This question is debateable...
Other (post reply)
A while back I read an article in my gaming magazine that really made me think. A designer said that people are really good at knowing what they do like, but very bad at knowing what they will like.
Personally, I feel gameplay is the most important part. But, I have games that have tons of gameplay, but sit on my shelf. Why? Too involved. So perhaps what I know I like now is more of what I will like in the future.
By the way, nice site Eber. Checked out all the models, pics (died laughing on the one about the mouse and the man), etc. Very nice.
a well rounded game is always good. consider revising the fundamental approach and do not concentrate on one particular aspect... then you will have such an involved process [and evolved game] that you will wonder where you started... [for example, my File versions... from dos-text to 32-bit VESA... from bc45 16-bit, to DJGPP... what happened in two and a half years!!!]...
1024!!! good night!!!
hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...
Thanks for the complement on my site, Im constantly working on it, and the spacecraft models are free for anyone who wants them.
I can also make request models for anyone, If you want a nice skinning job then you have to supply the texture.
If I want good story I read a book. If I want great graphics (and often good story) I rent a DVD. If I want gameplay, I play a game and often get story and graphics as well (though face it, there is no "great" graphics in games yet.. when they are as good as movies we'll talk).
Tetris is still being played. No story. Simple graphics. Wonderful game.
Allegro precompiled Installer for Dev-C++, MSVC, and Borland: http://galileo.spaceports.com/~springs/
I agree with Justin.
For instance, did anybody ever hear of/play/see the game, Warlords (a series of I, II, III)? I love the game, but the graphics are horrible. It is a bird's eye strategy game and the graphics are pretty...basic. But, because it is such of great gameplay (the time of strategy, the ideas of the game, etc.), I continue to play it. Graphics never holds much with me.
1978 Silver Anniversary Corvette
story graphics gameplay... pick two...
fast reliable cheap... pick two...
hasafraggin shizigishin oppashigger...
Game making is kind of an art, personally. A game is really just a set of rules by which the player needs to make decisions. The art of it is making up rules such that the decision making process is interesting or challenging.
Playing a game with bad graphics is kind of like reading a book that is written in old English. You might be holding a true masterpiece, but that's not gonna change the fact that reading it is about as easy as digging ditches. That said, if you can get over the graphics barrier, there are some true gems out there, but for most people this isn't really worth it. The same can be said for the interface of a game.. great games can be ruined by being unneccisarily hard to play. A lot of older games don't have mouse support when they really could use it, which is kinda like trying to read a book in ancient Hebrew.
Gameplay is really where the art is. Basically, you should be able to ask yourself "Would this game have been just as fun if it had to use technology from 10 years ago?", and there you have it, gameplay. In all fairness, there are an awful lot of games nowadays where they're just not technologically feasable 10 years ago, like 'real time anything', but you can still try picturing all the graphics as ascii characters and seeing how it works out. Gameplay's still important, it decides whether your game is 'great' or if it's just a fancy graphics demo. Playing a game with all graphics, no gameplay is kinda like reading a dirty magazine. Sure it might be fun, but it'll only really stay interesting for so long, and you're gonna walk away without having really gained anything.
Story adds the fantasy and flavor to the game. I'm not even talking about having a kind of script for your game, just making sure that it's developed with a good atmosphere. I mean, SimCity would have been a lot more bland if they didn't make it along the theme that your were building a city, instead making you just place abstract objects without any meaning. Still, anything more than setting up a neat atmosphere, and you're spending too much time on the story.
Callou collei we'll code the way
Of prime numbers and pings!
This is easy. But understand, in some cases, there are two perspectives. The 'developers' and the 'players'.
The #1 most important aspect of any game is:
If a player pulls the trigger or tries to dodge a bullet and gets killed because the game didnt' keep up-- it won't get played. You cannot "immerse" yourself in the game otherwise.
The #2 most important aspect of any game is:
This encompasses graphics, sound, and storyline.
Like a 3-legged stool, it is not necessary that each one of these be primo-- hopefully 2 will be strong enough to prop up a 3rd. If you have all three primo, then you have created something like Halo.
If the game is immersive, it becomes addictive.
The #3 most important aspect of a game is:
It must not be inconvenient to save where you are, otherwise you get tired of 'getting back to' wherever you last died. It must not be too complex so that if you get away from it for a week, you can't remember enough pieces to go again from where you left off.
All other aspects support these three items. Whether that is multiplayer aspects, weapons features, storyline, etc.
Well Sayeh, I think you should talk to LucasArts about that last point. The terrible lag of their multiplayer games is very inconvenient