[b0rsuk]

My hypothesis is that many game designers have actually forgotten what makes a game fun. Games have become a cargo cult of sorts. Games have character levels, level ups and skill trees but why exactly? Does it make Project Warlock more fun? Certain game traits are replicated without thought.

In my opinion games won't "grow up" as a medium if game designers let others shame them into implementing stuff that doesn't make games better. Like, meaningful moral choices, versus a game letting you play in a number of creative ways. Making a fuss about non-lethal approaches to challenges. The more cutscenes and story you add to a game, the more it becomes a graphic novel. Games aren't about telling stories. They're about generating them. That's what games do best and no other medium can come close - not radio, not movies, not books. The best games are the ones with a ton of mods, with a vibrant community, speedrunners inventing challenges and categories by themselves rather than relying on a programmed system of achievements. No one complains about lack of a story in basketball, chess or soccer!

Games are more about acting than theatre (playhouse) is. Only a few people act in a play, the rest are watching. In a game, everyone expresses himself through actions. The core of a game is acting, in a simulated world or within a set of rules. Games are not about immersion - you can get immersed in a book or a movie. Immersion is just something many best games do.

[dx87]

I don't think it's cargo culting, as much as it's a generation of gamers who were raised with the expectation of a "progression system". I remember back when EA was ridiculed for their statement about "giving a players a sense of pride and accomplishment" regarding requiring a long grind (or big payment) to unlock the most powerful characters in a Star Wars game. I've seen people beg developers to give them something pointless to grind for because they won't play a game without rewards. I think developers know how to make fun games, but I don't think most players want fun games because they've been conditioned to want addiction simulators with meaningless rewards.

[Loughla]

>I think developers know how to make fun games, but I don't think most players want fun games because they've been conditioned to want addiction simulators with meaningless rewards.

I have spent the last two or three years trying to find a fun android and/or console game (outside of some switch games), and I've never been able to put my finger on why the games in the app store, and many, many PC games are just not fun. But this is it.

They're not fun, they're a targeted level up system designed to be just hard enough to keep you from breezing through (until you die two or three times and can watch an ad to get a bigger gun), with level progression just slow enough to make you want to pay for experience.

They're not fun. Commander Keen and Leisure Suit Larry and Doom and Deathtrack and Hexen and The Lost Vikings and System Shock 2 and those kind of games were fun. I thought it might just be because I'm 35-45 years old and am being very 'get off my lawn' about it.

But that's not it. Those games were designed to sell because they were fun. New games, especially mobile games, are designed to be free and addicting enough to get you to spend real money.

[juanuys]

> Commander Keen and Leisure Suit Larry and Doom and Deathtrack and Hexen and The Lost Vikings and System Shock 2

Yes, and the very first Duke Nukem [1]. So much fun! I'm getting into game design this year, and will endeavour to make pay-once, short, super fun games. (I say short, albeit with replay value - I'd hate to string you along for 100+ hours with pointless side quests)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4a3_wazRPA

[StillBored]

I mean old games were designed to be addicting too, so that people would stand in the arcade and feed the machine quarters for hours. OTOH, those games were a lot faster paced/etc. I don't even think its possible to have the kind of super fast arcade level games on a touchscreen.

Which is maybe part of the problem. Old games had a joystick and two buttons. They were easy to learn, hard to master.

[b0rsuk]

I was about to tell you to play some board games. I forgot about the pandemic.

[vanderZwan]

> Games have character levels, level ups and skill trees but why exactly? Does it make Project Warlock more fun? Certain game traits are replicated without thought.

Because simple gameplay loops like that keep people hooked to play them for longer. It's the cynical behaviorist approach to game design, and especially for online games that rely on people playing for longer times and/or paying for more content, that's a great way to extract money from players. Also, game designers are very much aware of it.

[0] https://twitter.com/Alucard__C99/status/1328887200944189445

[hypertele-Xii]

The games industry no longer designs games; They scientifically engineer games to be as addictive and profitable as possible. This process is oblivious to any concept of "fun". Just another thing obsessive capitalism ruins.

Fortunately, the independent games development scene is healthy and booming - it's the easiest time for any given person to make a game than it has ever been in the history of our civilization. Many indies are simply not concerned with making money off of it. It's more of a hobby, a creative endeavour of self-expression, with a chance of fame and fortune.

Of course, not all indies have any idea how to design games, either.