What if we all design games in a wrong way?
Gamers are generally the ones who obsess over mechanics too much, they've been staring at the Matrix for too long and just see the gears turning, so they boil everything down into this really contrived machine that lacks experimentation and whimsy. People who don't play games can often have interesting ideas because they're not burdened by all these concepts of what a good video game "should be".
I care about both
>>722674002Right, like the idea that a video game should be fun.
most played games im seeing is shit like lel candy crush clash of clans dota counter strike valorant rivals etc doe?
>>722673678Whatever same thing, cool mechanics make for a cool experience when done rightexperience only is how you get walking simulators that faggits play
Experience for bringing players in, mechanics for keeping them.
>>722674274this is the correct answer
>>722673678That already happened.It's called woke
>>722673678>mechanics>experienceWhy are using these vague, descriptionless qualities to compare games? Be more specific.
>>722673678All I’m getting from this image is that both words in the phrase “video game” are important. Nobody, myself included, wants to play a genuinely ugly or bland-looking game.The game up top seems to be VVVVV. It looked and sounded nice on top of being fun, thoughtfully designed game.
I feel like we're getting the exact same videos shilled in batch
>>722674446That would require you have any idea what you're talking about, and nobody in these engagement bait threads stolen from twitter ever does
>>722673678>wePic is right, though. People will yell "GAMEPLAY ABOVE ALL" at you, but that's really just "I'M NOT LIKE THE OTHER GIRLS" of gamers. People play PC/console games for the story or roleplay, even if they don't admit it. You would not care for your favorite game if it was about nondescript red blobs instead of people with specific roles, doing specific things. Mechanics are just means to an end.
>>722674446(most) players don't want mechanical depththey want the next big movie game or game to play with their friends(most) players don't want dmc (for the gameplay) or fighting gamesthey want dark souls, ghost of tsushima and lethal company
>>722674767>(most) players don't want mechanical depth>they want the next big movie game or game to play with their friendsI dunno man, seems like sales on these sorts of games are slowing down.
>>722674767the idea that casuals players don't appreciate more game with better and deeper gameplays is complete BSbut again it depends on what you mean players. low iq narcissistis that make up the "new rich populations" of 2025? women? or actual video game players. depends if you want to cater or elevate.
>>722674002Disagree. Design a game and all you see is a system. Fun is the goal but this is naive talk.Schedule 1 teaches you how growing and dealing drugs works. That's why it is memorable.
>>722674078>Right, like the idea that a video game should be fun.Pathologic is an interesting game but I wouldn't call it "fun". If you were only allowed to make "fun" games Pathologic wouldn't exist, so yes, your witty reply is unironically correct
>>722674002Many games just don't manage to absorb you into them to the point where you stop seeing the mechanics and start seeing the experience. Last time that happened to me was with Secrets of Grindea, which is why it became one of my favorite games of all time despite being a rather simple zelda-like. And that happened in 2024 so I know I'm not too jaded to see the magic, games just aren't that magical these days.
>>722674446Anon, that is being specific. You're just a fag.
>>722674743There's a difference between visual representation and narrative.I can't imagine people playing LoL for the lore narrative of the game. At least half of them do it purely for PvP mechanics. The lore is an afterthought. There is no single-player.
>>722673678This has always been true. Look at a game like Deus Ex: it's always been shit in terms of actual mechanics and gameplay design, only really succeeding at level design but not how you actually engage with that level, but what's there is enough to come together as this secret agent experience at the precipice of the end of the world that everyone's loved enough to call a classic for decades.
>>722673678I had more fun playing Baba is You than I had "playing" Heavy Rain
>>722674451>wants to play a genuinely ugly or bland-looking game.The other game in that image is also pretty uglyThe point is that people care less about how well designed a game is and more the experience it's selling. The pictured game, Schedule 1, is far behind every other game that features or focuses on mechanics regarding buying/selling, crime, farming, etc., but it's nevertheless able to succeed because of how it ties them all together to sell the experience of being a drug dealer.
>>722674743I'm not gonna pretend like SoR4 isn't enhanced by having distinct named characters like Donovan and Signal with unique AI versus having red/yellow/purple hurtboxes with unique AI or whatever but I genuinely couldn't give two shits about their backstory or character. All I need to know is that Donovan will anti-air me if I jump in and Dylan will run at me as soon as my back is turned, and that is entirely mechanical/gameplay.
>>722674451>Nobody, myself included, wants to play a genuinely ugly or bland-looking game.That is true, but I'll pick an ugly but fun game, over a pretty one that's a chore to play.
>>722675640fun is subjective though. just because (You) didn't have fun with it doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.
>>722673678Sometimes a good mechanic is in itself an experience. But yeah, if you can distill a feeling into gameplay, it doesn't really matter if your mechanics are super simple. I played DQ1 as an adult with no nostalgia for the series whatsoever. I really really enjoyed the simplistic nature of it. It felt like a simpler time that I wasn't part of but I could relate to. Same reason people like retro games in the first place I guess. Of course, a feeling like that is super hard to replicate.
>>722676337A quick reminder, half of the population has IQ below 100.That's the target audience for AAA games.
>>722673678Mechanics should support the experience. If the players aren't having fun, then no matter how good the bones are it's failed as a game.
tl;dr there's more money in marvel movies than chess sets
>>722675785>that is being specificIt's not. If it was, it would've used "gameplay" and "narrative" instead of "mechanics" and "experience", conveying the same point with much less ambiguity. Don't be an obtuse nigger.
>>722673678mechanics are apart of the experience...
>>722673678Good foundation of mechanics elevate the experience.Games with poor mechanics but good presentation are movie games.Games with Good mechanics but poor presentation are the cult classics with replayability
>>722678724Not really, players are usually completely wrong about the underlying mechanics of things and their opinions will shift dramatically depending on the presentation. You can "fix" complaints about controls by changing some particle effect for example.
>>722676504there are people right now that think undertale and other le quirky reddit shit indi titles are fun, yet the games are annoying trash meant for the lowest common denominator of IQ.Some games should not exist.
>>722678868anon, did you know jumping is a mechanic?imagine mario without jumping.
>>722679031Imagine mario without a jump sound and WAHOO (it feels like shit)
>>722679145so, as i said, mechanics and experience are one in the same.thank you for proving my point while trying to disagree with me just to be a contrarian.
>>722678621>it would've used "gameplay" and "narrative"No, because it's not about the narrative, it's the experienceExperience is the word you'd use to describe it, you child molesting nonce
>>722678874and what is wrong with undertale that made it shit exactly?
>>722673678I haven't played either but at a glance the first one looks like literal shit from atari era so I wouldn't even consider it. There are a billion crappy gamejam 2 hour indie pixel games that look like shit and i'm not going to give them all a chance on the off possibility they might have some interesting mechanic. In general if the dev didn't put effort into the looks or even description they probably didn't put effort into anything else.The second at least looks reasonable, but it's not my thing. It's popularity doesn't surprise me considering normalfags idolize drug dealers.
>>722674002We nootice too much, is that what you are trying to say?
>>722675798>There's a difference between visual representation and narrative.The two are closely related to the point of being interchangeable. Counter Strike has no story, but what it does have is its terrorist clash coat-dressing that is absolutely essential for getting people to care about the game. They need that hook to start caring about the mechanics.
>>722679321You couldn't describe what you meant by either of those terms if you tried, you stupid bitch. Even if you could, nobody else in this thread is going to share your definition. You know this isn't assumed knowledge. There's already disagreement going on, and it's largely due to OP's ambiguity, loose wording, and failure to articulate himself. Neck yourself already you disingenuous retard.
>>722680662Aesthetic (visual and audio representation) and narrative are different.
>>722680272Yes?
>>722681572Well I don't see it as a problem but a solution.
>>722673678can't have a good experience if the mechanics suck. what a dumb fucking retard
>>722682159Incorrect.
>>722682261He's correct. A good game mechanic is baseline. See: Flappy Bird
>>722680964Those terms are both precise and clear, there's only disagreement because of retards like you that have already been fucking up at this point and confusing one thing for another for faults entirely of your own. You're using your own mental deficiency as an argument, as definitions of these words slides past your brain due to how fucking smooth it is. Maybe you wouldn't be such a fucking moron if you weren't, in your own post, going>uh well even if you did define it I'm not gonna listen and disagree anyways because I'm a fucking retardKillYourSelf
>>722682159I play eroge gameswhen I play eroge games, it's important that the gameplay is good, but also not too tedious or repetitiveI hate VN the mostbut games made in rpgmaker are my favorite. I see some games try artificially extend the game with tedious combat and shit, but I'd say most games get the balance right, it's not too grindy. What I like about rpgmaker games is there's hubworlds or towns you can explore, so it's not combataction games I probably like the least, those games usually have very little interaction, it's just "defeat rape" or game over rape and nothing else
>>722679719pixel shit.le memey dialogue.furfaggotry
>>722674743Gameplay above all doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters. And not everyone would agree on what gameplay is fun to begin with. Whenever you anti-gameplayfags make shitty threads like this you always point to bullet hells or challenge games because they're hard or fast, why do you chalk that up to "gameplay: good"? Who agreed those games have good gameplay? Their fans do because their games don't have anything else, but most people don't agree.
