing challenge.
  • Half Life - How could I leave Half Life off? Here’s a game that was just another generic First Person Shooter. Then the beta testers got ahold of it and were bored stiff. Instead of kicking it out the door, Valve listened to the players and began implementing features that made the game more immersive, more challenging, and wove a rewarding storyline throughout the game. While I personally don’t believe it to be one of the best games ever, it certainly holds a place in history for being one of the few First Person Shooters to break the mold and offer more than just technology.

So if you want to make a game “fun”, worry less about the technology and more about the individual details that make up the complete package. Gamers will drool over your pretty pictures before the game is released, but they’ll keep playing it because of the “fun” inherent in your craftsmanship.

#32

That was beautiful man… tear

It makes me think about what I need to do to Rimscape to make it as much fun as possible (after I get this darned GUI finished…)

:slight_smile:

#33

Crack. A free vial of crack in ever box.

Sorry, I just really couldn’t resist.

#34

The whole diffuculty thing:

The user (person playing the game) should feel that he can win,
he/she just loses because the make a mistake, and can do better next time

however, if the user still can’t get it (beating a level or something) after many tries from
different angles, they’ll get moody and quit.

games also shouldn’t be more difficult because of hardware limitations,
or because they don’t have a joystick or not.

#35

I disagree with this. I feel that FPS games are very hard to play with a joystick. I use mouse and keyboard much more effectively. However, this does not stop their success on consoles where joypads/sticks are the norm.

#36

: x man FPS games with a stick, thats just wrong.

#37

What i meant is if the user only has a keyboard and a mouse,
they shouldn’t feel punished because they don’t have a joystick or a mouse

(and anyone dumb enough to seriously play an fps with a joystick, - i mean for laughs or a try is ok, but seriously with a joystick deserves to be forced to listen to a really boring lecture at the same time as opera music or something)

and if you have tried playing an fps with a joystick, hope the trauma has subsided (i’ve never tried it before though, it sounds dangerous)

#38

;D

Really nasty. Don’t even try.