LoginRegister
Nintendo Wii / Wii U Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    WiiChat Member dan1123's Avatar
    Member #
    28873
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Jose, California
    Posts
    8
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]

    Short games vs. short gameplay

    I see lots of discussion, including the most recent article here, and thought many are missing the point.

    There is a lot of discussion about "mini-games" and so-called "non-games" that are prevalent on the Wii, and this is seen as both a problem, and someone's fault. Whether developers, Nintendo, or the audience is to blame for this is something that is hugely debated. However, I don't think this should be seen as a problem.

    So-called "mini-games" are many times what used to be considered just games, and while you would play for a few minutes per game, you could get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of the game. The arcades made this a business model. You would put in your quarter and play for a few minutes and see the "game over" screen (with a request for more quarters). The reason for this is not exclusively monetary, but because the learning process for a game needs to not overburden the player, or put too high of a barrier to enjoyment. Games should be a challenge, but they must first be fun.

    I would argue that most wildly successful games are the ones that only require 10 to 15 minutes of time to play a unit. Whether this is a level, or all you will really see is not an issue as much as that there exists a good learning curve and a low barrier to play. Even the most incredibly detailed FPS is lauded for quick online deathmatches. Mini games should not be scoffed at if there is good replay value. A game doesn't need to have 200 hours of playable levels or maps to be worthwhile. It just needs to be a good concept with good controls.

    Now there are some games out there that have a singular problem. It isn't that they are beaten too fast, or they are simple, or have lackluster graphics. It is that they have a very short gameplay. The game just doesn't grab the player and entice him to continue. It could be too difficult, too easy, too sharp of a learning curve, or an overly long intro. In fact, there could be hours of content that are almost never played because of the imbalance of the game. It could also simply be a bad concept for a game. But the problem isn't whether it can be classified as a mini-game or not, but the ever elusive balance that makes a game have "fun factor".

  2. #2
    ₪ ۩ ₪ vagrant's Avatar
    Member #
    2707
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts
    3,249
    Friends
    0
    Wii Friend Code: $post[field5]
    8573-5327-9660-0097
    Quote Originally Posted by dan1123
    I see lots of discussion, including the most recent article here, and thought many are missing the point.

    There is a lot of discussion about "mini-games" and so-called "non-games" that are prevalent on the Wii, and this is seen as both a problem, and someone's fault. Whether developers, Nintendo, or the audience is to blame for this is something that is hugely debated. However, I don't think this should be seen as a problem.

    So-called "mini-games" are many times what used to be considered just games, and while you would play for a few minutes per game, you could get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of the game. The arcades made this a business model. You would put in your quarter and play for a few minutes and see the "game over" screen (with a request for more quarters). The reason for this is not exclusively monetary, but because the learning process for a game needs to not overburden the player, or put too high of a barrier to enjoyment. Games should be a challenge, but they must first be fun.

    I would argue that most wildly successful games are the ones that only require 10 to 15 minutes of time to play a unit. Whether this is a level, or all you will really see is not an issue as much as that there exists a good learning curve and a low barrier to play. Even the most incredibly detailed FPS is lauded for quick online deathmatches. Mini games should not be scoffed at if there is good replay value. A game doesn't need to have 200 hours of playable levels or maps to be worthwhile. It just needs to be a good concept with good controls.

    Now there are some games out there that have a singular problem. It isn't that they are beaten too fast, or they are simple, or have lackluster graphics. It is that they have a very short gameplay. The game just doesn't grab the player and entice him to continue. It could be too difficult, too easy, too sharp of a learning curve, or an overly long intro. In fact, there could be hours of content that are almost never played because of the imbalance of the game. It could also simply be a bad concept for a game. But the problem isn't whether it can be classified as a mini-game or not, but the ever elusive balance that makes a game have "fun factor".
    If you are going to copy and paste from an article at least cite it.

    Dreamcast Fan Fo Lyfe

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts