Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building games that can be understood at a glance

stfj.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#11

Post by megaman22 »

MaikuMori wrote: post #6
rezoner wrote: post #5

Alternative title: Building single screen casual games.

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also…

There will always be games with some depth out there - somebody is always going to be hacking away at Dwarf Fortress, or Gary Grigsby-type games. But, if you're building games on an input device as limited as a mobile phone, your options are sorely limited.

It is frustrating when something that was on the grognard end of things gets juniorized; I've seen a lot of complaints in that vein about the last Paradox Hearts of Iron iteration.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#12

Post by fenwick67 »

MaikuMori wrote: post #6
rezoner wrote: post #5

Alternative title: Building single screen casual games.

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also…

This article isn't about dumbing games down, it's about making UI adjustments to make it easy to start playing.

If you play some Ludum Dare games, you'll see how important a good UI is to pick up a new game. You'll see lots of unexplained controls, unexplained mechanics, and indecipherable labels. And these little details will make or break games.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#13

Post by watwut »

MaikuMori wrote: post #6
rezoner wrote: post #5

Alternative title: Building single screen casual games.

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also…

I for one welcome games that don't require me to sacrifice hours and hours to be enjoyed. I have job and familly and while I like games, they have only limited time and effort box available. Any more then that and they get deleted, as a strategy.

You don't have to like them. Not every customer wants to dedicate whole life to games.

I am thankful to mobile games creators that they did not rejected my demographics and interest group and started to make games that I can enjoy.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#16

Post by MaikuMori »

wodenokoto wrote: post #9
MaikuMori wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also…

No, this has nothing to do with simplifying games. Complex games can be intuitive and build up complexity as the player learns. Take something like Civilisation. You don't need hours of tutorial to play the game. As the game progresses, it becomes more and more complex, but you start with 2 units, no enemies and no technology. After you build a city, technology is introduced. As you start exploring, enemies are intro…

It was slightly off topic rant indeed.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#17

Post by alexandercrohde »

Eh, I just don't agree with this at all, and also find the presentation awful which is an irony.

If you're going to give an example of slay the spire doing something wrong, show an alternative. The slay the spire shot has 13 artifacts active, and 5 status effects, and the criticism is that twitch stream viewers don't know what they do? That makes no sense.

A) Twitch stream viewers wouldn't know what anything does from hearthstone either.

B) There's no way you're putting all that text on the screen. It wouldn't fit.

C) Nor should you. I suspect most gamers who play slay the spire have put over 20 hours into it, and damaging the advanced player's experience for the noobs is a dangerous tradeoff.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#18

Post by MaikuMori »

megaman22 wrote: post #11
MaikuMori wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also…

There will always be games with some depth out there - somebody is always going to be hacking away at Dwarf Fortress, or Gary Grigsby-type games. But, if you're building games on an input device as limited as a mobile phone, your options are sorely limited. It is frustrating when something that was on the grognard end of things gets juniorized; I've seen a lot of complaints in that vein about the last Paradox Hearts…

Well a lot of older series haven been simplified in recent iterations. I haven't played hearts of Iron though.

It's hard to please older gamers by crating something that feels new, but not too different or simplified and at the same point appeal to the new masses of gamers.

As others fairly pointed out my original comment was off topic. Creating good UIs is a worthy cause as long simplicity and mass appeal is not valued over substance.

As for mobile games, I will disagree. There is a huge inertia and lack of creativity. Everyone is trying to copy everyone else. Just look at the screenshots of a typical game in play store. Same style everywhere, they've even started to not show game content because it's just not there. Yet somehow I can run emulator and ejoy quality games with no input problems. Clearly it's not a limitation of the device.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#19

Post by chezhead »

indescions_2018 wrote: post #3

"Bounce and Bounce". A viral game hit on WeChat. Fulfils this criteria. There is something deeply rewarding about the one touch game mechanic and ensuing chain reaction. Not to mention an ideal candidate for iOS / Android clones ;) https://technode.com/2018/04/25/mini-game-balls-viral-wechat...

I was about to post about wechat miniprograms because in my opinion they seem to be the best platform for these kind of games. Games like "bounce and bounce" and 挑一跳 always appear in wechat groups and you see people playing them on public transport.

Re: Building games that can be understood at a glance

#20

Post by MaikuMori »

mysterydip wrote: post #8
MaikuMori wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The continuous push to make everything easy (as in gameplay and also learning) is annoying. Not all games have to be simple. I believe games have huge potential for teaching problem solving and systematic thinking, but by dumbing them down were partially eliminating this. The ultimate example are mobile games. They optimized for profit by dumbing them down and adding addictive, simple gameplay loops. They also…

The problem is not only have the people made their money, but the population has moved on to the next shiny dumbed-down thing. So while I agree with you, I don't know how to change it when everyone involved seems to have an incentive to keep things as-is.

The system is feeding it self. The simpler it is the more people are reached and the less ordinary person is willing to learn and overcome problems. Slowly everything that is slightly complex becomes too much of a hassle or gets negativity.

There is a middle ground somewhere.

I suppose the gaming topic made be rant, because it seems like a lot games being made now lack substance. But there are so many more games being made and so many more players compared to 10 years ago that I'm probably biased. I still think simplicity vs function is a tough problem with short term and long term pros and cons.

Post reply on HN