quantumsheep said: Bang on! If people don't want to play your game, having four dozen achievements won't help!
QS
I agree that the game needs to be fun in itself however competition is a powerful force that people find compelling. For example, I have two brothers and we still love to think back to easter morning when we were kids. We didn't just hunt for easter eggs - it was a full contact sport! Getting the most easter eggs was far more important than the resurrection! (blasphemous as it sounds) So I think that achievements and global leaderboards can provide a bit of competition which can make a fun game more fun or at least fun for longer. I don't think hunting for easter eggs would have been very fun if I didn't have two brothers to compete with.
youngster9 said: Do you guys think that I should add achievements even if they would not go with the game. Should I just add achievements just for the heck of it?
Ity can only do more good than harm. People won't not buy it because it has achievements.
One thing I've been thinking a lot about when it comes to what's important in design, is something that should be so very, very obvious to us all, but it actually slips the mind quite easily. Design for the device.
"Touch" has become such a common phrase, but it is actually still in its infancy when talking about its role in gameplay. It is the "touch" that drove the sales of the new style of smart phones. "Touch" created a new standard, and should be explored. It's easy to overlook it as just another button, or joystick, or swipe controller. It's not though. It's an interaction with the game, IN the screen. When we grew up playing games with controllers, there was a tactile separation from us and the game. That cannot be avoided with idevices.
So what I've come up with is this: It is vital to be aware of the "touch" when developing the game. Either design the game so that the awareness of the touch for the user is minimized (like Bejeweled 2, I'll explain this in a moment), or make it an invaluable feature in the interactive nature of the game.
In the case of removing the awareness of the touch, look at Bejeweled 2. Why is it the best selling game of its style? There are dozens if not hundreds of swipe to match games out there, but rarely do they ever top Bejeweled, and if they do manage it, they disappear after a short time, and Bejeweled remains. I believe it is the transparency of the touch that is important here. The game responds so well to the touch, that it is in fact the gesture that the player focuses on. In every other match style game I've played, there has been a minor fault in the swipe that forces me to "try" to move the pieces by focusing on the touch.
In the case of making the touch an integral part of the nature of the game, just look at angry birds, and tiny wings (since they have been brought up quite a bit). The touch is vital to the experience. It isn't just pulling the slingshot back, it's holding and pulling. Your aren't just touching the screen to make the tiny wings bird dive, you're FORCING him to fall down. You must be aware of the touch for the experience. I have caught myself pushing slightly harder on the screen when going for a longer shot in Angry Birds. What they did in Angry birds is make the slingshot experience so fluid and PERFECT that it actually gets out of the way of our own imaginations. We can pretend that pushing the screen harder will get that little bird 1 centimeter farther, even though we KNOW it won't. It's called suspension of disbelief. It's easier to achieve when you're using a controller in your hands because it isn't smooth. You "see" the controller with your hands and fingers and so you can put the rest of your attention on what the game is. We don't have that luxury because our buttons and joysticks are smooth on glass, but if you find a way to make the user forget about the device, and focus on the gameplay, suspension of disbelief actually has a chance to come into effect.
Super Mario Brothers didn't have achievements. Make a solid and fun game sundae. Use the achievements as the sprinkles.
Hey there, I like this post, and I think I have a game concept that is at the same style as a birds but better, I could take the next three months to figure it out or work with someone on the forum and have it done in a week or two..what is the best way to share an idea, I dont mind sharing a lottery ticket I just want to make sure its fair splits. How would you go about it?
We discussed this a bit in another thread, basically it gets bit tricky as to do it legally you'd need to setup a joint business, a new developer account, get a contract drawn up and probably a business bank account. Not sure how you'd get the percentage of revenue shared out without doing it manually, I'm sure it can be done easily enough with a business bank account though.
DonQuantum said: Hey there, I like this post, and I think I have a game concept that is at the same style as a birds but better, I could take the next three months to figure it out or work with someone on the forum and have it done in a week or two..what is the best way to share an idea, I dont mind sharing a lottery ticket I just want to make sure its fair splits. How would you go about it?
I think that if you think you can do it yourself then do it yourself. If you do have any questions on tiny things people on the forum will be happy to help. For me I feel proud if I make a game that does good by myself. Also why go through all the trouble in making a business deal and make a contract. I think you're better off investing some good time into it and getting a really good product all by yourself.
youngster9 said: I think that if you think you can do it yourself then do it yourself. If you do have any questions on tiny things people on the forum will be happy to help. For me I feel proud if I make a game that does good by myself. Also why go through all the trouble in making a business deal and make a contract. I think you're better off investing some good time into it and getting a really good product all by yourself.
]
Youngster9, you have much wisdom for your name, I tried to come up with answer and you are RIGHT!!!
"What would a game need to have in order to make the top 5 in the US app store, is it possible with GameSalad"
...Are the current limitations of slow loading times enough to stop a game being good enough to compete with the top guns...?
I know there are ways of improving the loading times but they are still longer than a lot of other games (including games with a lot more going on). ...
I don't think loading times will hold you back if you use the work arounds that people are sharing on this forum. Seems like if you have a menu system with everything in one scene and you use attributes to reset game scene instead of using the reset scene behavior you can eliminate the most annoying wait times. I don't mind waiting a bit for a good game to load. But if I have to wait 2 or 3 seconds after each time I die it just feels like I'm being kicked when I'm down. But if I just completed a level and I have to wait two seconds for the next level to load I don't mind as much because I'm in a good mood from just completing the previous level. So for me those are the two loading times essentials - menu in one scene and instant restart after dying. Both of these things are very doable in GS.
I think it has to do with the sense of anticipation you have before getting something new. Trying a level that you just failed at has no sense of anticipation. You just want to get on with it.
Comments
QS
Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
Happy easter! May the best egg hunter win!
"Touch" has become such a common phrase, but it is actually still in its infancy when talking about its role in gameplay. It is the "touch" that drove the sales of the new style of smart phones. "Touch" created a new standard, and should be explored. It's easy to overlook it as just another button, or joystick, or swipe controller. It's not though. It's an interaction with the game, IN the screen. When we grew up playing games with controllers, there was a tactile separation from us and the game. That cannot be avoided with idevices.
So what I've come up with is this: It is vital to be aware of the "touch" when developing the game. Either design the game so that the awareness of the touch for the user is minimized (like Bejeweled 2, I'll explain this in a moment), or make it an invaluable feature in the interactive nature of the game.
In the case of removing the awareness of the touch, look at Bejeweled 2. Why is it the best selling game of its style? There are dozens if not hundreds of swipe to match games out there, but rarely do they ever top Bejeweled, and if they do manage it, they disappear after a short time, and Bejeweled remains. I believe it is the transparency of the touch that is important here. The game responds so well to the touch, that it is in fact the gesture that the player focuses on. In every other match style game I've played, there has been a minor fault in the swipe that forces me to "try" to move the pieces by focusing on the touch.
In the case of making the touch an integral part of the nature of the game, just look at angry birds, and tiny wings (since they have been brought up quite a bit). The touch is vital to the experience. It isn't just pulling the slingshot back, it's holding and pulling. Your aren't just touching the screen to make the tiny wings bird dive, you're FORCING him to fall down. You must be aware of the touch for the experience. I have caught myself pushing slightly harder on the screen when going for a longer shot in Angry Birds. What they did in Angry birds is make the slingshot experience so fluid and PERFECT that it actually gets out of the way of our own imaginations. We can pretend that pushing the screen harder will get that little bird 1 centimeter farther, even though we KNOW it won't. It's called suspension of disbelief. It's easier to achieve when you're using a controller in your hands because it isn't smooth. You "see" the controller with your hands and fingers and so you can put the rest of your attention on what the game is. We don't have that luxury because our buttons and joysticks are smooth on glass, but if you find a way to make the user forget about the device, and focus on the gameplay, suspension of disbelief actually has a chance to come into effect.
Super Mario Brothers didn't have achievements. Make a solid and fun game sundae. Use the achievements as the sprinkles.
Nicely written little essay there...
I'll get cracking on my 'Solid and fun game sundae' soon as possible.
First I need to finish a couple of mediocre games, before I put some full on game theory into practice.
We discussed this a bit in another thread, basically it gets bit tricky as to do it legally you'd need to setup a joint business, a new developer account, get a contract drawn up and probably a business bank account. Not sure how you'd get the percentage of revenue shared out without doing it manually, I'm sure it can be done easily enough with a business bank account though.
Youngster9, you have much wisdom for your name, I tried to come up with answer and you are RIGHT!!!
Thanks
"What would a game need to have in order to make the top 5 in the US app store, is it possible with GameSalad"
...Are the current limitations of slow loading times enough to stop a game being good enough to compete with the top guns...?
I know there are ways of improving the loading times but they are still longer than a lot of other games (including games with a lot more going on).
...
Speed to replay a level is key (something I did'nt do for Escape Artist)..
That's one of the key things in Angry Birds...the ability to very quickly retry a level as soon as you realize its not going to plan...