sPlKe and TSG_Torsten have brought up a good point.

"i cannot comment on anything...
basically, you worked weeks on reskinning a model you havent made and incorporate it into the templates code...

sorry but there is nothing there i really see YOU made... isee a reskinned model and ttemplate code with a downloaded gun...

and it doesnt even look like the code actually works.

sorry for sounding so harsh but that is the truth..." sPlKe

"Sometimes I can't understand why so many forum members make great comments to a simple "template-game" and don't comment to others, self programmed/self made projects... " TSG_Torsten

Seen here.
Yet unnamed zombie game.

Even though I'm making the game in that post. I somewhat have to agree with them most of these games made from templates or well frankly look like crap are talked more about then some really well made games made from scratch.

So here is the question, What makes a game a game? Is it how its made? How it looks? How it plays? Or is their something else?

i would say :

combindg panels white enitys white sounds if the one looks ugly the sounds is wourse and the models are eye candy and the terain is oke the game still sucks
most off the time sounds playes a big part then everthing is stuck together ten how it plays and the how it looks

models and levels can always changed by look by shaders, light,smog and other entity's

then every one love's to play other games
someone would be loved t oplay rts other mmorpg other simple shooter
and some wants to play thinking games

so it diffuclt to say what the purfect game is

but i think you need from everything somewhat

in regards to the varied distribution of attention in Showcase I threads, here are a number of reasons i can think of:
-- screenshots attract attention. screenshots that show evidence of effort and the potential for a brighter future with a few mistakes will receive more comments and criticism than average looking screenshots where there's nothing glaringly wrong for people to pounce on.
-- potential. something that looks like it will be playable/usable in the near future will attract a lot of attention if it's something people want to play. i'm not going to take the time to comment on something that i don't even want to play unless i need to praise that person for something that really impresses me.
-- youtube. or other video-hosting/playing sites. it's a lot less of a hassle to stream a video in the browser than to download and play a video in media player. if a link ends in ".avi" or ".wma" or something, i'm not going to click on it (unless it is a big update to Kiyaku's Angela's World or something). i'm more likely to click on a ".mov" or youtube link because that will play in my browser.
-- the user. if someone is pretty new to the forum and doesn't make it obvious in the first post that what they're doing is more than just an ambitious noob's dream, it's less likely to merit a response from me. noob's need to be encouraged, of course, to get out of the 'noob' stage, but when times are busy i'm not going to bother trying to set them straight and figure out whether or not they're worth paying attention to atm.
-- game. i'm more likely to comment on a game than anything else. i see model packs, texture packs, and examples of freelance artwork, but i'm never going to use any of them, and they are of no interest to me unless they are exceptional (such as Andvari's work which should be an inspiration to any aspiring game artist), in which case i will comment and say "that's good!". having said that, i enjoy having a look at aztec's frequent contributions because i can see how much he's improved over the past many months and he's actually producing some nice stuff -- yet i still don't comment on them, because i know there are many others who will reliably point out where improvements can be made, and they don't hugely impress me (as i'm sure aztec can understand at this stage). a game that looks like it will get somewhere is exciting, because we could really use some more sold games to show A6/A7's capabilities, or at least spread the word about it.

that's basically how i put my personal response to Showcase I threads into words.

what makes a game a game?

control. if the player can control what goes on, it's a game. i wouldn't call a "choose-your-own-adventure; pick option A or B" a game. that's more of an "interactive story". what makes a game a game is entirely dependent on how it plays, if the question is to be taken strictly.

it's a fairly ambiguous question, really. i don't have much more to say for now because i've spent too much time responding to this thread and admittedly my response is somewhat tangential, focusing on the quote from TSG_Torsten.

what makes a game a good game lies foremost in its design. a good game is (usually) designed well first, and then if the programmers, artists, and testers are worthy of their profession, they'll flesh it out as the designer(s) planned. modifications to the design are made along the way, but it's the design that makes the game good or bad.

uh... yeh... my two cents of rambling. maybe i put some subjective things across as "fact", but that's how good essays are meant to be done so i shouldn't let myself fall out of that habit until mid-next month. before responding directly to me, keep in mind that the whole "Showcase I" bit is an example of how i function, and by no means am i saying "this is how everyone works".

julz

I talk about FPS in this case :
Play Bioshock,Far Cry,Crysis
to know what is a fun and higly enjoyable game.
-top graphics with normal/specular maps and lights : no more flat textures and
old flat lightening
-lot lot of effects from shooting,smoke,water
-some physics to play with for pleasure and things to destroy/break
-improved gameplay and camera movement during running,shooting
-liberty of achieveing a goal liek you want by several ways (Deus Ex game base )
....
i played Metroid 3 on WII , it is far far from the fun and graphics of these PC
games.
Just play theses games and try to copy them as much as you can

For beat them up : God Of War 2 on PS2 !
Play it and be sinpired on graphics, gameplay with some diversiefied action ,and unlockable things

for action RPG : well Diablo , incoming HEllgate London : i've played demo
and couldn't stop
be inspired by their interfaces, level up things /possibilities, gameplay and camera, effects etc ...

Just go to Ign.com see the best ranked games and play them to know what you
have to copy with originality

First of all, this link seems relevant: Lost Garden: What are Game mechanics?

Quote:

---

I talk about FPS in this case :
Play Bioshock,Far Cry,Crysis
to know what is a fun and higly enjoyable game.
-top graphics with normal/specular maps and lights : no more flat textures and
old flat lightening
-lot lot of effects from shooting,smoke,water
-some physics to play with for pleasure and things to destroy/break
-improved gameplay and camera movement during running,shooting
-liberty of achieveing a goal liek you want by several ways (Deus Ex game base )
....
i played Metroid 3 on WII , it is far far from the fun and graphics of these PC
games.

---

Before I read your points, I tried to think of the things that make FPS-Games enjoyable for me. Of course, I am not a big fan of these kind of games in the first place, but it should still be noted that I did not think of the graphics, even though they play a big part in FPS games.
Instead of dozens of shaders or very high texture resolutions, it's more about the polish of the whole game and how it all comes together. I can still enjoy games that are a few years old, even though they don't have "to graphics with normal/specular maps...". It can't be only the graphics, I suppose. They play their part, but nowadays it's more about the art and how it all comes together and the level of polish. Expectations rise these days, so maybe games now have to have all these shaders, I don't know. But is this really what makes these games "fun" or, to go back to the thread, "games"?
(I also disagree about Metroid Prime 3, I have great fun playing it, and the level of polish in there is amazing)

Let`s have a look at the other points you mentioned. Other than graphics issues, you mention a physics engine. Yeah, it's fun when the crates (speaking of which, there are way too many crates in videogames) fall realistically, but is this really so important? Half-Life 2 showed that it can be enjoyable and cna be cleverly incorporated into games, but I don't think that this is a must-have-feature (although I suppose physics in games will become a standard in the near future).
"Improved gameplay" is a clever point, because you basically circumvented the question we try to answer here! What is gameplay, at its very basic core? What concept is behind that? And how can you improve that? Would be cool if you could elaborate on that
The nonlinearity and possibility to solve goals in several ways is also a cool feature, but by no means is it something that divides between "game" and "not-game", which is what we discuss, if I understand the question right.

If I were to mention games like Phoenix Wright, games that do have their fans (like, you know, me), then we would have to see that it doesn't even fulfill one of the goals you mentioned. Fair enough, thats not a FPS, but it is still a game (although some may even argue with that).

What makes a game a game is, for once, the interactivity. Of course, the player, the user, can interact with the game, their characters, their weapons or whatever it is the game presents. It can be as simple as flipping blocks (Tetris) or changing their colors in puzzle games, or as complex as moving a virtual avatar through a world, interacting with thousands of other players (MMORPGs). The level of interactivity is different, though, and what you are doing.

Looking at the article I've posted, especially at the very first chart, we see that games are compromised of several game mechanics, little things to do with specified rules that, when done, change something in the world and provide feedback. This then changes other aspects in the game, unlocks new ways to spend your time (maybe other game mechanics, or other parts of the map). When you look at it, many games can be broken down into several "minigames" that are actually quite simple. In a shooter game, you could have the minigame "move", "look around", "aim" and "shoot". Only put together are these interesting enough for the most hardcore of players (and even then, they want many different things to happen), but for newcomers to videogames, this can be a very difficult concept to grasp and understand, let alone master.
My beloved Phoenix Wright is much, much simpler, with the parts being investigating (verbs are: investigate, move, talk and present), dialog/in-court (which is pretty much a "select what you want to do now"-kind of thing) and cross-examination (find the lie, show the proof). It's much, much simpler than the shooter mentioned above, and there are not as many things to do at once. Maybe this is why its easier for newcomers to play that.

I've now written a lot. Nobody will probably read this far. Too bad, I guess.

@JulzMighty: It was quite interesting to read what makes you reply to a Showcase-post. I think that a "how-to-present-a-game"-thread would be quite interesting as well Someone should totally open it.

I think what makes a game is the interactive feedback loop, where your interaction changes the state of the system, it's processed into a new configuration which requires further feedback, and there is some kind of objective between agents (player, machine, state of a stack of cards) in a conflict with some kind of quantifiable end point. Simulations and RPG's are more confusing to pigeonhole as games in this definition, unless you consider particular goals as a quantifiable end point (have your sim city reach stage X, or to beat a certain mission in an RPG, or to get your level beyond Y. (Thanks, Rules of Play.)

hi guys...

well i spended nearly 30 minutes to read the whole thread...

however... what makes a game a game: the player THINKS he takes TOTAL control over action/sene/whatever (except settings, here the player must have control); but thats of course NOT TRUE; succesful gamedesigners always implement surprises or "gimmicks" wich the player does not expect.

conclusio:the art of gamedesign ist to make the player BELIEVE he has control...

roalds home

merry x-mas and a happy new year!!
roald