*jazz hands*

I think I'm a George fan..

pvz is a legendary game. I knew my man would give a banger talk

Of all GDC talks, George's is my most memorable.

It's a balance. The base gameplay has to be fun, but if you just have a game that's all style, no substance, that won't work either.

Thanks BTW! Glad you dug it :)

nice pun there

Agreed, with everything. WOuldn't call it a masterpiece though, but the nemesis system is great.

Hope you changed your mind cause the sequel is even better.

Fabian Roland maybe you could try it now that they've taken out the micro transactions.

I totally agree about the game triggering such feelings. It got me hooked even though I kept dying a lot at first.

It is downright criminal the nemesis system got copyrighted. It could've rippled throughout the industry but know nobody's willing to piss off Warner Bros.

I agree, its amazing how different feedback makes something feel

I just use google sheets (Merge and Center two cells, full border around that, then use a single border to connect the "boxes" that you've made)

@@TheDerekSaenz aha, I see but my ain issue arises that when game design changes, I need to move those blocks around a lot, and that isn't doable here. I sually end up using the walls of my office, and writing, erasing and rewriting things around as stuff changes. But that is cumbersome, anyone can delete it anytime and is not presentable at all

You could tell she was just anxious on stage. She had really good points though

Yeah it could have been cyberpunk

The Witcher 3: Wild Bugs

Fireball always moves. Plant stops if you are right next to the pipe.

@@jamesrivettcarnac this is the main difference, plants dont actually require timing at all, just get close and wait for them to go down, take your time. Now if he had used the giant plants from giant world in Mario 3, it would fit, but that's a little obscure especially since most probably whistle past and never play that world

Motion sickness comes from a lack of control or control not syncing (e.g. head motion latency). For example, its possible to get motion sickness in a car as a passenger, but almost impossible when driving. Looking out and pretending to drive will likely remove motion sickness. Watching a playthrough of a video does nothing to confirm whether VR will make you sick or not.

Being unable to skip orc intros made me uninstall the first Mordor game and not play the second one.

When I heard the reasons why WH40K space marines have “motorized swords”, they were sth like armor is very good, but there’s some unobtanium that can go through armour, but it’s so scarce that you cannot make bullets out of it....but honestly? Because it’s FUN. Nailed it

try using that objectively to game design.

Yeah it would be like trying to use the word "funny" to objectively design a comedy wouldn't it?

It seems clear youre not a game design or a comedian.

I'm not. But I do have a degree in neuroscience, and we learnt quite clearly the neurochemistry behind fun. We know what people find fun, and we know what they don't. We know the neurotransmitters and the parts of the brain that are involved. So yes "objectively" I do know what people find fun. The problem is that game designers are so ignorant of the behaviour of their own customer base that they deny that fun can even be objectively measured. Sure, not everyone will find something fun in the same way that another person will. But that's exactly like comedy where some people will find something funny and others won't. But you never see a comedian talking about creating a routine, sketch, or script, and then not talking about what people find funny. They know the rules of what people tend to find funny and what they do not. And they use these rules to create things that are good. The games designer here, however, is so ignorant of the science of human behaviour that in order to defend his own ignorance he denies that fun is even a thing! And so do you. Look at the great talk by the games designer for the Stanley Parable and you can see that he understands the rules of comedy so well he even parodies himself talking about the rules of comedy (in much the same way that his game does). There are rules of fun as well. People find it fun to use their skills under pressure. They find it fun to learn new things. They find it fun to work as a team. They find it fun to win when there is a sense of challenge behind the victory. These things are well known and objectively true. Stop wallowing in your ignorance and take a course on human behaviour. You might even find it fun.

"game designers are so ignorant of the behaviour of their own customer base that they deny that fun can even be objectively measured. Sure, not everyone will find something fun in the same way that another person will." So, they don't teach basic interpretation at neuroscience college or you didn't even think this was a contradiction? Science also knows about the neurochemical basis for "love" and you still wont bother to go tell movie writers theyre stupid because they couldnt objectively define love and use it to write romantic comedies. I'm torn between thinking your problem is being too positivist to realize having scientific explanations for stuff ≠ having absolute objective definitions or just being an condescending asshole.

hmm sounds like you missed the point.

Define fun.

@@pepsuber5345 not to be presumptuous, though most attempts ive seen combine flow and need satisfaction through autonomy, competency, and community (believe the last speaker touched on this briefly) . the topic is fascinating and id be grateful for other positions or links

You are so full of shit. There's no such thing as an objectively fun game - if there were, then that game would literally have made all the money. Who wouldn't want to experience something that is guaranteed to entertain you? The word of mouth would be crazy. Even the most successful games in history have players that just don't think they're fun. That's why it's subjective. I can't believe there's someone trying to claim that everyone has the same idea of what's fun and what's not fun. I spent hours shooting the shit in Skyrim, just collecting butterfly wings and random herbs like a hoarder crack addict. I found it fun. Would you find that fun? I highly doubt it. I can almost guarantee that if you made a game where the only purpose is to hoard random shit you will not make money.

from software games are fun to some and football games are fun to others. The term 'fun' is therefore subjective. To designers fun is too broad thats why they dont like it. They need details and distinctions to design a game not just "fun".