You may play a lot of old games, but do you know what makes them

>>3956434

>spending all that time on vague philosophical flapdoodle

If you were that interested in what makes games work, why didn't you learn how to write assembly code?

>>3956440
There's no point in learning to code if the thing you code is shit. Coding isn't a golden ticket to making good software.

>>3956440
Also, what's vague about it? Didn't I give concrete examples?

File: 6fe8e7b81eebaa51fd52bcbf85bb512f[2].jpg (21KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 300x168px

>tl;dr: Fun games let you do the things you like to do in ways above and/or beyond real life

Groundbreaking. Surely this will start a new chapter in game design

>>3956442

The code is at least something real you can evaluate in exact terms. Stuff like "space", "surprise," or "making you think" aren't really concrete enough to tell you anything. It's like passing a philosophy course vs. passing a math course. In the former you can write anything you feel like and still potentially pass because none of what you're covering is real while in the latter there are clear standards for right and wrong because the topic is actually real.

>>3956446
You are describing very surface level mechanics that don't touch on the core game design decisions that they stem from.

You should check out the book the art of game design

>>3956448
>The code is at least something real you can evaluate in exact terms.
Ok, but how do you mathematically evaluate VLC? If there was an exact way to evaluate software, nobody would debate about operating systems.

>Stuff like "space", "surprise," or "making you think" aren't really concrete enough to tell you anything.
Those are tendencies I've noticed in good games. Space is the literal parameters of the game space. The top and bottom of the level. The boundaries.

I gave you an example of surprise.

Making you think is when you stop to consider the implications of the information just given to you.

>>3956434
While I appreciate you working towards some sort of critical theory here my main issue is the detachment from examining how these elements interact while simultaneously providing a very limited scope of design decisions.

For example, you use the SMW cape as an example of abusing space. Is this really abusing space or is it simply not accounting properly for a core game mechanic and the ease by which players can "set up for the challenge" by obtaining a cape in every stage.

However, does the game actually do this? There are a few ways the level design can circumvent this issue. Underwater stages obviously do not allow you to fly. stages that take place indoors or in caves also do not allow you to simply avoid the obstacles in the stage because there are low ceilings. Boo houses also tend to choke the air with enemies and prevent you from easily flying. Autoscrollers cannot be flown past, and stages with limited space to gain speed are not easy to fly in.

Furthermore, you have not identified why the cape can be "bad" in the first place. It allows players to avoid playing the game by mastering a fairly simple, repetitive mechanic. The ease of use and availability of the cape means that in many cases the easiest way to beat a stage is by using this mechanic, discouraging actual interaction with a given stage.

I'd really rather you describe more interplay and more defined terms for mechanics and design philosophy.

File: MARCO ms4.png (5KB, 256x384px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 256x384px

Well okay here's my two cents: The fact that you're using entry-level examples says some things about you but let's just ignore that for now.

Surprises don't have to be random. Surprises can be a very intentional part on the developer. An example would be Metal Slug's transformations. By eating too much, suddenly you're fat! Your weapons are powered up but your movement's hindered. This would come as a shock at first but then the player'll most likely get a good laugh out of it. A MUCH more shocking transformation would probably be where you THINK you've died yet again only in reality you've transformed into a zombie or a mummy or a monkey (no one plays metal slug 4 though) and have a chance to recover.

There's also the various hidden spots a POW can be discovered which makes it fun to share information about the game with another player, talking about a game so in-depth saying stuff like "Wow, I never knew there was a POW there" or "I had no idea you could even do that!" brings the enjoyment of a game outside of actually playing the game, which is a very nice feeling (気持ちいい). I don't think you've even thought about this aspect of games.

Most of the stuff you've listed are good concepts but they don't mean anything unless they're executed well. A game could have EVERYTHING you have listed there but if the gameplay's janky and unrefined then the game will be bad. They're also not all necessary and really have no need to be in certain games.

(cont.)

File: MARCO2 ms4.png (5KB, 256x384px)

5KB, 256x384px

>>3956480
For example: Rail shooters don't need to abuse their sense of space. You're on a guided path and need to only focus on the action in front of you, you never need to worry about where to go or what to do. This would also apply to shmups and lightgun shooters.

And sometimes ADDING any of the elements you've talked about can make a game WORSE. For example: the Time Crisis series.

The very two games are very straight-forward you take cover and shoot. The third game started the trend of having multiple weapons to switch between and the gameplay takes a turn for the not-so-enjoyable since you're trying to figure out WHICH four weapons to use in a section and which to save later rather than have it be a more direct arcade challenge. I don't think you've even thought about "simple gameplay" either, as stuff like Pac-man doesn't have ANY of the crap you've talked about.

None of the gameplay mechanics you've listed are necessary or needed though some would be more deserving in certain games than others. You haven't figured out something amazing and you've yet to scratch the surface to video games I'm guessing. You also haven't talked about replayability but that's not really the point anymore is it.

>>3956434
Cool blog faggot. You need a lot more work before you reach Edgar tier but you're well on your way.

>>3957917
Nothing personnell kid.

File: 41HuScXUcwL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (16KB, 246x346px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 246x346px

>>3956434
Read this, OP.

File: 61H6vxiNURL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (34KB, 260x321px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 260x321px

>>3960021
And this.

it has to be A E S T H E T I C

also keep it simple, actions speak louder than words, show don't tell etc

>>3956434
The autism is strong with this one.

Seriously though, bud, why spend a couple years obsessing over an intangible concept like that?
End of the day, you and everyone else in the world will just play whats fun or enjoyable.

Why do you care? Why is being fun not enough for you? What do you even play video games for? Why do you even need a reason to do so?

>>3960185
>>3960160
>why think

>>3960250
>thinking that spouting all that bullshit is thinking
Hilarious

>>3960447
Posts like >>3960185 aren't against spouting bullshit, though, they're arguing against thinking in general.

File: [SquareSubs] Medarot - 14 [9DE8E86F].mkv_snapshot_13.55_[2016.12.24_00.04.42].png (342KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 640x480px

>>3960250
>>3960447
Anons got a point. I applaud OP's effort to analyze why fun things are fun it's just that he's not really going about it the right way.

>>3956434
It's fun; I like it.

>>3960451
>>3960454
OP isn't thinking. OP isn't analyzing. He's spouting pseudo intellectual bullshit. No one is against thinking or analying. They're against retarded attention whores blogging on 4chan.

File: AT1509.jpg (84KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1000x1000px

>>3956448
>>3956440

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (147KB, 1280x720px)

147KB, 1280x720px

>OP in a few years

>>3956434
>Go through this list, see if you can poke a hole in my theory.

You need to express what you mean a lot better. "Fun = a controlled clusterfuck" is almost meaningless on it's own like that. Likewise what do you mean by "abuse their sense of space"?

You're barely speaking English. It's just sloppily laid out bullet points and sentence fragments. Some of what you're saying could be on point, but you really need to work on communicating your thoughts.