Variety, Creativity, and More!

Unlike many gamers, I get tired of games very quickly, even if they are good games.  I have a hard time sticking to one game long enough to complete it.  If the game is good, I'll eventually go back and play it again, but I'm also one who doesn't like going back months or even years later and play a saved game if there is any kind of story in the game... I always start over.  This makes me careful about what games I buy because $50 for a game that I play for a week and put down is rather expensive.  It means that I have to really look at what games offer and whether they are going to hook me long enough to make that $50 be worth it.  And I know there are many others out there who are in a similar situation.  That doesn't really mean developers should try and cater to those of us who have a hard time sticking to a game when most gamers will play the game over and over if it's good.  However, offering things to make those of us who have difficulty staying with one game enjoy the game enough to actually stick with it will not only help us, but it will help all other gamers to enjoy the game more as well.  So, in the end, even though we're a minority, catering to us helps everyone.

That said, what would make it so we're interested in a game longer and more likely to purchase it?  As the title of this blog states - Variety, Creativity, and More!  It doesn't matter what the game is if it offers these things.  A game that is dull and just like everything else out there is not going to be as enjoyable for players as a game that offers variety, creativity, and more.

Variety
Variety is important in most genres.  Most players don't want to do the exact same things over and over again non-stop.  They want some variety in what they do and the variety increases both enjoyment and replayability.  If you were to play a MMORPG game that only has 1 kind of quest (e.g. kill so many creatures), players will get tired of it very quickly unless there's something else to do to help alleviate that constant repitition.  However, if the game instead had 6 (or preferably even more) types of quests (kill, collect, escort, find, diplomacy, trade, etc), the game then becomes that much more enjoyable because it reduces the repitition.  Sure, you're still going to be repeating those 6 types of quests, but that's much better than repeating only 1 kind of quest over and over.  The variety, even only a little bit, will make a game more fun to play.

Besides quests, variety is important for other things as well.  What can you do in the game - just one or two things, or a lot of different things?  Is the game linear, or does it let you do some of your own things as well?  Are your choices forced upon you, or do you get to make choices and do those choices affect the game?  Do you have various choices of characters (if the game has characters) and/or can you customize your characters?  Is the game the same every time you play it, or does it change?

These are just a few ways that you can add variety to a game and make it more fun for players.  It also helps to keep players interested in the game by offering something new or different now and then instead of having to do the same thing over and over again.

Creativity
Creativity is a must in any game.  All games should show creativity and not just look like a copy/paste or cookie cutters of other games already on store shelves.  Too many games these days take a game already made and change a few things and call it a new game.  Casual games are notorious for this, where you see one game made and then half a dozen sequels from the same company that don't change anything except the graphics and story.  Then other companies create the same game on their own based on what the first game did and it ends up the same way... the same game with just a different look to it.

Even among the non-casual games, we often see the same exact gameplay with a different set of graphics and story.  Obviously, if you make a game in a specific genre, you have to follow certain "rules" for it to be that genre.  However, you can switch things up a bit by adding something new or different or unexpected.  You can even make some changes to those genre "rules" and still keep it within that genre.

Games that show creativity are often remembered much longer than cookie cutter games.  I can name various games from 10 or 20 years ago because of their creativity, among other things, and yet I couldn't list off all of the search and find games I've played in the past 6 months, for example.  So, number 1... be creative and not only will people like the game longer, but they are more likely to remember it years from now and are more likely to recommend it to others as well.  Creativity can double sales.  It could increase sales even more than that.  Lack of creativity causes the game to stagnate.

And More!
So what is this "And more"?  It's simply that... more.  Games that are very simplistic are fine and can be fun to play... for a short time.  They work for casual gamers, but even they can get bored of a game after a little while if it's too simplistic.  Of course, making a game too complex tends to get players frustrated more than making the game more fun to play.  You need to find a middle level that works for your game.  Would some players like statistics in the game?  Would some like more control over creating/customizing their character?  Would players like more different puzzles in a puzzle game?  Would players like more dialog or choices?  Would players like more units or buildings?  Would players like more weapons or armor or loot?

There are many questions you can ask when making a game and the questions depend on the genre and the game itself.  You need to find out what would make sense and if you can make it work and if players would like it.  The trick is to find things that some players would like (it doesn't have to be all players or even most players) and making it fit in well with the game.  If it's something other players won't like, you need to determine if the good outways the bad when adding it, or if it's possible to have it optional so it doesn't affect players who don't want it without affecting gameplay.

Many, many decisions... game development isn't as easy as it may seem.  However, players really want to start seeing improvements to games being developed.  Few genres have had many games come out that were anything more than standard in the past 5-10 years.  Before that, there was a lot of variety and creativity in games and everywhere you looked, developers were coming up with unique ways of doing things to make their games stand out from the crowd.  That just hasn't happened much in recent years and players are getting tired of the same thing all the time.  And if players in general are getting tired of it, those of us who have trouble staying interested in games for long periods of time are getting even more tired of it.  I have hundreds of games on PC and Wii and I often still cannot find a game that I actually feel like playing.  That should say something about what we're seeing these days.

So to all of the game developers out there... please offer us Variety, Creativity, and More!

Game Design :: Consider Something New

One of the most difficult decisions to make in game design is to try something new or unique.  Doing something that hasn't been done before can either work very well or not at all.  Without being able to see how something worked in other games, there is no easy way to know if it will work in yours.  Many game developers will not do anything new or unusual for any major part of their games.  They will add new things to the game that aren't all that important to the overall game because those have little impact of how well a game does, but just aren't willing to take the risk for anything that might make or break a game.

So does the risk mean you shouldn't even consider it?  Remember that a lot of the pioneers for video games had to create something new because just about anything they made was going to be new.  Of course, game development cost considerably less 20+ years ago, so it was easier to make a bad decision on a game and recover with the next one.  Even so, gamers want new and unique experiences in games and even if the game is only "good" rather than great, if it is unique, gamers are more likely to buy the game than they would a "good" game that's just like a dozen others.  Also, keep in mind that you can poll gamers for their thoughts on something you are considering.  If the results are really good, you should be able to use that idea and get good sales as long as you pull it off well.  If the results aren't very good, you know to avoid it.  That can greatly reduce the risk involved in making a game that is different or unique in some way from others out there.

As with making any game, you need to choose your audience and decide whether your idea for something unique or different in the game will go over well with that target audience.  Hardcore gamers won't likely be interested in a Match 3 minigame in their game, nor will casual gamers be interested in tons of stats.  As mentioned, polling your target audience can really help you decide what you should or shouldn't try.  Also consider whether that idea will work with the game genre you want to use.

Unique features don't always have to be completely unique.  You can build off features that are already there and just add something to them that's never been seen before.  Or you might decide to go all out and make a game that defines its own genre because the entire game is a unique experience.  Pulling that off can put your game at the top of sales for years, but is also the most risky.

So how do you decide what you can do that is unique?  One option is to look at non-game activities and interests of your gamers and see if you can incorporate something they enjoy from outside the game into the game itself.  Another is to look at ways of using popular features in new and unusual ways.  You might also look at some of the more unique games that have come out over the years, but which haven't had many similar games made.  If they've done well at the time, maybe it's time to consider making something similar again.  There are many ways you can come up with unique features for your games.  It depends on what kind of game you're making and what it's about and how unique you want to get with it.

Example 1:
Gamers enjoy finding different items in games.  Look at what Diablo did to loot items.  For perhaps the first time, you could loot a huge variety of items because of the random item generator.  This became very popular and has been seen in many games since then.  Years ago, there was a game Sea Rogue where players hunted for treasure in shipwrecks.  Even with the poor graphics of the time, it gave players a chance to hunt for items that were somewhat random and gave you a sense of accomplishment when you found something really good.  Sea Rogue was a very unique game.  I don't believe any other games have ever been made with a similar idea of hunting for treasure, whether on land or in the sea.  Sure, you have the Tomb Raider series, but the items aren't really random and they don't look very realistic, so you lose the excitement of finding the items and you're left with just a typical game where you run around doing different things to complete the objectives.

Consider the possibility of creating a new kind of Sea Rogue game.  With the computers we have today, there are vast improvements that can be made to what Sea Rogue was and still keep the same basic idea for the game - hunting for treasure.  As with Diablo, randomizing the treasure as much as possible really helps to make a game interesting.  You can also give players choices of where to go to look by giving them some information about the areas and what types of things they might find.  Throw in some random events (good and bad) and the game can become a lot of fun.  It doesn't even have to be based on hunting shipwrecks.  You might base it on archaeoligical ruins (a REAL tomb raider experience), for example.  You might set it up partly as a tycoon game, where you build up your treasure hunting business (whatever you want to call it based on what kind of "treasure" you are looking for).  Start out small with few contacts and limited resources.  In the example of examing archaeological ruins, maybe at the start of the game, you know of only a few well-known ruins that have been picked over often.  You might go there and try to find anything that is still there that might sell well to a museum or private collector.  You wouldn't have resources to do an actual dig to unearth a buried ruins and you wouldn't be able to really do much work at the few known ruins either.  However, as you build up your reputation and business, you will gain more contacts with people who know of other ruins or have heard rumors of some that no one has found yet.  Put together enough rumors to get a location to start looking and enough resources to fund it and you might discover ruins from some lost civilization that could be the find of the century.

For the actual "treasure hunting" part of the game, it can switch from the tycoon "mode" to a first or third person view and you can make it action or adventure based for that part of the game.  The main thing with it is that the game shouldn't lead you to the items like adventure games usually do.  You should have full ability to explore the area and depending on your resources and tools, be able to do a variety of things that can unearth items that aren't visible otherwise.  As with Diablo, it would help to have some kind of random item generation for things that you can find as well as a way to hide those things in random locations rather than specific ones to make the game different every time you play it.  Obviously, for the items you find, you're not going to end up with the "Burning Vase of Invincibility" or whatever like you'd expect from Diablo, but you can still have an item generator that can create a large variety of unique items that can be found.  It would help to be able to theme them somewhat so that Egyptian ruins aren't going to have something that you'd expect in Mayan ruins.

That's just a barebones example of a game meant to give an idea of how you can use what has been done in the past, but rarely, and make it into something that feels new and unique.  Remember that the archaelogical suggestion is just one option for this kind of game, with shipwrecks being another.  You might set it in the future and have you exploring planets for alien artifacts or lifeforms, or some other "theme" as well.

Example 2:

Consider using a unique idea that has only been written about.  Take a look at the tournament in the Apprentice Adept series by Piers Anthony as an example.  You learn more about that tournament throughout the series, so it's worth reading the entire series to really understand how the tournament works.  A basic view of it is that two players decide on the game they want to play by choosing options on a grid.  One player might have a choice of One-on-One, or Teams.  The other might have a choice of Land, Air, or Water.  Each player only knows what they are choosing and not what the other player is choosing.  That means your own choice might be good for you if the other player chooses something that works well with it based on your skills, or it might hurt you if the other player chooses something that doesn't work well with your skills.  The players actually have more options than 2 or 3 in most cases and the combination of all choices from both players determines the game that is played.  It makes for a really unique way of choosing a game that can really work well for real gaming tournaments if the game were ever developed.  I recommend reading that series to really understand how it works as it's not possible to clearly explain the intricacies of it in a short paragraph, but this might give just enough to help you see the possibilities.

Now, a "game" like this would have to be created in a very unique way.  First of all, you'd need the main game selection area, which is really where the game is unique.  That is really not such a difficult thing to develop.  The real challenge, and probably the reason this would never really be developed, is the fact that you need a LOT of games of many varieties that can be played based on the choices made by the players.  The only way this could possibly be handled is through game modules.  By being modular, you can allow any company to make a game module for a specific kind of game.  The module can then be loaded into the main game selection program and set up as the result of a set group of choices.  Get enough modules made and you'd have a pretty good selection of games to work with without having to make them all yourself.  The idea with it would be that you'd sell your selection program and whatever "default" game modules you want to create yourself.  Then, other companies can sell modules that they make or perhaps even offer modules for free if someone buys another one of their games.  How that's handled would have to be determined by each developer who chose to make a module for the game.

It would be recommended that each game module be relatively small in comparison with most games coming out today, meaning lower graphics requirements for the most part.  This is because you'd want a player to have a bare minimum of 20-30 games for the selection process to even make much sense and you don't want 1GB or more for each module when you need that many.  You could also limit the types of games thereby making it easier to set up without as much work getting other game modules to be made.  For example, making a similar thing that focuses on only card and board games.  Those are small enough and easy enough to create quickly and the selection process used in that series can make choosing what to play fun and interesting and would still work for game tournaments that focus on card and board games, especially if you can include a built-in tournament scoring system and allow online display of results (preferably on both your own online server and also a user-defined one so tournaments could put up results automatically on their own sites).

Now, card and board games are fairly limited for a player base, but trying it out in that fashion first would give you a good idea of how well it would work and what kind of interest there is in the system as well as working out any bugs and problems involved in a modular game system like that.  You could then choose to expand it to another type of game and so on, perhaps later on allowing each of those to combine into the one main game selection originally discussed here.  The biggest difficulty for any games not included is that all players would need the game module selected to play it.  The selection program can automatically not show the options that lead to modules that both players don't have, but it does limit what modules people can play.  Having an online mode where you can find players and perhaps set limits on the minimum number of installed modules in some tournaments so there's more choices can really enhance it further.

Now, this example is unlikely to ever happen for reasons I've mentioned and because you'd probably have to get licensing or other permission from Piers Anthony to use the system.  However, it shows how you can create something entirely new and unique and how it could potentially become very popular.  Consider something like this in the hands of the Asian gaming groups that have huge tournaments of Starcraft and other games and spend hours and hours developing the best strategies.  If done well, it could become a huge success with groups like that.  And with that kind of success, you can expect more modules to be developed that will continue to make it that much more successful.

So there are two examples of ways you can develop something new that is either very unique or takes something that's already there and relatively unique and building off it to make something that really doesn't have many competitors.  There are many more examples that could be given, but they all revolve around the same idea... making your game unique in some way that will thrill gamers be it through just unique features or a completely unique design from the ground up.  Some games have pushed those boundaries in recent years, such as Assassin's Creed and Spore and done fairly well.

Game Design :: Choosing a Genre

Among the first things you need to do when creating a new game is to choose the genre for the game. With all of the genres out there, this could potentially be a difficult decision. However, most established game developers have chosen only one or two genres that they will make games for, so they don't have many to choose from when creating a new game. For the new developer, or an established developer that is choosing to branch out into another genre, the choices can be more difficult to make.


So how do you choose a genre? First of all, you need to think about what your programmers and designers are capable of doing. It is a whole different matter to make a RTS game versus a FPS game, for example. Just because you can make a great game in one genre does not necessarily mean you can make a great game in another genre. That said, without trying, you really won't know. If you are a new developer or one who is just branching out, it can be very useful to create short demos in some genres you are interested in to see how they turn out and if it looks like your employees can create something that will sell well.

Beyond seeing what you are capable of making, you also need to look at what you actually want to make. Even if you know you can create a perfect RTS, you might not like the genre or might feel there are so many new games in the genre that your chances of making a game that stands out will be too low. There may be other reasons you don't want to do one genre or would like to do another. Although this should not be the only reason you make a genre choice, it should not be disregarded either. People always perform better when they are doing something they want to do. If your programmers and designers and artists and everyone else involved aren't interested in the genre or the game itself, the final product will not be as good as if they love it.

Depending on who you are, the order of the choices you make when choosing what kind of game to create may vary. Some will choose the genre before piecing together the outline of what the game will be about. Others will get a general idea of what the game will be about before choosing a genre that will work. If you already have at least a general idea of what the game will be about, then you also have to base the choice of genre on the game itself. Although not impossible, it may be difficult or may not make much sense to make a Match 3 game if you want your game to include racing or shooting as an example.

Another consideration that you may or may not care about is how full the genre is of new games. Obviously, if there are a lot of games in the genre that have come out recently, or are coming out soon, it will be harder to make your game stand out in that genre. Whereas if you make a game that is in a genre that has few or even no new games in it, you have a much better chance of making your game stand out and sell well... assuming the genre is at least somewhat popular at the time. For example, among casual gaming genres, Match 3 and Search and Find games are overflowing with new games. If I wanted, I could play a new game from each of those every week without missing a beat. There are so many new games coming out in those genres because they are very easy to make. However, because there are so many, it can be very difficult to sell them. Just playing demos at an hour each from Reflexive, I could keep playing new Match 3 and Search and Find games regularly and never even have to pay for them. And because there really isn't an "ending" to those kinds of games, at least not one that really matters, just playing demos is enough for many people. That really limits the number of people actually buying those games. On the other hand, it can be very difficult to find a quality RPG coming out, so RPG fans swarm over new RPGs if they look like they are well-made. You can still choose a genre that has a lot of games in it, but it would be a much better idea to avoid those and work on a game in a genre that isn't quite as packed.

Game popularity is tied strongly with genre popularity. If a genre is popular and has a strong following, you can have more games in it and still have good sales. If a genre isn't very popular and only has a small following, even a few games may be too much for it to handle and still maintain high enough sales to make a profit. Genres also have different types of people who are interested in them. Some people absolutely love FPS games and hate RPG games. Others love RPG games and hate FPS. Some are lukewarm to both, but really enjoy casual games. Keeping that in mind, you also need to decide who you want to make your game for. There are hardcore players and casual players. There are players who like the gameplay to follow that of older, established games. Others want gameplay to be new and aren't interested in what worked well in older games. There are a lot of gamers out there and they are all different, with different opinions of what makes a good game and what genre(s) are fun or not. Even so, you can consider the type of player you want your game to focus on. That choice will play a very large role in how your game is designed. One thing to be very careful of regarding your players is choosing to change which gamers you want your game to be designed for if it's part of a series. If you've already made two or three games in a series focusing on hardcore gamers, it can be a serious mistake to make the next game in the series focused on casual gamers. You might get some new players, but you risk alienating all of your older players who have played all of the previous games.

When choosing a genre for your game, you can also choose to combine genres or even make a game that almost defines its own genre. Combined genres work very well at getting fans from each genre to buy the game, but you have to be able to combine the genres as seamlessly as possible and make the game work well with each genre used. It doesn't help your game if you cut out a lot of what makes each genre great for its fans. Consider if you tried combining an RPG and RTS game, and in doing so, you didn't include a story or any real character customization. You would quickly alienate the potential RPG fanbase that you're trying to draw in with the combined genre. If you instead decide to make a game that basically defines its own genre, you really have to do a great job at making it become something people will really enjoy. Anytime you try to make something that's new, you risk a lot because you don't have an established fanbase to draw sales from and have to hope the hype you generate and the word of mouth after it is out is enough to get the sales you need. That being said, if you can pull it off, you have a great potential of having a game that will be popular for a long time because it won't have any real competition.
 
There are other reasons you might choose one genre over another, but these are the main considerations that should be made. Whatever you choose for the genre, do whatever you can to make your game turn out great. That usually means making it unique in some way as well as making it fun to play.

Game Design :: FPS Games

FPS games, or First Person Shooters come in a few main varieties.  These can really be grouped into 3 main categories.  This first focuses on "arena-style" multiplayer, where the game is designed mainly for multiplayer combat between players in a set area (or arena) with a variety of places to hide, a lot of weapons and/or armor to grab that will respawn, and perhaps even some tunnels, halls, or buildings to run through.  I call it arena-style because the maps are not really maps.  You can't leave a relatively small area.  The idea is that you just run around shooting everyone until you die, then respawn and repeat.  The person with the highest kill count is the winner.  This type of game usually also offers bots (computer controlled players) who can take the place of humans if you don't have enough players to make it fun.  The second main category focuses on multiplayer as well, but focuses more on teamwork.  The games often are often either military or specialty police force games where your team works together against the enemy team.  The maps are usually much larger and varied, offering more tactical and strategic planning.  In some, you have to take and control certain things on the map.  In others, it's just a matter of killing the enemy over and over.  The third main category includes games that focus on the single player game.  These games usually include some form of story to connect the maps so it makes sense to the player.  They also tend to have even larger maps than the team combat category.  The focus on these is usually to complete a set goal or goals on each map usually without dying.

In general, all FPS games really need good graphics to be among the top selling games.  Some older "classics" can get by with their outdated graphics.  DOOM, for example, still has a large following even though the graphics are extremely outdated.  However, if you are making a new game, you don't fit into the "classics" category and simply aren't going to do very well if the game doesn't have really good graphics.  There is a fine line to draw here, though.  For an FPS game, you want graphics to be the best possible, but at the same time, you don't want to lose out on a large share of the gamer population who doesn't have a computer that can handle those graphics.  It's best to offer a large selection of graphical options for players so you can give cutting edge graphics to those that can handle them and still offer options that allow a player on a 5 year old computer to easily play the game without bad framerates.  FPS games are at the top of the genre list for games that absolutely need really good graphics to do well.  Most other genres can get by just fine with lower quality graphics, but not FPS games.

Beyond graphics, you really need to have great sound in the game.  Guns that sound realistic, surround sound that easily lets the player know where gunfire is coming from, fire that sounds like fire if you're close to it, etc.  FPS games are meant to be a realistic experience and sound is almost as important as the graphics.  One thing with sound that I see forgotten in many FPS games is the effect of echoes from gunshots.  If you fire a gun, you don't just hear a single sound.  At least, not if you aren't in a wide open area.  If you have buildings or trees or mountains or any other objects nearby, you are going to get echoes and you'll hear that gunshot multiple times before dying out.  When you're firing a lot of shots, that can be harder to hear and I think that's why many games don't bother putting it in there, but when you fire a single shot and that echo is missing, it is quite noticeable.  Including it can really help to make the game more realistic for players.  And a more realistic FPS game will usually do better.

Beyond the general items that all FPS games need, we'll look at each of the 3 categories individually.  For the arena-style multiplayer games, how the maps are set up is vital.  Each map has to include many places to hide or create ambushes.  There should be open areas and tight areas (such as inside buildings, where turning a corner can put you in someone's sights).  There should be a variety of heights the player can be, from the main ground level to one or two stories up either by being in buildings or towers or ledges or even just hills.  You need a variety of places to hide and ambush people to keep the game interesting.  You also need to have a lot of weapon and armor spawns throughout the map for players to grab as they run out.  From personal experience, I strongly recommend having these spawn points be completely random in what they spawn.  I have played some of these games, where there is one spawn point in the entire map that offers the best weapon and every player immediately makes a mad dash for that spawn point as soon as the game starts.  It takes the fun out of the game when you force players to react in one specific way.  If all spawns are random, then players don't have to pick a single path every time they play the game.  It gives them more freedom and makes the game more fun to play repeatedly.

Team multiplayer games need to really focus on the team aspect and not just have a team.  There needs to be specific ways that the team works together.  If the game just puts players together without offering a way for them to really help each other rather than just all running out to shoot the enemies, it loses a lot of the appeal of a team game.  Instead, consider offering ways to reward players for staying together (at least in groups of 2 or 3) to work together.  This could include just bonus to damage or could include more strategic options, such as a player acting as a spotter who can let teammates target enemies or defenses more easily, or who can warn their team about ambushes, or just offer air support to a given location where their team needs help.  The ways you build the team play can vary greatly and can be anywhere from a bare minimum to very complex.  As long as it's well-designed, it will greatly improve the appeal of any team-focused multiplayer FPS game.  The main goal is to keep the team from "scattering" and doing their own thing.

Single player FPS games need a bit more than mulitplayer focused ones.  First, you need at least a mediocre story or plot to hold the game together.  Obviously, a better story makes for a better game, but FPS games can get by with only a minimal story.  Second, you need some decent objectives other than just "kill everything," though that's still definitely a main part of the game.  It also helps to have a good variety throughout the game rather than everything looking the same from start to finish.  Historical games often run into a problem with this, where you're always fighting in the same kind of old stone buildings in Germany or something similar.  To a point, you're stuck with that, but at the same time, you can often manage to add variety even when your environment that the game focuses on doesn't have much variety in it.  The main thing is that you want to keep players from feeling like they are on the same level/map/area when they finish the game as they were when they started.  It can also be helpful to offer multiple ways to complete the objectives in the single player game, such as offering stealth as an option at certain points, or offering other ways to complete the objects rather than just a heads-on attack approach that is usually seen in FPS games.

FPS games are similar to the hack-and-slash Action-RPG games in that you are mostly just doing the same thing over and over in the game and so the game needs to do its best to offer variety so the game doesn't get tedious and boring after playing it for awhile.  Offer more variety, have great graphics and realistic sound effects, and you're going to have a good FPS game.  Throw in some extras, like being able to damage the environment (breaking windows, shooting out tires, blowing vehicles or buildings up, leaving damage to the landscape if using bombs, mortars, grenades, etc., and so on.  The more you can offer players to keep the game interesting and prevent tediousness will help to make the game stand out above other similar games.  If the game strays from the typical Earth setting and puts you on some alien planet or way in the future or something similar, then consider also offering some really unique weapons.  It doesn't hurt to even have a few weapons that aren't all that useful, but will make the player laugh like some of the weapons/modes in Rise of the Triad.  If you're sticking the player into an environment where everything is alien to what we know as real, it doesn't hurt to make the weapons really unusual as well.  It helps to make things feel "right" in the game.

Game Design :: RTS Games

RTS games, short for Real-Time Stragey, are games that focus on strategy as much or more than action.  Popular RTS games include the Command and Conquer/Red Alert series, Warcraft series, and Starcraft.  These are all just one side of RTS, however.  These games are all focused on building up a base that produces units that you use to both defend your base and attack the other players (human or npc).  Most of the game is really a matter of action and less that of strategy, but how you build the base and how many of each unit you build all make up the strategy part of the game.  Other games that may not be as widely popular, but are still great games are ones like Cossacks.  These games focus more on strategy than on action, by having real control over how your units fight.  Choice of terrain and formation are just two things that affect your strategy and whether or not you win or lose.  Even a superior force in a game like that can be defeated by using good strategies.  Although there's still action in the battles, it really is more strategy than action.  Both sides of RTS offer different experiences for players and can both be very fun to play.

There are a lot of RTS games out there, but only a few really stand-out names that you would recognize.  Part of this is due to having really well-made games, and part is having a really popular developer behind the games.  But what can newcomers to the genre or those who have some decent RTS games that just haven't really become all that popular do to get their games to the top of the list?  RTS game developers have tried a variety of different techniques, features, abilities, etc. to try and improve the genre and their games.  Some work, some don't.  There are some real important things that should be included in any RTS and some things that can be used to improve any RTS as well.

A main part of most RTS games is having one or more bases.  The base is where you build your units and upgrade them and is your last line of defense when being attacked.  It is very important to allow players freedom in how they build their base.  Although many players may be willing to ignore bad base development options if the rest of the game is fun, it's such a basic part of the genre that ignoring it risks loss of interest among most fans of the genre.  It helps to have a variety of buildings that can be built for defense, unit production, and upgrades.  You can get by with a couple of each of those types of buildings, but then every base looks bland.  Instead, having around 12-16 buildings makes base building more interesting and can allow for a bit more strategy in placement and what you build at what time.  More buildings can make it even better, but only to a point.  Offer too many buildings and it gets to be difficult trying to decide what to build and players will end up disliking the game for that reason.  Another option that I don't think I've seen in the genre is having a "one or the other" type of setup when building your base(s).  The basic idea being that you have either a limited amount of space, or can only build a certain number of each type of building, or it's just a matter of picking one or the other between two specific buildings.  The strategy comes from having to decide what works best for your play style and/or what works best in the situation you're in.  For example, you might have the option of either building a building that produces archers or a building that produces horsemen, but not both.  Depending on the situation or your play style, you might choose one or the other and neither is technically better than the other unless the situation says otherwise.  By that, consider an open field map where horsemen would work really well and archers would be sitting targets vs. a map where you're working your way down a winding trail in a mountain and horsemen can only fight one at a time because of space while archers can fire over the heads of those in front to hit the enemies.  Like I said, it's not something I think I've seen in an RTS, but it would offer a greater deal of strategy to the game that could really improve the overall rating of the game.

Beyond base building, units are really important.  People like variety and if all you offer them are a few unit types, they aren't going to be happy.  It helps to have a variety of infantry, ranged, and mobile units (4-7 of each type), and if the game environment supports it, air units.  No matter if the game is set in medieval times or thousands of years into the future, you can still have all of those unit types.  Beyond just having a variety of units that look different, they should also behave differently.  You don't want 4 kinds of infantry that all do almost exactly the same damage, have the same abilities, and almost the same defense and health.  What's the point of that?  You might as well just have one at that point.  Instead, you need them to be unique to each other.  One could have more attack, but be weak.  Another could be great and defending, but not have much attack.  Another could be really good at sneaking past enemies.  And so on.  Variety, variety, variety.  Lack of it can really hurt a game... in this genre or just about any other.

Graphics is also important... not necessarily the quality of graphics (an RTS doesn't need Crysis level graphics), but the graphics need to look good.  The landscape needs to be interesting and clear rather than seeing the same repeating pattern on the ground or be jagged or not very clean to look at.  The units also need to be crisp and clear and need to stand out easily against the landscape (unless they are meant to blend in).

Combat is where the game can really shine or do badly as well.  A game that lets you just rush in with everything without regard to any tactical advantage other than numbers or firepower can't really do much to change how combat works, but games that allow players to make tactical decisions based on terrain or weather or formations or some other advantage/disadvantage can really do a lot here to define the combat in the game.  The obvious tactical decision in trying to be on high ground, therefore having the terrain designed to allow high ground advantages really helps.  Consider if the only way into a base is through a canyon and the base can place archers at the top to rain down arrows on the enemy coming in.  Beyond height of the landscape, having things in the way can affect how tactics work as well.  An archer shouldn't do very good while in the middle of a forest.  Horsemen shouldn't be able to charge through an area with a lot of uneven land (horses break legs if they do that for real).  Those are just some examples of how terrain can affect tactics and allowing for that type of tactical consideration can really make the game stand out among players who really want the strategy element in RTS games.  Terrain that can be destroyed or changed can also be very useful with regard to tactics and strategy and many players enjoy it just for the fun of destroying it.  Bombard the ground and it makes it hard for horses to safely run through and difficult to impossible for vehicles to get through.  Blow up a dam to wash away an enemy that's fording a river.  Shoot cannons at the walls of the cliffs in that canyon that the enemy is trying to get through to your base so boulders fall on them along with the archers' arrows.  The possibilities are endless and the more strategy and tactical control you give players to work with, the more they will appreciate the game.

Formations are another common strategy for players to use, but are often single unit types in a given formation.  What about offering mixed formations, such as 2 rows of pikemen in front of 2 rows of archers with horsemen on each flank?  Definitely a good strategical formation, but can take too much time to manually move them.  If you already have formations, it would be useful to allow more control of them like this.  Perhaps even letting players create custom formations that they can save and use whenever they want.  It could be a nice, simple drag-and-drop method outside the actual gameplay (at the main menu for example) not with individual units, but maybe drag 2 rectangle pikemen boxes onto the layout, then 2 rectangular archer boxes behind those and two square horsemen boxes on the flanks with one side of the layout marked "front."  Then, as long as you have those units selected, you can group them into that formation (and ungroup them as needed) quickly and easily.

A big part of the single player game is the story that ties the different maps together.  Without a decent story, you feel like you're just being thrown randomly onto maps to fight random enemies over and over (basically doing nothing but skrimishes).  That's okay, but not ideal.  Having skirmishes as an option is great, but the main single player experience should have some story to tie the maps together.  It doesn't have to be an amazing story for an RTS game, but you need something.  For multiplayer, it doesn't need a story because you'll just be playing the maps.  Of course, you can make multiplayer a bit more unique by making the multiplayer maps so they have a bit of a story to them that you work through before having the main battle rather than just attacking right from the start.  Of course, you'll want the option for each map to ignore the story and just fight for those that want that.  A story on a single RTS multiplayer map would be unique as I've never seen it done, but it could really make for an interesting experience for players.

Overall, most RTS games have a good formula for gameplay.  What they really need to stand out from the others is a unique environment or unique units or buildings or abilities.  Too many are basically just remade versions of the same game with renamed units that look a little different, but play basically the same.  If you can make an environment and landscape where players will look at say "Wow!" then you'll have a good starting block for making the game stand out.  Throw in some more tactical and strategy elements and you have the makings of a great game.

Game Design :: "Tribe" games

For my second post in my Game Design series, I am going to jump from the more hardcore gaming genre of RPG to a more casual gaming genre... "Tribe" games.  There may be a better word for these kind of games, but this sums them up well enough.  These are games like Virtual Villagers... games where you take care of a tribe and help them to grow.  There really aren't that many games like this available right now, but they it's still a popular kind of game and would do well with more titles to choose from.

Tribe games all have the basic idea of a few people stuck on some island or other location, where they have to survive.  Your goal is to build up the tribe and either escape the location or just survive it, depending on the game.  So what is required for these games and what makes them better?

These games do best when you have the option of letting the game continue running while you aren't playing it.  This lets you complete "tedious" and time consuming tasks without sitting around twiddling your thumbs.  Having this option is really important or people quickly lose interest in the game.  There may be exceptions where the game has no time consuming tasks and everything happens quickly, but I don't really see that as being a good tactic when designing this kind of game.  These are meant to be casual games and not fast-paced games.  The best way to handle letting the game run while not playing is to have at least a few speed settings - paused, normal, and fast.  Having a couple more speeds to offer variety while playing doesn't hurt, but isn't really necessary.  When paused, the game will not do anything while you have it running or while it's not running.  All other speeds have the game progressing whether you have it running or not.

Next, you need tasks to do.  These can be small things like building various kinds of buildings, or collecting food.  Tasks can also include more advanced things like researching things.  A variety of tasks is important or players will tire of the game.  The more tasks available, the more likely the game will succeed.  As far as researching goes, this can include gaining new skills to build new things or creating potions and spells or something like that.  Creating potions or spells using a variety of collected items without knowing for sure what does what can really make the game interesting.  The one thing that seems to be missing from these games that add that ability is a way to record what you've learned.  It's one thing to have to try different combinations in order to find out what the result will be, but it becomes annoying when you have to either write it all down on paper or else try to remember it yourself in order to do the same thing again in the future.  If the player combines items and learns what it does, it should be stored in the game so the player can easily do that again.

Similar to tasks, another common element that makes the game more interesting is having puzzles to solve.  The puzzles don't have to be really hard to solve... these aren't Adventure games.  That's something that developers of these games don't really seem to think about.  I'm not saying that the puzzles should be really simple, either.  They should be challenging without requiring players to look up the answers online.  Remember that these games are for the casual player and not really meant to challenge the hardcore gamer.  The more puzzles available, the more interesting the game will be for gamers.  Just remember to offer a variety of puzzles and try to steer clear of the overused types of puzzles like match 3 or seek and find.

Another element that helps to make the games interesting for players is the ability to find or catch certain things.  In the games out there now, these include things like butterflies, shells, birds, fish, and more.  Having a collection of items adds another goal in the game that many players enjoy.  It's something that is easy and done while working on other things or waiting for some task to complete.  It isn't necessary to have many different kinds of items to collect in the game, but the items that are used should have a large variety to collect.  It isn't as much fun to collect 5 of 5 shells as it is to collect 20 of 20 shells.  It's also a good idea to offer a way to view your collection.  It's also nice to have an interesting way to view the collection.  You can have a display of the items flat on some "wall" or "table," but that's not really very interesting.  Instead, fish can be seen swimming in an aquarium like you can see in Escape from Paradise 2.  Or, you might see birds or butterflies flying and perching in an aviary.  It's also nice to have the different items look different from each other.  It's not very interesting if they all look almost exactly the same.

An overall goal in the game is also important.  What are you doing and why?  As mentioned, this can include escaping the place you are at or becoming a large city or some other overall goal.

That is all that you really need in this kind of game, but you can add additional things to make it more interesting and fun for players.  I'll mention some items that have been used and some that I think would be interesting to include that have not been used yet.

One thing you can include is having babies look something like their parents.  It can be more fun trying to get a kid that looks a certain way be combining different parents than if all kids are completely random.  This idea has been seen in different games, where the hair color or style, skin tone, or clothing is a combination of the parents'.  A variation of this is having a character editor that lets you choose the characteristics of the babies (hair color/style, clothing, skin tone, etc) when the baby is born or even allow the editor to be used on any person at any time in the game.  This hasn't been seen in any Tribe game that I've seen, but offers another option to customize your tribe.  Naming the people in the tribe should also be an option.

Having different locations to play the game when starting a new game is also a nice way to add replayability.  This was seen in My Tribe, where you could choose from a huge number of islands when starting the game or moving to another island after finishing the one you were on.  The variety makes it more interesting than having the exact same location every time you play a new game.  The downside of how My Tribe handled it was that there were still only half a dozen main tasks or accomplishments and each island had 3 of those.  The limited number meant that you were still pretty limited on replayability.  If there were 15-20 different main tasks/accomplishments and a large number of islands or other locations to choose from, it would offer a lot more replayability than any current Tribe game out there.

Accomplishments, achievements, awards, medals, etc.  Regardless what is used, some way of recognizing main things done in the game is also useful in making players feel like they are doing something useful.  Although not required for these games, it's still a very useful element that can make the game that much more fun for players.

One issue I've had with many of these games is how easy it can be to lose the entire tribe and have to start over just because you forgot to pause it before going to sleep.  It isn't so bad when you lose your entire tribe to starvation the first day you play (if you haven't played it for hours that day anyhow), but when you're close to completing the game and you lose them overnight due to starvation, disease, old age, etc... that can make you not want to ever play the game again.  For example, I played Wild Tribe and had all four parts of the Arc completed and just had to put them together.  I had made a working community that had all the food and water it needed without me watching it every second to keep it alive, so I left it alone overnight.  Unfortunately, because I had the number of "people" that I wanted and that was working well, I hadn't made any new "people" since near the beginning of the game.  The result was that they all reached old age the same night while I was sleeping and when I woke up, everyone was dead.  I never played it again.  I think having an option letting you choose between having this kind of thing happen or not would be useful.  When disabled (so you can't lose your tribe to these events), the people in the tribe can just stop doing anything when they are out of food or water or too old.  If they are too old, they only thing they might be allowed to do is have kids.  Then, if the game designers want, they can make it so that the people who would normally have died because of whatever reason would live for something like 15 minutes after the player starts the game.  That allows the player time enough (with a warning of some sort) to fix the problem.  You could also avoid the option altogether and just have that warning and 15 minutes time frame to fix the problem before the people die.  This is meant as a casual game and not one where you should have game ending events.

Another element that can make the game more interesting is adding random events.  The events can be both good and bad and might let the player choose whether or not to take part in the event, depending on what the event is.  For example, finding a crate, the player could be given the choice of opening it or not.  If opened, something good or bad might happen and it's up to the player whether or not to take the chance.  On the other hand, if the random event was a storm, the player would have no choice and would have to live with whatever good or bad thing happened.  Note that there should be a variety of possible outcomes, both good and bad, for each event so that the events don't get repetitive.  When including random events in any game, it is also nice to have an option for the player to choose the event frequency (how often it happens).  This lets players who want a more "stable" game to have it and players who want a more "random" game to have it.  I personally don't think games with random events need a setting for "no random events," though that does offer more choice to players and choices are always good in a game.

One thing some of these games include are likes and dislikes of the people in the tribe.  Unfortunately, I've yet to see those play any part in the game at all.  If you want to include likes and dislikes in the game, it would be better to have them actually mean something.  If a character doesn't like rain, maybe they refuse to work outside in it.  If a character doesn't like the ocean, maybe they won't go near it.  If the person doesn't like butterflies, maybe they won't agree to have kids with someone who does.  Whatever choice is made for how the likes and dislikes affect the game, having an effect would give them a purpose rather than something players completely ignore.

Finally, something that I haven't seen in a Tribe game is real conversation between people in the game.  Some of them let the people talk, but there aren't words... it's just a "gimmick" to make it look realistic.  Instead, it would be nice to have characters actually talk to each other.  Obviously, the conversations need to be rather limited instead of having a hundred things each person can say, but having at least something said would make it more realistic.  The conversations can be in thought bubbles, spoken aloud if you have voice actors to work with, shown on a character tab/display similar to the thoughts shown in Virtual Villagers, or in some other method.  I recommend only showing the conversations (or hearing them) when clicking on someone talking.  You might still have a background sound for talking when near people who are talking (similar to entering a crowded room where you can't hear exactly what is being said, but you know that people are talking).

All in all, Tribe games can be fun games when taking a break from the fast paced games or if you just prefer casual games.  Each game currently available is similar and some things are basically the same in each, but they are all unique in some way.  Unfortunately, the newer games aren't taking the best parts of earlier games and using them in some way to make their games better.  The result is that each game is better than the rest for certain reasons and worse than the rest for other reasons.  If a game were to look at the best things each game previously made did and find a way to incorporate those things in a unique way and add additional elements to help make the game more unique, it could easily be a favorite.  And, remember... Tribe games don't have to be on an island or near the shore.  You might have a tribe game located in the middle of a jungle, for example.  Or even on another planet with unique plants and trees, different colored water maybe, weird looking people in the tribe, and so on.  Make it unique, but keep the best things from other games.

Game Design :: Role Playing Games

The focus of my Game Design series is a look at what design ideas make the given genre good. Obviously, these are opinions that vary from person to person, but I want to take an in-depth look at what I feel about game design. Lately, game designs have been going downhill and most people would agree with that. We have fewer and fewer quality games coming out these days. I doubt my blogs will get the notice of big game developers, but maybe someone will take a look and maybe it will help at least one company to come up with at least one good game. I won't usually make reference to graphics and controls as those are common requirements no matter what genre you're going to make.

I will start my Game Design series of blogs with Role Playing Games (RPGs). I'll begin with standard RPGs. These are role playing games similar to Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torrent. I won't include RPG hybrids, like Action RPGs (for example, Diablo or Titan Quest) or MMORPGs. I will look at those and other genres in another post.


Role Playing Games have been popular for decades. They started with pen and paper (and dice) and progressed up through the regular RPGs that I'll be discussing here, through various hybrids like Action RPGs, up to the online MMORPGs. A lot has changed over the years, but the core remains the same. Unfortunately, sometimes the core pieces get lost in some games that are coming out these days. I haven't seen many good RPGs released in years and I think most fans of the RPG genre would agree.

So, what makes a good RPG? What is required for it to be worth playing and not a complete failure?

First of all, an RPG is just that a Role Playing game. If the game doesn't allow you to role play your character, it's not an RPG to begin with. So what does that mean? Role playing has a variety of meanings, depending on who you talk to. Does it mean you have to pretend that you are that character? If you are a hardcore role player, then the answer would be yes. In fact, that's how role playing games got started. You pretended to be a character in a pen and paper game and basically lived that character's life while playing the game. With the addition of computers, we now have a real character in front of us that we control and we don't have to become the character to play the game anymore. So what is required for you to be role playing a computer character versus just playing it? The main thing is that you need to actually have an interest in the development of that character. If the character is exactly the same from start to finish regardless what you do, it isn't role playing.

Character Development includes a very wide range of options. It can include skills, abilities, characteristics, personalities, looks, and much more. You can have a bare minimum of character development in a game and still call in an RPG, but it probably won't do very well if put up against one with a lot of choice in character development. Below, you can see some of the common choices in character development. Not all of these need to be in a game, but the more that are included, the better the game will be and the more RPG fans will like the game. Remember that customization is a major key to a good RPG!

Basics in Character Development:

• Character creation options
• We are starting to see a few games coming out that give you a lot of control over how your character looks. The upcoming MMORPG, Aion, is one of those. However, this is still not the norm. Many RPGs out there only let you make minor changes to how your character looks when you create it. Although not necessarily as important in a single player RPG as in a MMORPG, it still is important to RPG fans no matter what kind of RPG game you are playing. We want to make our characters look a certain way that will fit with how we are going to play the game. Control over facial features, hair and eye color, height, weight, etc. are all important options when creating a character. Some games even give a slider control to certain features to give almost unlimited choice in looks. That is always a bonus that players really appreciate. Keep in mind, however, that if they game never really gives you a view of your character, such options are not really necessary.
• Skills and abilities are also very important. Sometimes, they get ignored until later on in the game as you learn them. However, your character is not an infant (usually) and should have some kinds of skills and abilities right from the start. They don't have to be significant, but there should be something. Some games give you a few options of good and bad "traits" that you can choose from that give you bonuses or deficiencies to help give you a "background" to work with in making the character feel "real." Others give you a variety of skills and abilities (from just a few to dozens depending on the game) and allow you to place a certain number of points into them. Some give you both options. However it is handled, having a some kind of ability right from the start helps to make the character more believable. No matter how the game handles levels, you really aren't a "level 1" when you start most RPGs. There are a few exceptions where you could say you were, but for the most part, you have lived some kind of life prior to the game and should at least be something like a "level 5 commoner" or whatever.
• Race and class are perhaps the most commonly used options in RPGs when developing a character. Most RPGs give you those choices or something similar. It gives a bit more variety in what your character can do to distinguish itself from just some "default" character. Unfortunately, due to the increase of "casual" gamers into the genre, we are starting to see a shift toward the no-class games where you can learn every skill possible and gain all abilities no matter how you play or what your character starts out as. Yes, it sounds good to have no limitations on your character, but keep in mind that role playing is meant to be realistic (at least realistic to the world the game is set in [obviously magic isn't real]). A cashier isn't likely to be able to build high powered weapons and shouldn't be allowed to in a game. Having different races and classes allows for replayability and that's a very important thing in all games. It makes you make choices in how you play the game and that's a major part of role playing. It's fine if the game gives you some option that lets that cashier make high powered weapons (maybe paying a NPC to do it), but the character itself should still have some limit on what's possible. That said, it is possible to do a classless system where you still have to make choices that will, in effect, create a unique class that is "limited" to a certain set of skills and abilities. The imortant part is that the game doesn't let you do everything.
• Stats are also a common option in RPGs. Strength, Constitution, Charisma, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity ... or some other form of stats. These point values show how your character is advancing as you progress through the game. They also determine how well you do against enemies or other obstacles. Some people don't like seeing the stats, but most RPG fans prefer to see them. Most don't care about seeing the actual "rolls" anymore, but they still are interested in the stats themselves.
• Character development throughout the game
• The main way to offer character development throughout the game is with consequences. Consequences are a very useful way to affect gameplay and allow for very high replayability. It also makes the game more interesting when you know that how you play the game will affect what happens later on. This can be very minor, such as if you are rude to a NPC, they refuse to talk to you again or decide to attack you. Or, for a really well done game, it can go way beyond that and become quite complex. In such a game, you might decide to kill a guard right at the beginning of the game and hours later, you meet the guard's brother who knows you killed the guard. The results of that could be anything depending on the game, but you get the idea. I don't think I've seen games get quite that involved with consequences... there are ones that have consequences happen a long time after, but I don't think I've seen any that keep track of who you killed throughout the game other than specific "main" characters. This is something that has a wide range of options and you can go from very little to quite extensive. Obviously, the greater the complexity, the better the game will be.
• A more commonly used method of character development throughout the game is in the form of levels, stats, skills, and abilities. All of these amount to the same thing... you improve the character's "numbers" by progressing through the game and it makes your character "better". Some games only use this when leveling up to the next level. That is fine, but it makes your character development jump around. It's not very fluid or realistic. Other games allow the skills and abilities to increase through use or other means so that you are getting "better" regularly through the game rather than in spurts. Either way works, though the second option does allow for a better game.

Beyond character development, you have another major requirement for a good RPG... the story. A single player RPG is only as good as its story. Give it a bad story and even if everything else was perfect, the game would still be mediocre. Give it a great story and most gamers will be willing to overlook other deficiencies in the game. Remember that the story is ALWAYS more important than graphics. Graphics are the biggest thing game companies look at these days regardless of genre. And they are important. However, without a good storyline, graphics mean nothing. Provide a good story first, then look at adding some eye-popping graphics.

RPGs revolve around quests. The quests give you a purpose and something to do in the game. They also help the story to progress. Without them, you have nothing really to do other than kill everything in sight. And that's not really what an RPG is supposed to be about. Quests are usually handled fairly well by companies, but sometimes the quests get repetitive and boring. How many times can you go kill X number of Y creatures before you get bored? How many times can you take X from one person to another before it gets tiring? The amount of variety in quests can help to make or break a game. Having a lot of kinds of quests and make it so that those two examples don't get too boring. It's also helpful to have a good selection of side quests that are not part of the main storyline, but have their own mini storyline or even just individual quests.

The world is also important. There have been a variety of choices made over the years in how to make a good RPG world. Some games take the approach of a linear world where you can only really go one way with only a few exceptions. Other games give you an entire world and let you do anything you want to as long as you can survive doing it. In my opinion, neither extreme is all that good. Linear can get boring and can reduce replayability considerably. Wide open can make it so you have no real purpose in the game and quests stop being tied together very much and you are left just wandering around without a story. Instead, somewhere in the middle would be better. Having a pretty open world where you can move about a lot while still "pushing" you down a main path as you go tends to work out better. You get the good of both worlds without the bad... if handled well.

Variety in what you fight and loot are also important. A game where you only every get one set of armor and one weapon and only fight 5 types of enemies can get boring VERY quickly. On the other hand, a game where you have dozens of types of enemies with hundreds of types of armor and weapons allows the game to be more interesting and unexected. Many RPG fans also enjoy finding new and better items/equipment in the game, so having a large variety makes it more fun for them. Diablo is an example of a game that did a great job offering a large number of items through their use of random prefixes and suffixes.

Make the game unique. Yes, you can make a good game that looks and feels like many other RPG games out there, but if you can make a quality RPG that is unique in some way, you can make your way right to the top of the list of games. Some games have made very unique worlds, others offer some very interesting conversations between party members when playing a single player game (e.g. Planescape: Torment), others have interesting and unusual races rather than the more commonly used ones. Some have different things that can happen to you throughout the game such as getting scars from fights or titles from doing something good or bad. Some take the consequences mentioned in the character development section to a new level and have it play a part in your character's overall alignment using many more increments than the standard 9 options (e.g. Fable). Others offer mutations, enhancements, or other changes that can be made physically to your character to allow for more customization. The point is that if you can do something unique rather than sticking to the same mold that everyone else uses, your game can become very popular. Of course, you'll want to make sure it is implemented well so it is looked on as a good difference rather than a bad one.

That huge post is the beginning of my Game Design series. I will post thoughts on other genre designs as I go and will also include other posts about computer gaming. Please feel free to comment on what you see here. I understand it's a very big post and most people won't bother reading all of it, but if you do... please let me know what you think. As I said, I am giving my own opinions and others have different opinions. However, I am trying to show what I feel "most" fans of the genre think. Even if you disagree with some points here, I think you'd agree that any RPG that includes all of these things is likely to be a great game and much better than most we've seen recently. In case I missed anything that's also important for an RPG game, please let me know. I tried to think of everything, but I may have missed something.