Game Mechanics

>>2830073
Sonic 1(I guess all the 2d ones in the Genesis since they only improved)
The physics engine was godtier and the shit you could do with it was insane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZV5UNS2y60

It gave the player a lot of freedom on how to play

>>2830073
For me, it would be Kirby Super Star. I think the multiplayer in that game is unbelievable. Having players actually become other enemies is really fun and interesting, because the player is always introduced to something new and exciting. It's something that I haven't seen mimicked in other games, and it seems like a mechanic that has really gone under the radar

I don't know if I would change much, but I would certainly make more enemies for the players to transform into.

>>2830082
I think you're right in that the physics engine gave the players a lot of freedom, and it was definitely a suitable competitor to mario bros. Allowing players to speed along platforms, go through loop-de-loops, spirals and springs really felt fun and gave the platformer genre a new and interesting spin.

>>2830082
I always hated the physics of Sonic though. He feels like he has so much more mass than he should. From a standstill it feels like getting a truck going. When you are already going fast it's not so bad.

>>2830082
>Sonic 1(I guess all the 2d ones in the Genesis since they only improved)

I think you have a good point here. I was never fond of Sonic as the first game felt like it wanted you to hurry up and wait for too often. Too many levels had moments where you were going breakneck speed to just stop and wait on a platform to dodge lava or spikes or a door.

However your point about them only improving is valid as the sequels focused more in streamlining the levels for speed, managing a difficult task of integrating the speed into the platforming, making the levels more linear and yet insanely more complex.

F-Zero's mechanic where you sacrifice health to get a boost is genius. To get the best time and come in first, you'll want to drain your health bar completely as you near the end of the race. This makes the ending stretch of the final lap by far the fastest, most intense part of the game. Everything that came before this still matters, but this moment can make or break you and result in an upset. However, even if you get hit by another car and crash because you have no health, that's a result of the decisions you've made.

Compared to something like Mario Kart which is affected by RNG, or an average racing game where the last lap doesn't really play any differently than the ones before, this method is exceptional. If you're in first you have to play near perfectly during this moment to keep your place. And with how fast things are moving, if you've fallen behind it's possible to go up like 15 places in 10 or 20 seconds if you know what you're doing (and when you manage to pull that off, it's just the fucking best).

The simplicity of it blows me away. It's so streamlined yet so effective.

In most games this kind of thing doesn't work, because it's usually something like getting an attack buff at low health. That doesn't work as well because even with that buff you want to have the highest amount of hp possible, surviving takes precedence over dealing damage 99% of the time. But in a racing game where speed is the highest priority and health is an expendable resource, this trade-off works wonderfully and creates an intense, exhilarating experience.

>>2830085
>Having players actually become other enemies is really fun and interesting, because the player is always introduced to something new and exciting. It's something that I haven't seen mimicked in other games

Pokemon. I actually think that's the best part of the game, because it gives your party so much potential for customization (both in terms of gameplay and personality/character) that the replay value is insane, and nearly every player has a unique experience. If recruitable Pokemon were different from the ones you battle, the game would have been much smaller. It's a great way to vastly increase the potential of a game while staying within a budget.

Also, 10/10 idea for a thread OP.

Super Mario World's grab and throw physics. It's awesome how you can actually juggle with 2 (or more) objects/enemies, I don't know why didn't they implement the same physics in the newer 2D Mario games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWgvPSkgMzY

File: metal-warriors-more.jpg (33KB, 340x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 340x300px

>>2830073
Metal Warriors does a few really neat things I haven't seen done a lot. For one, there's no real HUD or life meter. You can tell how much damage your mech has taken purely by how it looks and the game does it very well.

Also various levels will have more than one that you can get into and when you get out of your current mech you're a tiny and very vulnerable little dude.

>>2830152
I had never played F-Zero (I will eventually) but I really like the idea of sacrificing health for boost. A key component to multiplayer game design is being able to 'rubber band' the best players to the worst players, but in a way that is actually effective. If a player is coming first, they should be at a great risk of winning, and F-Zero get's this totally right. The game is already fast, and when you're coming first you have to be going as fast as possible to keep that place, and this requires the player to use the boost. And using the boost means that the player is losing health, AND they're going a lot faster which puts them in great danger (they could smash into something very easily). It's a very elegant way of balancing the game, so simple and effective. Brilliant.

>>2830159
I totally forgot about Pokemon (I suppose games similar to Pokemon employ this mechanic too). I was never a Pokemon kid growing up (I was a Zelda person, all my friends played Pokemon though), but I can definitely see why Pokemon is so successful. It's a game that incorporates very effective game goals and mechanics. Players can actually 'care' for the wellbeing of their Pokemon, and root for them in battle. When they're faced with tougher Pokemon they have to carefully use their arsenal of Pokemon to weaken it's health to catch it, this also get's the player excited about what abilities the Pokemon has and how they can use it in Battle. It's just one of those games that got a lot of things right in terms of gameplay and player interaction. And thanks.

>>2830229
I just watched that video, and I can only image how hard it is to consistently pull that off. I'm actually a big sucker for complex game mechanics (which is why I play a lot of Smash Bros.). It's always neat seeing people do some really cool stuff with seemingly basic game mechanics. If you ever get into game design, you will quickly understand how even something simple as picking something up can greatly affect the gameplay.

>>2830245
I just watched some videos of Metal Warriors and damn, they put a lot of attention to detail in it (empty shells flying out of your weapon after firing, and not to mention all of the animation sequences). I really like the idea of being able to jump inside different machines, but this requires you to leave yours (which is very dangerous). I'm sure this allowed the developers a lot of creative freedom when creating mechs. Also, the multiplayer is just unbelievable. Was this by any chance an underrated game? Thanks for sharing.

File: mischief-11.png (104KB, 287x205px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 287x205px

>>2830229

Another game with great grab and throw mechanic is Mischief Makers, although the physics are different, Mario's throw is somewhat softer, Marina launches enemies harder so I don't know if you could do juggle, I must try the next time I play.

>>2830932
Yeah guy, F-Zero is great. It's not retro but I'd actually recommend starting with F-Zero GX because it's quite honestly the best game in the series. Hard as fuck though so be prepared to git gud.

>>2830982
I was actually gonna mention MM as a game with a really good mechanic. Throwing enemies into each other is fun, but being able to grab and throw projectiles that would've otherwise damaged you is really good because it forces the player into a risk/reward situation, you have to literally get as close as you can to a boss's attacks in order to use those attacks against them, which is the only way to damage most bosses in the game. You get the timing for grabs down pretty quickly so it usually isn't too risky, but it definitely adds to the game. That worm boss near the beginning of the game conditions the player pretty well for this. You just need to throw him to cause damage, but once he starts the rolling attack you have to put yourself at risk in order to grab him.

Another game that incorporates a really good mandatory risk/reward mechanic is Ys. The bump system is so fucking good. Just look it up if you don't know what it is, because it does an excellent job of forcing the player to put themselves in danger whenever they attack an opponent, but if they do end up taking damage it's completely their own fault.

>>2830962
>I'm actually a big sucker for complex game mechanics (which is why I play a lot of Smash Bros.)

Awwww shit nigga I could talk about Smash for days. But I've got class soon so I'll come back to this thread later.

>>2831038
I just checked out the bump mechanic in Ys, pretty interesting. So there isn't actually an attack button but rather the player is required to run into the enemy, and how they run into them depends on how they attack. I like how this mechanic puts a spin on the actual way player's can attack enemies.

I've always been a fan of allowing players to achieving something (in this case, killing an enemy) based on the actual player's skill. I feel as though this can be more rewarding and engaging for the player, than say, using a powerful spell that easily targets enemies. This is just my opinion, but to each their own.

>Awwww shit nigga I could talk about Smash for days

ayyyyy

>>2830982
I can't believe I haven't tried this game yet. I hear it's an underrated gem and it looks like a great platformer.