What descriptors instantly kill your desire to play a game?
What descriptors instantly kill your desire to play a game?
For me, if I ever hear "card-based" or "soulslike" I have absolutely no desire to play a game, no matter how many people reccomend it.
I'm also not a huge fan of modern "roguelikes" but I've sunk days into nethack and games like that.
You're viewing a single thread.
MMO - I like multiplayer games just fine, but whenever they call it “massively” multiplayer, I know it’s going to be a grindy time-sink with anemic gameplay and the requirement to join some sort of group of other players in order to progress. It’s one of the few things I have filtered on Steam because it’s a guaranteed hard pass every time.
Turn-based - This one is hard for me to admit because I’ve played lots of great turn-based games and will inevitably play more of them, but for some reason when turn-based is a key feature, my brain interprets it as being a low-budget and/or low-effort game, or that the gameplay won’t match how the game is presented. It’s not that I dislike the concept of turn-based play, but when I see “turn-based” in a description I just glaze over.
Early Access - I don’t dislike early access, but the fact that it has no specific definition bothers me a lot. There’s no way for me to tell whether the game is a complete enough experience to be worth starting, so I usually end up passing until the game gets a full release (which isn’t a bad thing, but it does mean that early access is an automatic red flag.)
There are certain genres that I’m not that interested in, like puzzle games, visual novels, hardcore simulation games, etc., but the above are things that make me think twice about a game even if it looks interesting otherwise.
I agree with early access, I got burned a fair few times getting in on hype and the pitch when I was younger. If I'm hearing good stuff I might pirate early access stuff to see if it's really for me, but I have a hard rule of passing on early access. Shit like Towns and Godus made sure I'll never really trust early access despite the success stories. (Hell even Stonehearth was a disappointment despite it actually getting a 1.0)
@Cromalin@hexbear.net rival beatrice approaches
Turn-based - This one is hard for me to admit because I’ve played lots of great turn-based games and will inevitably play more of them, but for some reason when turn-based is a key feature, my brain interprets it as being a low-budget and/or low-effort game, or that the gameplay won’t match how the game is presented. It’s not that I dislike the concept of turn-based play, but when I see “turn-based” in a description I just glaze over.
I'm working on a turn based game, you could say it's low budget, perhaps more accurately, no-budget. Does your glaze over system offer leniency for games that are clearly indie+cheap, or maybe you intended this for games with huge marketing budgets and have microtransactions? Either way, I'd love any specific interests/thoughts you have on the turn based games genre in general.
First off, this is a "me" problem. I'm not sure that it would translate to others, but I'll try to articulate what it is. Second, "low-budget" is a meaningless term that's probably reflective of my advanced age. I still remember when there were hardly any indie devs, and there was a lot of shovelware out there. Really what it's about is lack of effort, care, or polish in a game, which at this point is largely decoupled from budget, per se.
I think there was a time when turn-based gameplay was popular because it wasn't as hardware-intensive and it was easy to clone turn-based gameplay, at least on a surface level. Between mediocre JRPGs and mediocre turn-based strategy games, turn-based started to look like something that developers were using as a way of saving time or effort, or dealing with hardware limitations. That's not really the case today, as the limitations that existed 20 or 30 years ago aren't there, so it's somewhat irrational. That said, I'm also not nostalgic for that era, even though I know that a lot of people are.
I think my hesitance around turn-based games is similar to how some people in this thread are talking about card-based games. I like card-based games when they're implemented well, but if I'm playing a card-based video game, I don't want it to merely be a digital implementation of an analog card game. There has to be something, like the card game being set in a larger context, or the interactions being complex enough that you couldn't feasibly do it in an analog game. Similar with turn-based games, I don't want to play what is essentially a digital implementation of a board game, nor do I want the game to be banging spreadsheets together a la old JRPGs.
CRPGs with a lot of depth, like Larian's games, are great because every turn-based combat is like a little puzzle with multiple solutions. Something more tactical like Battletech can be really engaging because there are multiple layers to play at, from the mech choices and outfitting to the actual combat. Big strategy/4x games work well as turn-based games because there's an economy and lots of interesting win conditions to explore that require planning and taking your time.
That's more for bigger games, though. Smaller, more focused games can be great with the right execution. I really enjoyed Buckshot Roulette because of how well the developer set the tone. The game itself is relatively straightforward, but the amount of texture and flavor in the presentation really makes it sing. Same with Balatro, a pure turn-based card game, which has so much visual and gameplay polish that you can't help but enjoy the relatively simple mechanics and presentation.
The best turn-based games don't really need to announce themselves as turn-based games, because that's incidental. They're games about something, with turn-based gameplay being simply the design choice that the developer felt was the best fit for the game. I find that when games announce themselves as being turn-based, it obscures why I would be interested in the game, which is why I mentioned it specifically in my original comment. Hope that helps!
my advanced age
I think there was a time when turn-based gameplay was popular because it wasn't as hardware-intensive
That's interesting, my initial choice of turn-based gameplay is mostly 2 things: It's a lot easier to offer an experience that respects your PC/phone's battery, such as less animations between user actions, or maybe even just offering an option in settings to reduce idle animations. I'm dabbling into 3D, which I've not committed either way, but might make this detail harder.
Also, I am getting older, and finding myself less able to sit at a computer and play a "live action" game, or online games that can't be paused, or online games that require a commitment of 30 to 60 uninterrupted minutes, or schedule specific times to game with my friends. And these are often caused by reasons like "job" or "family", but maybe soon there will be reasons like "My old non-gaming mouse and arthritis can't out-micro this diamond league starcraft player."
What's absolutely crazy to me, is that a lot of turn based games I've seen still require a commitment of 30 to 60 uninterrupted minutes to play. Probably the most important core design detail of my game is the ability to play turns, even partial turns, progressively throughout a day/week on the player's own schedule. I plan on supporting both "live" games and asynchronous games.
Anyways, thanks for your thoughts!