This post is a general game design question..... what makes a game "fun"? Although there is no specific answer to this question, how wide of an audience still prefers the 2D graphics to the newer 3D style? How much interactivity do you need in order to be considered popular? If, let's say, a game were to be based on the old NES game "North vs South" would an audience like to have more control of what they can do or would it be better to have pre-determined actions that the player can carry out at certain times?

There's no specific answer to these questions, but my belief is that there is still an audience for older-style games. Is it possible to make money off these games? Possible, I do believe, but not likely to make you rich

The game design I have come up with is based on the NES game North vs South, with a little twist. Although for now I am hesitant to actually release the details of the game, I do plan to release the game on the site under "The Depot," but take heed - this game is still in the beginning phases.

Feel free to add input and/or answer questions of your own...

A game is made by fun by having all the little things polished. That and lots of fancy particle effects / shiny things.

Casual gamers prefer 2D games, just like hardcore ones liked them 10 years ago. A Flash game does not need to be 3D to gather a lot of players.

I like secrets

Do you mean North and South? If so then I think there is definitely still a strong audience for them, although as ReyBrujo implies, most people get their fill from Flash than from stuff they actually have to download.

If not then I guess it depends on the complexity. I doubt anyone much would be that interested in a new Circus Charlie but stuff like Contra/Gryzor/Probotector still has an audience.

I know that head bosses tend to make a game more fun. They add a climactic shape to the overall ebb and flow, which helps sustain the interest for a longer period of time.

It's the little details that make a game fun.
Example: You have a boring card game. You add shiny effects and a few game modes. You add a little animated dog who explains the game. You make the graphics really beautiful. You add a cool soundtrack. This makes your game fun. You could even sell it if everything is nice and polished.
Other example: Very thought-out game with a really complex storyline. Innovative design and gameplay. More that 100 hours of playing time. No one plays it because it has ugly graphics and no sound effects.

Good looks attract players, good game mechanics (not necessarily complex) keep them playing. It's a balancing act, but I'd try to polish both to your best abilities.

It's all about balance, actually. If the game elements are balanced, then the game is successful.

Yes I did mean the game "North and South"

Also, I believe that if a game appeals to a large audience due to playing off world conflicts and perhaps even politics, then it will be successful

Also, there is no "one - end all, be all" way to ensure success when designing and creating a game. If you're writing a game for money, then you've already started on the wrong foot. Everything should be to your liking, as you are the designer, and should be unique from your own creativity.

3D. Lots to do. Beautiful visuals. Rich sound. Solid physics. Realism.

Oh, well I love that game! I've not played the NES version, but the three I have played were all identical so I doubt if that really means anything. I'd be very grateful if there were a remake/new game based on a similar premise!

Totally, there was an NES version of Monopoly -- every computer, SNES, playstation, whatever, port I've played has not lived up to the NES version which was filled with animation, music, and even voice (when you got out of jail it would say "Don't be comming back now!" -- yes on the NES!) If I'm to play an electronic version of monopoly, it's that one.

Also, Advance Wars is fun on Gameboy, but it's also really neat at first cause the music sounds cool, and there's this vixen to explain the rules and stuff to you, and a story and it just seems so neat -- Advance Wars 2? Didn't seem as polished to me and I never really liked it as much...

Seems to me that noone really knows what makes games fun, which is why people go on and on forever making more games, trying to see if this or that works.

The definition of "fun" depends on the individual's taste, of course. But personally, and I guess for most of us who had grown up before 2000, simple games can be fun. I take great join in browsing The Underdogs for old 80 and 90 classics, regardless of how outdated they look.

Some games fit better for a determined media, console or situation than others. In example, Pokémon is a very good game for handhelds, but in home consoles it is not as appealing. Party games are nice to play between several friends in a single screen, but FPS are usually an over-internet experience. In some games you prefer voice chatting with your team members, like in FPS, while in others you prefer a more abstract experience, like in MMORPGs.

It is not worth putting "restrictions" to games. In example, by saying that a fun game needs to have multiplayer, you are dismissing any single player one.

Yup. I recently bought Stalker, shadow of chenobyl and Elder Scrolls III and although they're very technically accomplished I've hardly played them at all.
Who enjoys reading instruction manuals ?
All the arcade games came with none at all or just what the few buttons do. You had to figure the game out yourself.

Point worth making maybe - get rid of the tedious things in games to make the fun shine through. For me these are :-

1. In game Tutorials.

2. Bits where the control is taken over by the program for too long. ie cut scenes you can't skip, dialogue you can't skip etc.

I bought Etrian Odyssey, an old fashioned RPG game, very similar to Wizardry and the old AD&D games with a characteristic: you can draw the maps yourself in the Nintendo DS touchscreen. This is one thing I love, mapping things with pencil and paper. Another thing is analyzing passwords to find the way they are generated, to either start in the first level with the best possible equipment, or in the last one with no equipment at all. Games were pretty expensive down here, so I enjoyed the games in all possible ways, by finishing it, by creating maps, by analyzing passwords... there was no net access back then, so you had to do all what GameFAQs does by yourself.

I don't have enough free time to build faqs, but mapping is something I still do while playing MUDs, and the fact that Etrian Odyssey allows me to do that (even if it is in a limited way) it was too hard a temptation

I completely disagree with you. In game tutorials are great because you get walked through the controls (as opposed to reading the manual; though I have no problem doing so and always do anyway) and if done right it fits in with the story which helps to pull you into the game/story.

Cut scenes are not meant to be skipped. It's equivalent to skipping chapters of a book or movie. I watch every cut scene numerous times before I even consider skipping them (for most games I never do).

I am not against in-game tutorials or cut scenes, as long as you can skip them... I like playing games, not watching them The only cut scenes I always watch are the ending ones.

Heh, looks like several of you would never play Star Ocean Til the End of Time. It's an RPG with an extremely fun battle system, but there are really long cutscenes. Some cutscenes are over 30 minutes in length, and IIRC, you can't skip the cutscenes the first time you watch them.

I still enjoyed the game, though, because the storyline was pretty good, and the game was immensly fun outside of the cutscenes. If you can pull off those two, you can do pretty much anything with your game (including making the player wait an hour before they can do anything else).

Tactics Ogre does that, I can't stand it -- I turned it on to play it and bam a half an hour of boring meaningless cut scene with one battle at around 28 mins and then it started cut scening again, so I turned it off... That's ridiculous.

Yeah, cut scenes in the newer games have gotten ridiculous! For instance, games that are "based" off of movies have really long cut scenes. It wouldn't be so bad if the game didn't revolve around the movie and there was no way to skip the cut scenes. Cut scenes should be designed so that they supplement the game - not so they ARE the game. I agree with MJ on this one, ridiculously long cut scenes that you can't skip should be a no go. I like to be involved in the game, not letting the game play itself.

As for an update for the game I'm creating BASED off of North and South, I haven't had a chance to do any coding or graphics for it for the past few days (and won't for another few days) since I haven't had my computer with me. I've just recently played that game on the emulator and had a great idea to do a game based off of it. It's going to be written in C with allegro, with simplicity written all over it. I agree again that the first 30 mins to an hour of the game shouldn't be in-game tutorials aimed at learning the buttons. I love being able to start a game and immediately playing the game. There should be a working copy of the new game within a month or so, depending on the time I'm able to spend working on it.

Fixed.

What are you doing, playing a game or watching a movie?

A good tutorial would ideally be a seperate "training" mode, or seamlessly worked in as the game's beginning levels if at all possible.

Cutscenes are cool, but they should be very short and dramatic. Everything else is just boring.

A cutscene where a major character dies or where the world gets invaded by purple hamsters, that's awesome. What I hate are cutscenes where a few characters get together and just talk.

I agree with Simon.
One game that suffered from "cutscene abuse" was Xenosaga for PS2, one of the early titles. It had a cutscene every time anything happened, and they were often very long. After 12 hours of "gameplay" I stopped playing because I had skipped so many cutscenes I didn't even understand the story anymore. Initially I was interested, too, I just got REALLY sick of the cutscenes and wanted to play the game! There are often multiple cutscenes in a row. In the time I played there were far more cutscenes than actual gameplay (probably by about 2:1 or 3:1 cutscenes:gameplay, and I'm not exaggerating).

I'm not against long cut scenes if they're done well enough, however, there should be a lot more game time then there is cut scene. In other words, if you have long cut scenes the game better last a while.

Final Fantasy VII: Dirge Of Cerberus suffers from extensive cut scenes as well... X-Play destroyed it.

You're missing out on a really good game .

I really like games with a good story, and cutscenes help me get more involved I guess. Sometimes getting to see the next cutscene is what actually motivates me to play more. Weird I guess, but that's me.

Mokkan, I've been told this, but that game tortured me -- I don't think I can forgive it.

This gave me a wonderful idea: I want to make a really simple game (pacman, tetris, arkanoid, something like this) where every five minutes or so, something really dramatic happens via cutscene -- something completely unrelated to the actual game. Yes, purple hampsters invading the world... Yes, the sun going super nova... yes, the main characters mother just got murdered by mother fucking satan.

Wow, I'd play that.

Yeah, I'd definately play a game like that ... it sounds pretty awesome!

I loved that game except for the horrible system where you essentially get punished for leveling your troops. Having to do skirmishes just to get everyone to the same level before proceeding to the next battle was lame.

I can relate to that. I enjoy the game as much as the cut scene, but the cut scenes do drive me.

I just started playing Final Fantasy XII last night (awesome, but for another thread). Similarly to FFVII: Dirge of Cerberus (I assume all FF games as of recent), FFXII allows you to pause or skip the FMV sequences as well as exit to the main menu.

I find that is essential for longer cutscenes. Last night I bought Super Paper Mario and eagerly started playing it. After a very satisfying (and lengthy) intro cutscene I eagerly began playing. I believe the first question you answer is something along the lines of "Will you save the world!!1?". Being the cheeky and funny guy I am I said "Nah". It asked two more times and I refused each time... after which I got a game over

I didn't mind the fact that I got a game over as I was pseudo expecting it, but what I was peeved about was that I HAD to go through the entire openening cutscene again. The first time was enough (it's fairly lengthy remember) I rushed the dialog as much as possible fervently pushing the button to make the text instantly appear and it still seemed to take a horrendously long time...

The game itself is still great though

Don't get me wrong -- I like cutscenes -- Halo and Halo 2 had me begging for the next part of the story -- it just depends on the game I guess...

What I really hate, is not having it saved, and accidently skipping past a cutscene I haven't seen before. But really really ridiculously long boring cutscenes are worthless and steal from the game play.

I've seen videos of the cut scenes from the new Contra. For some - reason - they talk - with - long - pauses - between - their - words - like - it's - a - language - learning - course.

True. Final Fantasy XII has a solution for this. You first pause the game by pressing Start (PlayStation) and then you have the option of skipping the FMV sequence by pressing X (PlayStation) or returning to the main menu by pressing Square (PlayStation) or unpausing by either pressing Circle or again pressing Start (PlayStation). It would require some coordinated accidental button presses to skip an FMV sequence you didn't intend to. Much better than a "press any key to skip" or "press the action key to skip" design.

By main menu, are we talking about the title screen? If so, that's the most useless feature in a game ever. It's like saying: "Don't wanna watch the cutscene? Just stop playing!"

I laughed out loud (abbreviation style, dawg!).

This reminds me:

What I really hate are games that only allow me to save in specific locations/times/only retarded autosave etc.
I should be able to save and stop playing everywhere and anytime, I'm not a slave to the game that I should only be able to play the game for one hour long sessions because there isn't a damned save point anywhere >: (

That is a hardcore bonus. Casual gamers allow you to save anytime with a quicksave function (like the one implemented in most, if not all, handheld games).

Then why have saves at all? Lets just be really hardcore and force you to play the entire game in one session?
None of that whole "Pause" thing either, only pussies need to stop playing the game at some point.
There won't even be a menu once you start the game, you should have configured everything before you started playing. (via obscure and undocumented command line options)
You won't be allowed to close the game either, the only way to leave it is reach the end or die trying. (Or pulling the PSU from the outlet, since the game will disable the OS's shutdown and reset options, as well as Task Manager (or equivilant) and Alt Tab (or equivilant))

No, it's like saying "if you want to switch to another saved game during an FMV sequence you don't have to wait for the FMV sequence to end nor do you have to approach your console and wait for it to reboot. You can just exit the FMV sequence."

It can be frustrating, but it's part of the gameplay in FF. If you could save ANYWHERE it would be too easy to save after every battle and never really risk anything. Instead you need to plan your route better to find save points along the way and gauge battles.

Speaking of which, last night I lost ~2 hours worth of leveling up because of a stupid mistake... I was on my way back to a save point, killing monsters the whole way to gain more EXP/LP. There happened to be a T-Rex and for some reason I was SURE I had fought it before earlier in the game (I had just started playing the day before yesterday). I had convinced myself that the T-Rex's were surprisingly really weak (contrary to their large physical size) and decided to kill it on my way, expecting an effortless battle. About the time my initial slash did 0 hp damage I realized ":o NO!!!!!!" The T-Rex changed from "you're not bothering me so I won't bother you" to "I'm gonna kill you! " In one hit it did more than enough damage to kill me. Game over.

I don't mind though. It's part of what makes FF series what it is. It's not supposed to be too easy. Some games, like FPSs, benefit from being able to save anywhere, but other games use saving as another element of the gameplay. Last night I learned not to mess with the T-Rexs yet.

I still recall defeating a T-Rex... I can't explain it. Maybe I'm crazy. I might have fabricated the whole thing...

Wow, we actually agree on something :0

Risk in an important element in certain gaming experiences. When you have the ability to save anytime/anywhere you rob yourself of the tension that comes from knowing you have something at stake by losing/croaking. Now just to be fair, because I know someone will bring it up, I don't support games that have inconveniently placed or difficult to use save areas. Having to backtrack thirty minutes or collect typewriter ribbons absolutely won't cut it. I don't buy the whole "But what if I'm interrupted?" whine because we have the ability to pause for near indefinite periods of time, and we can always say "Wait a minute while I run to the save point." That, and in over 27 years of gaming I've never encountered a situation where I just had to turn off my PC or console and lost valuable progress.

Depends on wether you're running it with an emulator or not

I have to say its quite stupid to treat bad design and lame tricks like those, used to increase longevity* as a "bonus".
*-I accept that in earlier consoles they were more of a necessity, but there's no excuse for that on a PC. (or any console with a built-in HD)

EDIT:

No one is forcing you to abuse saving to void the game of risk. However you are forced to use a crappy saving schematic in those other games.

If you feel like leaving your computer on for the night. And assuming it won't crash meanwhile (happens occasionaly. As well as a blown fuse or other interruption of electricity).

Well. No you can't. Especially when it takes a lot of time to reach the next save point, or the previous one. (Have you tried Overlord? You either have to go all the way to the next save point, go to the previous one and replay everything from there again, or quit and also suffer penalties.)

Either way, I should be allowed to quit whenever I want - how about if I'm bored and want to play something else? Maybe that was a really tiring boss battle and I just want to take a short rest and browse some forums a bit? What if I just don't feel like playing anymore?
Heck! What if I feel like switching to <Notepad equivilant> and write down my experiences in the game? Maybe I found something really cool and I have to talk about it right now? Maybe I want to fire up some sort of <Fraps equivilant> to record the next scene?

And even if you want some sort of restrictive save system, why not just allow exactly one save and overwrite it everytime you save? That almost completely annihilates "save scumming".
Take a look at "Warlords: Battlecry"'s saving system, it provides no lenience for save abuse, but still allows to save and quit whenever you just don't want to (or can't) play anymore.

Some developers provide a suspend function where you can suspend, but not save, your game. Or you can do things like the original Soldier of Fortune where you have a limited number of saves per level. The important thing is to set your save function(s) appropriately for the game you are making. Your game design 'toolbox' should be full of implements and you shouldn't rely on a single technique.

Never seen that. Where did you see that?

This is still a problem for all the same reasons before, except you have a few more saves before you run into those problems. (Which admitedly, alleviates them a bit)

True.
Then again you should also remember not to piss off players with a poor save system, or by forcing them into playing the game. (Unless of course its a game designed to piss off people. Though I don't see why you would want to make a game like that)

Having certains spots where you can and cannot save just adds a bit of challenge to some games. That's just my opinion.

I'm going from memory here... but I remember doing that on Ogre Battle 64 as well as Tactics Ogre. There were several games I played from the PS1 era that I can't quite remember right now. I also seem to recall a few Dreamcast titles like Illbleed and Evolution offering a 'suspend' option.

Honestly, it hasn't been utilized nearly enough.

Lets just be really hardcore and force you to play the entire game in one session?
I remember I got a pirated copy of Captain Tsubasa for SNES, without battery capabilities, we spent nine hours until we passed the first two championship. That was challenging

Personally, let people save anywhere, and let those same people to decide whether they want to make the game easy or hard.

Hehehe, I remember in FFVI there was this woods with T-Rex where you could power up. The first time I found a brachosaur there I knew I was in trouble

Heh, I remember that. Those bastards were seriously dangerous! That was a great area for grinding. Tons of EXP, MP, and item drops.

Casual games should allow you to save your progress anywhere. You can't expect women to beat a real game. However, hardcore games aren't supposed to hold your hand.

_{And for the ladies, I'm only kidding. :) Some of you are hardcore gamers and that's awesome. 8-):D}

What I really hate is games that let you save anywhere, but then start you back in the last city you where in. cough Dungeon Siege II cough. That's one of the reasons I didn't finish that game.

Or like Doom I+II.

What I hate are games that let you save anywhere and are so hard that you can't beat them without saving/loading. After a couple of save-load-load-....-load-save-load-load-.....-load orgys something in your brain starts to change and you want to save/load in real life, too. It's disturbing.

Oh crap, I broke my mom's front-room window!! CTRL+Z! CTRL+Z! FUCK!

Yeah. I know what you mean.

Does anyone else want to always know how long of a cutscene they are watching? I really want to know if it will be a minute or thirty. For those that want to skip the scenes, I think there should be an option to replay them later.

Mark Oates said (where is autoquote? I almost typed Narc Oates):
"I've seen videos of the cut scenes from the new Contra. For some - reason - they talk - with - long - pauses - between - their - words - like - it's - a - language - learning - course."

So they sound as if they have one of those breathing machines like Bush?

There isn't an auto-quote, you just type:
[quote name]text[/quote]

Yep, been there.
I once had something really annoying happen, because I had to run off and had to save... long story. I always fully switch off electronics.
So I like suspending the best. Although only emulators do it properly
And I hate dialogs. Except perhaps maybe for killer 7, which still makes no sense.

But to be on topic: most console games aren't even really 3D IMO.
I think developers switch to 3D too soon. There aren't many games which have a proper 3D game mechanism.
And I like 2D art better than 3D. So for 2D games I prefer 2D graphics.
(Unless you have some super spectacular special shadings to highlight your eppilepsy-inducing exagarative enormous explosions. But I've never seen that.
Why don't you make that?
Augh... I'll have to do it!>:(
It will take centuries to finish for me that is... )
Please forgive the rant.

I hate it when I can't save whenever I want to. You might want to set up the save mechanism in a way that makes it hard to branch from a single savegame though; that is, play the game up to point X where you have to make a critical decision, and from then on save the game in a different file so you can come back later and undo your decision. This is often undesirable as it makes the game too easy. Depends on the type of game though. A RPG can definitely benefit from such a limitation (since it makes your decisions more final), but other games might not.

The suitable method would be "Save & Quit" here. You can, at any time in the game, just save and quit the game and you can continue at exactly the same position next time. But if you die you have to restart the level.
As long as the game balance is good enough to allow it, this is IMO the best solution.

Undesirable for whom? Too easy for whom?

If you want a challenging game, don't save as often. If you want an easy game, save more often. Either way, it should be up to the player.

I do that kind of thing all the time in RPGs for one simple reason -- RPGs are horribly boring to play. I enjoy them a lot if the characters are interesting and there's a good story, but to me, the gameplay itself is just a dull, repetitive chore that I have to get through in order to find out what happens next. The freedom to save whenever I want means I can see what happens if I make this decision rather than that one without the hassle of playing the game all over again -- which I know I probably won't do.

Is this the "right" way to play an RPG? Probably not, but what difference does it make? If I buy a game (or download a free one) it's mine to do whatever I want with, and it's really none of the author's business how I choose to enjoy it. This is true of all creative works.

As a hardcore NES fan, I approve of this. SMB3 with no Warp Whistles .... go.

Yes. That's one of my favorite save systems. You don't have to fight you're way back if you save and quit, but there's still a penalty for dying. But what's to stop the player from loading a recently-saved game whenever they die. Unless you auto-save everytime they die.

PAUSE + TV PWR BTN == SAVE & QUIT (CLASSIC)

There is no pause, I said "play the entire game in one session".
(regardless of what 23yrold3yrold said )

When tasked with an easy path or a difficult path the majority of people would naturally choose the easy path. We're capable of completing the difficult path, but if there's an easier alternative why bother? Having save points forces the player to think more and strategize* a little bit about how and when to do things. It adds to the game in more ways than one. Besides, when I save a game I expect to be right back where I was when I saved it; not at the beginning of the level, etc. (I'm talking about real games).

_{* Allegro.cc's Spell Check doesn't like it, but dictionary.reference.com does.}

What do you mean by real? More realistic?

Then why do so many games have difficulty settings; wouldn't everyone naturally choose "easy"?

I don't think you should "force" the player to do anything. It's much more satisfying to overcome a challenge you choose than one that's thrust upon you. If you want to reward players for not taking the easy way out (through, say, unlockable bonuses for getting though a level without saving, etc.) that's cool, but you shouldn't punish a player for not being "hardcore" enough. Hardcore-ness should be its own reward.

I know personally there are times when I'm in the mood to play a game for the challenge ("I'm gonna beat this level if it takes me all night!") and other times I want to play more casually ("I've had a long day and I just want to drink a couple beers and kill stuff!"); if one game gives me both options, I'm probably going to play it a lot more often.

I mean games whose levels require more than a few minutes to complete.

The first time around I'd be willing to get bet that majority do pick easy. Those that develop into hardcore gamers would probably eventually work their way up to the hardest difficulty setting.

Neither of those really derives from the save technique used. You can play for the challenge (and progress) or casually (and either progress anyway or not save your game).

When I play "casually", as you describe, I don't want to save because it doesn't reflect my usual gameplay; it's to pass the time and not to progress in the game. When I'm too exhausted to continue on with FFXII's story I use that time to level up. Most of the time in both FFVII and FFXII there are save points nearby battle areas so it doesn't take much to save your progress.

Personally I almost always play through a game once on "easy". If I like the game enough I'll play through it again on "medium" or "hard". So far Halo is that only game I've ever played (and done well in) on the hardest difficulty level. I still haven't beaten the entire thing, there were a couple of levels with trouble spots that I couldn't get past, and I just gave up.

Like in Call of Cthulhu: DCotE, there are savepoints literally everywhere, but at the end of the game you get a ranking based on how often you saved.

Barely related, but I thought it clever in Metal Gear Solid how they used data on the memory card to make assumptions about what kind of player you are and added that to the story (Psycho Mantis has psychic abilities and 'reads your mind' to find out).

Again though, I have to disagree with every game allowing you to save anywhere. Part of what makes Final Fantasy 'an adventure' is the unknown as you explore the world not really sure of what's to come (and unable to save compulsively). Instead, the player learns to save often (at every given opportunity, or at least before venturing into the unknown). I think if that changed I would be disappointed.