For those of you who missed part 1 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1720
For those of you who missed part 2 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1721
For those of you who missed part 3 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1722
For those of you who missed part 4 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1724
For those of you who missed part 5 – http://www.create-games.com/article.asp?id=1725

(Yes I know they are on the same article list page but some people may find this page alone in a search engine)

The purpose of this article is to discuss simple things that make video games fun that are often forgotten by video game designers.

Do not be put off by any ‘bad game’ I have listed. I am using them to illustrate a point only. This is my opinion only and you should always make your own mind up when buying games.

Also remember that not all concepts apply to all game types. This is just a general guide to different concepts – with examples of where (in my opinion) some games get the concept right, and some get it wrong.

Sorry for a short one. Its probably best to see it as one giant article rather than six different articles - so this latest one was is for completeness.

So in no particular order – here are another 3 things you need to consider when making a great video game!

1/ Sequels

So you have made your great game and now it’s time to churn out a sequel.

What goes wrong:
Every single year without failure EA Sports releases another FIFA game. FIFA 98, FIFA 99, FIFA 2000 etc… And that doesn’t include special World Cup versions.

Is the improvement from one game to the other so critical that the older must be replaced? Or is it the year in the game title that makes the game redundant. I think if EA Sports decided to have them FIFA 1, FIFA 2, FIFA 3 etc… then people will quickly see that the ‘new version’ is almost identical to the old version with a few minor modifications and the player and club list updated.

If the game is the same as the old one then release a patch. If a patch isn’t possible (like consoles) then give customer loyalty discounts instead of making them pay the price of a new game just for an updated team list.

Another problem with sequels is if you use the same game engine and controls you may risk the player being too accustomed to your game. I found Super Street Fighter II (SNES) a lot easier then it should have been because I had already played through level 8 with every single character without losing a game in a previous version of Street Fighter. The four new characters and extra moves didn’t change the strategy too much so I found beating it on level 8 with characters I was most comfortable with an easy task.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (NES) was a really difficult game. The sequel was basic. They had decided to give your turtles more moves and the enemies were basically the same as the old version. If you are going to make the player harder in the sequel, then you also need to change the enemies so they stand a chance.

What is the right way:
With the Sims (PC) they had expansion packs. Each expansion pack was a lot cheaper then the original and also changed the way the game was played (as well as patching the original).

Then when it was time for a real improvement (the move to 3D) they released the Sims 2. It was different enough from the first (game engine wise) to warrant being classified as a sequel.

And now with the Sims 2 they are releasing a new expansion pack each hour (slight exaggeration) to add something new to the game. But notice how they are not calling it the Sims 3 – which would make the Sims 2 redundant – as you buy a new game that replaces the older one.

A sequel needs to be a new game and different enough to warrant an extra digit in its game title. At this point I will mention MMF 2 (even though it is an application). It is a whole new engine and offers a whole new experience (with a lot more to come). Prior to MMF 2 Clickteam were happy to provide patches and bonus packs for free because they felt the improvements didn’t justify churning out a whole new title.

Good use of sequels: The Sims series (PC)
Bad use of sequels: The FIFA series (various)

2/ Camera

The camera angle lets the player see the gaming world.

What goes wrong:
A player should never have to restart a level because of the camera angle. One of the biggest gripes with a lot of 3D platform games is they do not get the camera angle right. They are forcing you to jump from narrow cliff to narrow cliff with the Camera panning erratically like your drunk friend was filming you play.

While this mainly applies to 3D games it can also apply to 2D games. I think we can all remember in one game or another where a cliff has suddenly appeared and we are forced to restart because the player was too close to the screen edge before it started moving.

What is the right way:
In Super Mario 64 you use up and down of the C-stick to pan in and out, and left and right of the c-stick to spin it around. You can also have the camera follow Mario from 3 distances, and even directly behind him so you can peer over cliffs to see what is down there.

Super Mario 64 is the best example of a 3D platform game. I haven’t played every 3D platform game but in my opinion it has never been beaten. Some will argue that it lacked enemies (probably because it was first use of the N64 hardware and they didn’t know how far it could be pushed).

Also in games like the Sims 2 you can pan up and down at different heights and rotate around to get the best possible view of your Sims.

The important thing to notice is that with both games they do so with rarely compromising the graphics (ie- when you can see behind walls or the inside of characters as part of a glitch in the game).

OK so that was a really short section. Camera – get it right! Not much more needs to be said.

Good use of camera: Super Mario 64 (N64)

3/ Somebody else’s baby

Some game designers make a smash hit game and move on and it is left for other game designers to make the sequel or add another game to the franchise.

Golden Eye was a fantastic game. It was so successful that Rare (the company who designed it) didn’t get rights to the sequel. The company that did make the sequel promised us that they had reverse engineered Golden Eye and the experience would not be compromised.

Then we see a game that I can’t recall because it was not worth remembering. One of the best things about Golden Eye was it DID NOT have a jump. Jumping only works in third person shooters. What’s the point of trying to jump from ledge to ledge when you can not see your feet? Yet the people making the unofficial sequel to Rare’s baby decided to include a jump. They also messed it up in other ways and I honestly can not recall but I do know is that it wasn’t a memorable game.

Super Mario Kart is one of the best games ever. I could not wait to get Mario Kart 64. I wish in hindsight I knew that Shigeru Miyamoto was not playing a role (or as much of a role) in the game’s development. He was too busy piecing the next Zelda game together.
The courses were longer with fewer laps, but the overall time was greater. Instead of having 4 distinct kart types, the karts were basically the same with the exception of Bowser, Kong and Wario able to push people into a spin if they hit them at top speed. Gone were the coins (which was a strategy for using a slower character). Gone was the one strategic power up per lap. In fact you could now hold two items at a time and there were 7 or 8 power up spots per lap. Gone were the DIY short cuts. There was probably one short cut per lap for people with a mushroom, the rest of the track was linear thanks to giant walls. And the computer players were so unfair that it was pointless hitting them until the final lap where you gave them everything they had. If you hit them they would race at super fast speed until they were ahead of you. Winning was a fluke.

This is a golden example of why people who did not make the game should be no where near the sequel until they understand the original. It should have simply been more characters, different tracks, and different obstacles. The formula was already there for a perfect game so I don’t know why they had to change it. The only thing they may have got right was letting the computer characters use power ups instead of having Luigi flash like an idiot every time you approached him.

Finally I will mention another thing that can go wrong is when somebody buys rights to a franchise and stuffs it up like Pokemon. Who was thinking what when they brought out Pokemon Snap (N64) where you got to take photos of Pokemon? $$$

Bad use of somebody else’s baby: Mario Kart 64 (N64)


Well that’s it guys.

I hope you all got something out of one of my articles. Even if the specific examples under each heading did not apply to your game type I hope you will still have a think about the concept as a whole.

It is important to ask yourself questions as you make a game.

Are my game graphics blurry? Is the sound relevant? Does the mission make sense? Am I frustrating the player?

But I think the most important question to ask is ‘Is my game fun?’

Thanks to everyone who read and responded to my articles!