Features don't make a game.

[kolpo]

In many discusions about upcoming games do many people seem to think that features make a game.

"If that game doesn't have feature X won't i buy it!"
"The game will be good with all those new diplomacy, trade and rabbit emulating features !"
"Game x3 will be a better improvement over game x2 then game x2 over game x1 because game x2 added quite no new features and game x3 will add many!"

This is all complet nonsense. A game is fun to play because it's fun to play! It's a magically mix of code written on the time that the planets are in the right possition. There is no way to define in terms of features when a game will be fun to play, it just happens and that's why it's so hard to create a game like that and why it's impossible to predict or a game will be good.

Just from the point of features doesn't civ2 add much to civ1 but since civ2 came out haven't I played civ1 anymore. It's NOT because of features, it's just a magical combination of elements that make it fun to play, that let you get involved in the game.

CTP2 is in terms of features superior to civ2 but most people prefere still civ2. But the problems is that in open game design(who discus with fans) all discusions are about features and that most fans don't understand the whole and all possible relations between all possible game elements. So maybe is closed game design better. Many old games designed in closed game design where very good this while I find many new games that come from open game design bad that's why I say: long live closed games design! Don't listen to the fans who don't understand the whole project, who only think in terms of features who are actually unimportant. It's the whole that matters.

*prepares to be flamed*

[Urban Ranger]

I agree with you, games with an excessive number of features are just confusing. For strategy games at least, less is more. Games with a small number of well chosen features make are better than ones with many features just heaped on top of one another.

[chronocrator]

Generally I'd say you are right, too many features will normally lead to a lot of micromanagement which can spoil the entire game especially when it comes to RTS. Too little feature of course will make a game boring.
That is just like the amount of realism that needs to be in a game, not too much and not to little.

However if you speak about features such as multiplayer, those a important IMO.

[kolpo]

[SIZE=1]
However if you speak about features such as multiplayer, those a important IMO.

But that isn't a real feature anymore these days. Just like mouse and soundblaster support aren't viewed as features anymore. Everyone expects that you have it, if you don't will they get mad at you.

Especial in RTS and first-person shooter games is that considered standard.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi kolpo:

I agree with your argument that features don't make the game. Where I differ with you is that the designer has sufficiently clear vision to do everything well when in a closed shop. We remember the few pearls of games that came out of the closed-shop system. It seems you are forgetting the many Absolute Turkeys that also came out of that system. I view an open project as having the advantage that there are a lot of kibbitzers looking over your shoulder that can tell you when something seems to be getting off track.

I don't think comments from the outside will hurt a genius' vision or exectution of their game concept. I also think that for an average design group the input is valuable in avoiding costly mistakes. If this extra information comes at the cost of being seduced into adding an extra feature or two, so be it.

The trend that I hate in games, is when they load on features that Must be micromanaged. If I can ignore it mostly if I'm not interested then a new feature doesn't bother me at all. Its when it becomes vital to hand-hold 8 different areas of the game at once that it becomes more like baby-sitting, and less like playing a game .

[Urban Ranger]

There are a number of advantages to the "open shop" approach to game design.

First of all, since those who are interested in a game early on tend to be hardcore gamers, you gain valuable feedbacks to the design from early on.

Secondly, the forum can provide other valuable information such as what the players want in this genre of game in terms of features, how much they are willing to pay, and so forth. Some call this market research

Thirdly, you can parlay the forum into an effective marketing tool by leaking tantalising bits of information. This way you can recruit a group of early adopters, so to speak, to spread the word for you on the Web and in person.

[Grumbold]

Features are part of what makes a good game. Choosing the right features (yes, even deciding if it should include or even focus on multiplayer) are as important as getting the quantity right. Add useful features and your game will get better but add irrelevant ones and it will get worse.

The interface is another key component to making a very successful game and its possibly the hardest one to get right in a closed design environment. If you've been working on one game every day for 18 months it may seem second nature to control-shift-K and drag-select your units to activate some feature but that doesn't mean its going to work for the public. One of Civ III's biggest flaws IMO is its hidden shortcut keys that supposedly were introduced to make the interface smoother.

[Capt Dizle]

I believe in my heart that you'll get the better product when you have fewer cooks.

I understand that the whole concept of culture as implemented in Civ3 kinda came about because of the forum. I think this concept is one of the worst I have ever seen in a game and the fact that its still defend here is probably because it was a fan idea, and the fans don't like to admit they were wrong.

[Grumbold]

Um, yeah, right.

[Urban Ranger]

Culture is good. It is a step in the right direction.

I have always felt that all these empire-building games lacked elements to make it feel like you're building an empire. It has always been like you were building a collection of cities/planets/bases/etc. They didn't have the binding elements of what makes an empire.

[Grumbold]

To expand on my earlier reply:

- Culture as a concept was not originated in this forum
- While it was certainly discussed here, the mechanics as implemented were never recommended
- Apolyton created "The List" of over 1,000 ideas for consideration. The few that appear in different form are far more likely to be a case of convergent thinking than a serious focus on what fans were asking for.
- There's nothing wrong with culture (or corruption) as a feature but both could use significant improvements in the way they were implemented.
- Rather than too many cooks I would argue Civ III lacked carefully calculated central game mechanics and then had woefully inadequate testing and balancing.

[kolpo]

Game: A game is a combination of functions with player instructions like mouse and keyboard as input and things like grafical images on screen and sound as output aimed at producing a fun experience and a desire to keep playing that game.

For a game to be fun must there be a choose between 2 options that is not evident. So for example in an RPG may the choose between mage and warrior be not evident. It must be a hard choose where both options have an equal amount of advantages and disadvantages, that is often refered to as game balance.

To produce a set of functions that is fun to play and thus balanced is a very hard task. Most games fail. Only a very small part of them is able to make a profit. Even games with big budgets like anarchy online can still fail. This is because a lot of experience, mathematical understanding of game balance and mechanism and knowledge is needed. Only very few persons have that and even those make sometimes bad games.

If even many experts in that are still bad in that then how can you expect a fan do be good in that and they are indeed bad in that.

An example: Imagine you have a MMORPG with 3 classes where every player can only have 1 class and it takes a lot of time to train them up. The classes are devided as following: mage 18% warrior 80% bard 2%). Now you want to get input from your fans about class balance, guess what teh results of that will be? 80 will find the warriors are underpowered, 18% the mages are underpowered and 2% the bards are underpowered! no mather how it in reality is you will quite certain get those results because everyone wants his character to be the best, to be the strongest and if his class gets enchanted will his char become stronger(if you don't believe me check the everquest forums filled with "enchant me nerf the others!" posts)

A bad design team may draw the conclusion that warriors are underpowered because 80% of the fans thinks they are so would most likley echnet the warriors then, as a result will even more palyers start to play warrior and will even more palyers complain that warriors are underpowered and teh other classes over powered. Moral: Don't listen to the fans! listen to the mathematics of balance!

That is not only a problem in MMORPG but also in civ games everyone wants his own nation/culture to be strong and his enemy nation and culture to be weak(remember how more Americans where pro-Iroq then Europeans in civ3? that's because the iroq are linked with the american history and culture more then Europe's).


Another problem is that fans don't view from a game mechanism point of view. In the discusion about how communism and other ideologies should be was most of the discusion about how those government where in real history and wanted people that there favaorite governemt would be strong and the ones they hate to be weak. But from a game point of view are those governemnts not communims or democracy but are they pro-war/anti-trade and trade/anti-war governemnts and is it not the fact that they should be realistic but the fact that they should be balanced the most important issue. Because balance means that the chooce between options is a hard one without evident chooses, and that means fun. So from that point of view must communism and democracy be made equally good, just one centred on war and the other on trade. But because fans don't think in game mechanism terms but in real world and personal oppinion terms and want because of that communism to be weaker then democracy because they hate communism and from history know it has lost, but in a game is it not communism but pro-war/anti-trade government that must be balanced we are talking about and that fail fans to understand.

Another problem is that open games design limits flexibility. Imagine you design a MMORPG and decide to implement a new revolutionar class: the evil rabbit breeders. Like a good open game designer do you hype that new revolutionary feature and as a result love the fans it and are they all talking about how good that is, how it will solve all other problems. The markeing will love that and even try to increase it: "WELCOME IN THE NEXT AGE OF RPG! WELCOME IN THE RBRPG AGE! WELCOME IN THE RABBIT BREEDING ROLE PLAYING GAME AGE!"This feature will change the gaming market forever! This will be the best game ever!

Everything goes well until beta stage, when a the beta testers say : "We don't like rabbit breeding! It's boring! It's tendious!" In closed game design could you simply remove the rabbit breeding class an dreplace it with another without much problems. But if you would remove it in this situation from the game would a lot of fans become mad at you! Because you already have hyped rabbit breeding so much that they really believed that it would be awsome and be the centerpiece that makes the game great. Now do you have the hard choose between getting the fans against you or releasing a bad and boring class.

This are just a few of the problems of open game design.

[Urban Ranger]

You forgot one thing.

The bigger the budget the more the game has to net to become profitable. On the flip side, a low budget game project can start making money even if it doesn't appeal to as big an audience.

Another thing you forgot is gameplay is the thing. Forget about all the audiovisual whizbang for the moment. Take all that stuff out from any game you can think of. Is that game still fun to play? If so, you have a winner. No amount of the so called "multimedia experience" can make a boring game fun, at least not after a bit of playing time.

Would you say Europa Universalis a success? It certainly wasn't a big budget production.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by kolpo
Everything goes well until beta stage, when a the beta testers say : "We don't like rabbit breeding! It's boring! It's tendious!"

You made a mistake. Beta testing isn't a test for game features, it is for the finding of software flaws.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You made a mistake. Beta testing isn't a test for game features, it is for the finding of software flaws.

That's the theory but often is the beta(or maybe the alpha) test the first real test of the game for members outside the dev team and the dev team has often a very baised stance towards the game for understandable raisons. Often are heavy balance and even game changes made during beta, like in diabloII. From the beta can you also have an impression of how good the game is. They where first affraid civ1 wouldn't sell well but after the beta knew they it would be a success.

If you would really follow the theory couldn't that happen but following the theory is simply to expensive or umpractical in many cases. So yes the beta(or alpha) test is often a gameplay test.