Let's try this "general thread" thing out shall we? Let's discuss aspects of gaming that greatly affects the way you play a game.
Controls
I feel like the controls shouldn't be too stiff, and the movement engine should be setup in such a way that it works with the game system. For example...I feel the first Legend of Zelda's controls are way too stiff. Link walks like he's on a grid (because he is), and that kind of movement just isn't suited for that type of combat system. The same sort of problem occurs with Final Fantasy Adventure on Gameboy, and don't even get me started on the first StarTropics with that grid movement system. Also, the controls should be responsive and not delayed to perform actions. It's totally inexcusable to make a game where the action performs a second or two after you've already pressed the button. There are many games I could use as an example that have bad control, such as Dark Castle on the Sega Genesis and any of the Action 52 games on NES.
Physics
As for the Physics...well they shouldn't be too floaty. I can't stand it when you jump in games, and it's like...you're on the moon. Cave Story is a good example of this, even though I love the game. The objects should also have the same rules...it's really awkward to see the character push a crate or rock off of a cliff, only for it to fall like it's made of styrofoam or paper. Also the character sliding around a lot like they're on ice, even when they aren't, is also something that's awkward.
Rules
The biggest offenses to gaming with this category are long games that don't have any sort of saving system, hard games that don't have any sort of extra lives or continue system or games that simply put way too much difficulty on the game. An example of the first scenario would be Kid Chameleon on the Sega Genesis. That game is long, and although you have extra lives and limited continues, it's still rough to actually finish it in one sitting, and once you turn off your Genesis, there's no way to get that progress back. For the second scenario, Double Dragon 3 on NES is an example of that. You get a health bar that drains fast, and no continues. What some would call "extra lives" comes in the form of alternate characters who suck, except the Ninja. The guy in a business suit is totally useless and slow against faster enemies. As for the third and final scenario, Silver Surfer on NES is the ultimate example. Anything you touch instant kills you (enemies, projectiles, walls, ceilings and floors), it's impossible to tell what's background and what's foreground, what you are and aren't allowed to touch, and the game is just maddeningly difficult.
---
What sort of expectations and limitations would you place on each category? What would you consider the perfect balance and/or harmony between all three?
I think I'll approach this by talking about games that I feel do good, and bad, in each area.
Controls
Good: Mega Man X. Start out...simple, and fairly weak, but still maneuverable, wall-climbing is always a favorite feature of mine, makes exploration awesome, and it's handled pretty well, even if it's easier and simpler in some games. But gaining new abilities and having them be simple to understand is a key aspect of the series. Gaining the Dash upgrade is such a fantastic moment, suddenly you can move way faster, and are much more maneuverable...and it all controls so well. The first game is great, but the later games fix up a few control issues (I like being able to hold down dash to dash-jump off walls)
Rules
Difficulty...I like some challenge, but some games...phew.
Good: Contra, especially Contra 4. This game was brutal, but as I played it more and more, I got better and better. Maybe I'm biased, because the game is kinda ruthless...few lives, and few continues, especially in hard mode, but there was something so fun about it! And it felt like a perfect challenge to me.
Bad: Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts. Oh boy. Awkward, clunky movement, fragile character, and annoying enemies. Oh, and you have to beat it twice and use a particular weapon to get the true ending. I...didn't really enjoy this game. It had some fun moments, but oh, it felt like a chore to play.
Well...maybe I'll add more examples later.
I think I might like this discussion.
Controls: I have a agree with a lot of what Koh said here. The more instantly responsive a control is, the better. They shouldn't be confusing either. When I hit the attack button, the character should attack predictably. Sure it would be neat when the attack is slightly different between two, four and six pixels off the ground mid jump, but it shouldn't suddenly change from a screen clearing bullet spam to a useless taunt to a simple jump slash in that amount of precision.
I'd expect them to be much the same function, maybe a different visual for flavor, maybe slightlydifferent power to allow more skilled players to eek out some more efficiency out of every move, but ultimately I should be able to use it to achieve the exact immediate goal I want it to, and expect it to as well.
Nothing is quite as frustrating as knowing a character has the exact move to make a difficult challenge slightly easier, and most of the challedge is just inputing the commands just the exact way to activate the ability in the first place.
Physics: Really, I'd have to argue its not about what the ideal physics are, but what the ideal use of physics are. Floaty can be good in certain games, as can lead weight. But the games have to be balance to take advantage of whatever physics are used, not force the player to fight them at every turn. In my experience, I only really notice how the physics in a game differ before I get used to them if they are significantly different from what I'm used to, or when they start to interfere with how I'm playing.
For example: Floaty physics are pretty good when you can take advantage of the extra air time, like when you're getting off a few extra airborne shots, or need to course correct mid air a bit more. I quite enjoy them there, but they are quite annoying with precision platforming on small platforms, or low deadly cielings, as I tend to over jump. More weighted physics have the opposite problem, once I jump I pretty much have to commit, and it's a lot harder to perform certain jumps, like trying to jump around to the top of the platform above you. But it does lend itself to more precision jumps, and is quite useful for dodging shots, as you can get to the ground faster after each jump to prepare for the next one.
If the game is nicely balanced, more of the like/dislike of a physics set isn't really whether the physics are bad or not, but personal preference. Some like them more floatly, some don't. When the game ISN'T balanced well for the physics set, it's a frustrating mess, and creates a lot of artificial difficulty.
Again, game physics are something a player should use not fight against.
Rules: Now certainly every game of a decent length should have some sort of save. The issue with saves comes in the relation of saves and difficulty.
I'll admit, some of the challenge of a game is completing several challenges in a row. More saves break that up into smaller and smaller challenge sets, making them slightly easier, and taking something away from the challenge. I think we've seen or experienced what too many saves can do to a harder games difficulty.
To a point.
On the other side, parts of certain challenges become mastered by the player. Now if the mastered section is small, it's not that much trouble to go through time and time again to get to the harder challenge and attempt it again.
But I'm relatively sure that we've all experienced at least one longish level that we defeat over and over again just for another attempt at its difficult part. Eventually, most of the level becomes a frustrating time waster rather than part of the challenge. Sure if the rest of the level was fun it takes some of the frustration out or at least delays the how long it takes before it becomes a pain to slog through one more time again, but eventually we just want to get on to that one section we want to beat. More saves help to prevent this.
My solution for a more ideal method? Set-up checkpoints logical (mid-level, etc) but then set up dormant checkpoints next to especially difficult parts of the level that only activate after reaching them enough times while under some sort of qualifying conditions that prove you've pretty much mastered the previous parts and it's only this one part thats giving any consistant trouble anymore. Like say, no-hitting the entire stage up to that one part 10 times before dying past the hidden checkpoint.
I'd certainly be happy if suddenly a few games did this. Of course, just well placed checkpoints and saves would do this just as well, but sometimes you do want to group up the challenges for one bigger challenge.
As far as I'm concerned about difficulty in general, I care more about how difficulty is achieved than how hard it is. Give me a brutal game without artificial difficulty any day. I might not always set said brutal game to the hardest difficulty (I tend to stick to second highest or one higher than normal to start. Higher if its too easy yet or I 'm wanting the challenge), but a lack of artificial difficulty should make even the easier settings more fun. Artificial difficultly can go take a hike.
I personally consider super precision jumping/positioning artificial difficulty, mainly because they tend to make games closer to DDR or a rhythm game than what the actual games genre is (obviously, if they ARE DDR or a rhythm game this doesn't apply). Only one winning set of commands is just annoying. May only be one way to win in some games, but at least you can jump and miss a few more times if you'd like.
(06-18-2013, 08:00 AM)Stasis Rune Wrote: [ -> ]Bad: Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts. Oh boy. Awkward, clunky movement, fragile character, and annoying enemies. Oh, and you have to beat it twice and use a particular weapon to get the true ending. I...didn't really enjoy this game. It had some fun moments, but oh, it felt like a chore to play.
I always thought SGnG was pretty fair despite it's difficulty. The tools given to the player (Double jump, the knife etc.) are adequate, in fact you have more control over Arthur in most of his games than you do over, for example, most of the Belmonts in the Castlevania series even though those games are generally easier.
(06-18-2013, 10:13 AM)Terminal Devastation Wrote: [ -> ]@Terminal
I have to say...having to endure a long game without saving is just obnoxious. We aren't allowed to turn off the game to take care of something else? We have to beat a 3+ hour game in one clean shot? Save systems are really great in allowing you to take a break.
Another thing that grinds my gears around that is the fact that you constantly have to see the same first levels over and over again. Even if you're mastering it, it's annoying and tedious having to play the same sections of the game repeatedly, just because you happened to lose the one life you get (
Double Dragon 3) or couldn't save in a long game (
Kid Chameleon).
Jurassic Park Trespassing
yeah
Ugh...you know...right when I saw "Controls" immediately Frogatto popped into my head. That game is a perfect example of a game that got everything right...except for the most bare basics. Your jumps are awkward, you slide a ton when you land and it's nigh-impossible to do basic platforming things like...UMM...LANDING ON PLATFORMS? I really don't understand how Frogatto was trying to recreate the classic SNES feel, but at the same time really just botched all three of these categories. :X But I digress...
Controls
I think Smash Bros. is a good example of this one (with tap jumping turned off, that is). What made Smash Bros. work was something I like to call "Button Piling". Whenever you try a move, it always does exactly what you want despite your character having far more moves than buttons. And why? Button combinations, duh! I think a big problem many modern game developers have is that they want to map one thing to one button to keep things "simple", but in the process they just overcomplicate their games. I can't give any specific examples of this, but ooooohhh it's defenitely out there...A good way to pull off controls is to be less binary about things and work with button combinations that make sense.
Physics
For controls, a game I think that pulled it off perfectly would be Kirby Super Star. The physics are very...organic, unlike Megaman's. You have a short acceleration time and slide a little bit at the end of your walks, but it never feels annoying. Your jumps are a little floaty, but some of the heavier characters don't suffer from this, so even if you don't like the physics, you could always try out different characters like Plasma Wisp that throw out the physics system entirely.
When it comes to physics, I'll say the best way to pull them off is to give lots of choice!
Rules
Rules, rules, rules. This is something that's always come up for me, so I think a great way I can address this is my own little paracosm, Super Dragonsin Saga (SDS). And to be specific, I'm going to address RPG-specific rules. RPGs IMO always have quite the lazy gameplay design...they recycle too many rules from other RPGs. Things like "Get exp to level up and spontaneously grow stronger". The reason many RPGs go for systems like this is because being realistic wouldn't be "fun" so they just want to stick to tried and true systems. But I've put a lot of thought into it, and here are some ways I broke the boring-bland RPG sterotypes I've come to hate by introducing a little more realism. I'm kind of rambling here, but this is the first time I've gotten my ideas out, and I wanna see if I sound like a crazy person or not...
Kills:
One common stereotype in RPGs is when a character dies in a cutscene and you're like "Why not just use a phoenix down?!?". And the thing with SDS is that this happens quite often. Make the wrong choices, and potentially 7/9 of your characters could be dead by the end of the game. So in order to prevent the potential 7 groans that could arise during the course of my story, I came up with a much different system. Firstly, if a character is killed outside a cutscene, it's Game Over, plain and simple. To balance this, characters can be both KO'd OR killed. When a character's HP drops to a certain level, they're KO'd and will slowly heal outside of battle. If all characters are KO'd or a character's invincibility flash ends before their turn does, then they will be open for attacks.
Levelling:
In SDS, there are no levels. You have points in about 8 different stats that range from 0-1000. There is no exp, but instead each of your individual stats raises independently. For example, if you are fighting an opponent and you attack a lot, then your attack stat will slowly rise. Likewise, doing things like defending, dodging or taking hits will slowly raise those stats. With this system, there is more specialization and options for character development. You could make an offensive character either all-attack oriented or very balanced, simply by affecting how you play as them.