[Article] Hardcore Game Design and Subsystems

Just so you know, you can scientifically compare apples to oranges:

* They are both about the same size and weight
* They both grow on trees
* They both have seeds

So, actually apples and oranges are rather similar.

One of the few real differences is their colour.

Just saying...

This should be stickied IMO.
And the author should start covering other subsystems as well, like the loot system etc.

In my dreams this thread would cover all the concepts that casuals are whining on the forums for. Everytime some newcomer makes another thread where he wants this and that and that, unaware of the fundamental principles behind those demands, you could just link him to this thread :)

"

The_Paw wrote:

Just so you know, you can scientifically compare apples to oranges:

* They are both about the same size and weight
* They both grow on trees
* They both have seeds

So, actually apples and oranges are rather similar.

One of the few real differences is their colour.

Just saying...

They both have very similar DNA too.

I don't enjoy the cut-throat feeling in the forums.

Regarding elitism:

Imagine if the topic was the capsaicin content of hot sauce, as opposed to the difficulty of a computer game. Hardcore game design is about amplifying effects to the point that the effect may be too extreme for a portion of the mainstream audience; therefore, "hardcore hot sauce design" would be about increasing capsaicin beyond what normal people find palatable.

Do such hot sauces find broad markets? Yes. However, you need to admit there is something intrinsically elitist about the pursuit of ever-hotter hot sauce. If it was enough for the normal person, you'd stop at a lower level; therefore, you're specifically identifying consumers as being non-normal. If we were looking at a forum about that hot sauce, it would be full of "capsaicin elitists" trying to make the sauce hotter... along with a few voices encouraging moderation, because they'd like to use the new sauce too.

Hardcore game design is intrinsically elitist in the same ways. This doesn't mean we need to demean our fellow forum members, nor should we work to prevent others from trying or loving our game (although, as with the hot sauce, you might want to give fair warning). What it does mean is that we crave more challenge than the average gamer, and if the average gamer can't handle that, they can find another game.

"

Hardcore game design is intrinsically elitist in the same ways. This doesn't mean we need to demean our fellow forum members, nor should we work to prevent others from trying or loving our game (although, as with the hot sauce, you might want to give fair warning). What it does mean is that we crave more challenge than the average gamer, and if the average gamer can't handle that, they can find another game.

This is actually a good summation on hardcore game design.

I'm the type who would prefer a roguelike or bullet hell shmup because you had to be good to beat em (apart from YASD or bullshit, but games back then were all about what you would consider bullshit in this day and age. Most shmups are very good examples, Raiden being something of a Roguelike in terms of shmups.) You could play a game for fun back in the day without thinking of winning on the first try - because that was pretty much a guaranteed fluke. In fact, games in the day were fun because you played them and hoped to win, which was the icing on the cake. Everybody now says games are only fun if you can win them and that it's poor design to be hard.

Another case in point - anybody remember Ghosts 'n Goblins? yes, THAT game. It was designed to be hard. So much so that you had one hit and then you'd die. The enemies and level design were also bullshit in certain ways, and it only got worse in loop 2.

Modern Ghosts 'n Goblins (the Ultimate version) gives you some changes to make it easier (a health meter, armor refills, upgrades, different weapons, etc.) but it also has a version where the gameplay still has the bells and whistles, but the health system goes back to the good ol' days of one hit, and dead on the second for those who want a more classic experience.

Battletoads would be another good example of a hard game back in the day. I've played and played it since and tried to beat it legitimately, but it never worked for me for some reason.

The king of Roguelikes, IVAN (short for Iter Vehemens Ad Necem) was legitimately beaten only by about 3 or 4 people. And they abused a trick which they discovered in order to beat the game on their ascension runs, because it is legitly impossible to beat IVAN. In fact, when the maker learned of this, he redesigned the game to dump those methods out of reach for future players. You can go down the dungeon as long as you can possibly do so, but the game itself is against you - the RNG is weighted to bad luck if yours is good, and good if yours is going badly. A lot of people wouldn't like that sort of thing at all because it only ends in failure.

If you asked me, the fun went out of gaming when people started thinking it was only about winning. Win or lose, if you have fun with something, the game did what it was designed for. Much the same as it is in real life. I think I'll stop rambling on now.