I like the caveman idea. I've already thought about some kind of prehistoric action-startegy-civilization-god game, controlling little tribes, developing/using simple technologies and weapons, buildijng small settlements... moreover, later it could be adjusted to other eras easily, like in case of many rts games...

the magic shooter is also a fine thing, but probably requires advanced artistic and effect writing skills...

what I plan currently is to make some little open source games, to replace my demos representing how to use levels created in MapBuilder, with some more advanced stuff. they would be basically 3rd person shooters, or sword and bow fighters, or spell casters with some... but maybe I'll be lazy and work only my rts game

So I thought about my dark Zelda idea and kinda wanted to play with it.
Then I did a very foolish thing - To get the idea machine working in my head I thought I'd watch the latest game trailers on my (Streaming tv service) account. So there I see the Assassins Creed (3-4?) and Thief trailers. Now this might be strange to say but I don't play games or fallow game news - Hell I had no Idea what Assassins Creed was like and Thief (the dark project) was just some old game I'd remembered people buzzing about long ago...

- How do I turn this feeling of pointlessness around? Please anyone?

[Trying to shorten this up cause I talk to much]

Since I don't understand games I think I'm having a really hard time understand how to make my Ideas into good games for the indie world. Please someone help me understand what games are about and also what I should be trying to do if eye-popping graphics and super reactive environment and player mechanics are not even possible?

I'm just confused not whining.
Mel

Simply: Don't. Don't try, don't want to create such games.
Assassin's Creed titles are sh*tty games in my opinion, they are so boring and incredibly repetitive. The same goes for many other AAA titles, they are simply no fun to me anymore, approx. since CoD: MW1 (which was a pretty good game though) most blockbuster games just try to streamline a cinematic experience. This hurts the gameplay a lot, and I basically find this to be not debatable. For example I really like the shooting and general gameplay of Max Payne 3, but I hated the game and could not complete it because you were interrupted every 10 to 100 seconds at max, cutscenes all the time or the game simply took control of your character.

I don't want to say that indie games are the holy grail (because they are not), I dislike most of them too, but oftentimes they take a better approach in terms of fun gameplay and they can do that because they don't have to appeal to a mass audience.

What I can suggest is that you try to create or think of fun mechanics first (Assassin's Creeds mechanics are mostly not fun, when you are climbing around you simply hold a direction or press a single button, no challenge, no fun, same for Uncharted, Tomb Raider and the like). Then or even before that think of your setting, your world where the game should take place in, and with of of that in mind think of a perspective for your game (top-down GTA 2 style, angled bird's eye view like in handheld Zelda games, side-scrolling in 2D or 2.5D, ...). A 3rd person or first person perspective is not recommended, except when you go for a highly stylized design (checkout AaAaAA, the A7 game Gravity or its semi-sequel/ remake in Unity "for the Awesome").

My personal discovery during the last year: You can create nice visuals by simply using plain colored textures (or greyscale and tint it dynamically) and then use those as a base texture for some material and shader effects. This saves a lot of time and work.
Or take the similar graphical approach of Super Mario Galaxy 1 or 2 (google images), just don't ever use normal mapping (looks horrible in 99% of indie games) and don't use the default lighting material.

Thanks Superku, you've given me some direction. I alway take-away something positive and/or helpful from you. I will keep looking to understand what it is I want people to feel when they play a game I made and what it is that I want to say to them with the game.

Always Grateful
Mal

You are welcome!
Keep in mind though that I'm no expert and can only give advice via my own experience and opinion.

I disagree with this statement (and I'm not a huge Assassin's Creed-fan myself). Don't get me wrong, it may very well be true for you, but I can't let it stand like this, written as if it were objective truth.

Alright, so here's the thing, the "you just press a single button!"-argument is always a tricky one, because at the core, this argument works by oversimplifing the game to make it sound dumb. You can do it with any game, too ("Mario is so easy, all you do is hit jump when there's a pit"). I'd argue that the challenge in Assassin's Creed is played out on a higher level - the challenge is to plan out attacking routes or your escape. So your focus is not so much on where your character is right now, but a few steps ahead, figuring out where to run to escape (or whatever). This is fun and a legitimate gameplay choice - only forcing you to press one button is, on this level, a design choice to focus the gameplay to what it was most likely intended to be. Forcing you to press a button for all these things would make it impossible or at least much harder for you to focus on the higher playing level of figuring out your plan. Consider Mario: The focus is always on the challenge you're on RIGHT NOW, then you go to the next challenge in the level. But from a gameplay-standpoint, all that are just disconnected platform challenges. Fun and interesting, sure, but held together only by its narrative (they're all in the same level). AC, I suppose, wants you to see two, three challenges ahead and asks you to make the most of that.

Additionally, there's merit in great visual design. Tomb Raider is great fun because of the atmosphere it creates. It really feels that the places you visit are real and interesting, though of course - like any other videogame level - that won't stand any close inspection. Despite this, the locales are visually interesting (and they, too, provide puzzles - Tomb Raider is, after all, famous for it's puzzle encompassing the entire level).
This doesn't mean that I agree that Tomb Raider/Assasin's Creed mechanics are uninteresting - I had fun with both of those titles. I just think their focus is somewhere else, and that is fine.

Superku is, in contrast, much closer to Mario: A focus on movement and navigation as a process (as opposed to as a means as in Assassins Creed). This is also fine and fun, but its just different to the other games, not better.


Of course, you're well in your rights to say that you prefer that type of game. But, again, others may disagree.

That's why I said "in my opinion", and I disagree with your post except the part that the climbing in Assassin's Creed is part of a bigger goal/ gameplay mechanic. For a better example of what I dislike about it see Uncharted or Remember Me (did not play this one though, only saw a Wtf is... video from Totalbiscuit). There you only point where you want to go and press a single button, 99% of the time having no other choice. There is no fun in that mechanic, you cannot say that his has been your chosen escape route or whatever. The only thing that those passages have is that it's oftentimes nice to look at.
Imagine you are now creating your own game and you want to or think you have to include those jumping/ climbing passages, too. This will not benefit your game at all in most cases, not only because your visuals will most likely not match those of current AAA titles, but because it's not an interesting mechanic your players will care about or remember about your game (it is so overused for the last couple of years).
The jumping in a (2D/ 3D) Mario game is IMO not comparable to such a climbing mechanic, it's your timing, your direction, the duration you hold the button for additional air time, corrections during the jump and so on, where the direction, timing and speed of your jump depend on previous and future actions (like a moving enemy), too. It's a completely different thing to let's say the semi-automatic jumping on a wall in Uncharted.

Regarding the newest Tomb Raider game, I find it (at least the first part and the first hours, don't know more) mind numbingly stupid (again, me, not everyone), the whole development and those pseudo cool action sequences where the game simply takes control over your character (same as in Uncharted to some extent, CoD since MW 2, Battlefield, Far Cry 3's story missions and esp. Max Payne 3).

I did not mention Superku anywhere, esp. not that it's better/ does have better jumping mechanics, because it is not.

Error014 thanks for the reply. I like what you have to say about a game design that involves per-thought and not just reaction or blind "in the moment play". In The post I was asking to understand how I could make a game with my skills. The question of how interesting or good the design of a AAA title is, was not the focus. The visuals of Tomb Raider may very well be a great part of it, but it serves me no good as I can't make a game with these visual at it's heart. But what I take away from that is that my environment is a big piece of the game I make - almost it's own character. And so I should take care to create something, with the skill I have, with this in mind.
I didn't point out the Games I did to spark a discussion over there pros and cons. I did it so all of you could 'hopeful' tell me the things I need to understand to make a good game with what I have, because it simply cannot do and be what these game are.
Superku helped a lot with how he has told me not to try and recreate the work of a big AAA team. And also not to try and create a cinematic recreation ( Which is what I really like), that knowing I can not make this kind of game I have to learn the ideas to make the great game that I can. HIs biggest help has been the positive way he has defined a good game as being more than these cinematic events. It give me hope.
Please Error - If you can add to the advice, please do. Everyone here has an idea of what a game is 'that can be made by one person, with this engine and even if you lack real programming and game design education.'
Is Superku(g) a better game - I think in the end this is measured by the player when they decide which one they enjoy most and why.

Hi Malice, in my view Games are about Entertainment, interactive entertainment at that too, whether its a solo experience or social (in a broad sense).

From this platform (entertainment) comes familiarity (getting to know the rules and scope of the game) and subsequently skill (mastering the elements)and then active engagement (if you find you like the game after all that).

That is its fundamental foundation.

Game types are then expressions of variety on themes and each one carries with it 'rules of engagement' either to give full reign to a players freedom of expression or to limit a players freedom of expression in order to concentrate on a skill.

Always entertainment is the core foundation.

So applying this to modern Digital games expressions with the parameters of your known skill set and your area of interest should give you a good clue as to what you want to do (i.e. motivation)

This would ensure that the game type you take on is what will hold your interest in the long run and give you incentive to start and finish a game concept.

Using your history would be invaluable in making such a determination, for example, the most common games I played as a child was Board games and hero role play games with other children and the mode I really enjoyed was one where I could control the rules of the game to ensure an outcome that favoured my sense of accomplishment.

Translating that to digital games, I prefer adventurous strategic games in first/third person modes.

And from that my choice is then RPG with TBS elements which is expressed by digital game board development currently.

I am relearning GS as I havnt done anything with it for over 4 years and so after perusing AUM I found the Snakes and Ladders example and am currently developing my version in a copy cat fashion as well as another version to increase the learning curve and make the game 'my own'.

So I would suggest that AUM Plug and Play may give you some ideas as they come with working examples from which you can determine if they are within your skill set and interest range to pursue as a start for your choice of development.

But in short, make what you like playing the most.

Wow -Nems- thanks for adding to the big picture for me. There is a lot there to think about and fully understand. You really did give me a stronger framework to understand games from and also more why I have a hard time with the whole thing. And homework - Awesome gonna hit those Plug and Plays.

The idea of "interactive entertainment" is a stubble for me - I'm used to thinking in terms of how I want something (Story) to make a person feel or come to understand a thing. Of creating scenes that speak a message in an undertone. You help make the flaw clear - Game players don't so much want to have feelings invoke or have something communicated with the whole of the game. "Interactive" hits it home - A game is creating a place and rules for players to "Do" things. It's the missing thing that a stroy(movie,book,comic,ect) person like me didn't get. Interactiveness is the fun - not winning or riding and invisible backseat chair in an adventure. Give them a place with rules, a person to be: with rules, skills, the ability to grow and the freedom to explore all of that - this is a game and the fun of it, Right?

I must seem mad to you all - "Play what you like and draw from your history" - Well I guess I just never 'really' played anything. Or rather I played in a very odd way - I took things apart and tried to rebuild them. Be it a walkman or a comicbook or now a video game.

Anyway I'll just keep talking. So thank you for your help Nems and Please IF this conversation is polluting this thread, would you jump to it's own thread.