f13.net forums - Music game design

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 21, 2025, 12:24:13 AM

we're back, baby

I'm thinking Guitar Hero as well as games like Beat Mania, Audiosurf, etc.

My opinion is that these games are 95% enjoyment of music and fake-performance and 5% gameplay. Guitar Hero lets you listen to cool music while you pretend to be a rock star but the actual gameplay is atrocious. If you strip out the music (which is a bit unfair I suppose) you're left with pressing buttons as colors fall from the top of the screen, or moving your feet or whatever.

I would note that in games like Tetris you at least make some decisions. In games like Guitar Hero and DDR you don't make a single significant decision throughout the course of the entire game, and the best way to play is as robotically as possible.

Am I wrong?

Can someone come up with an idea for a music/rythm game with gameplay that stands up on its own?

You aren't wrong, at all, but this to me is why these games shine...when the game mechanic itself (in this case, pressing buttons in time with sound) is the source of fun, you don't need (and absolutely shouldn't--see GH3's "boss battles") wrap that mechanic in attempts at "game play" to make it "more fun".

Way way way too many games fail to find a core mechanic that has at least some fun in it, and then attempt to wrap it in layers of complex "game play" to force it to be fun...look at all the MMO's over the years, and all the conversations we've had about "the grind". If the mechanic of playing the game itself was the source of the fun, it wouldn't be a grind now would it? It would be simply having fun playing the game.

I hated, absolutely hated, having to "unlock" songs in Rock Band, especially since all I couldn't do it with my chosen instrument (base). I don't care what my score is, I enjoy playing music that I otherwise don't have the skill to play (years of guitar lessons--I simply sucked), and I enjoy playing it together with others. I don't need, or want, anything else "on top of" the core mechanic--so don't force it is my point!

I'm in what could be called a dream job--my job, day to day, is to stay in touch with our technology and be experienced enough using it so I can teach how to use it. I sit at home, dream up interesting game mechanics, and implement prototypes. For example, I saw Desktop Tower Defense in the "Is it fun?" thread, played it for several days (it was additive, but I've yet to figure out exactly why), and turned around and implemented a prototype for it in TGB (our 2D game engine) in a week. I've played around with the "dynamic spell creation" (or "create spells on the fly if that rings a louder bell" mechanic with our TGE + AFX combo, and made all sorts of other prototypes, and it's simply awesome to be able to get paid to do that, without the pressures of production deadlines and "has to make money" on top of it.

The reason I just said all that is when you don't have the pressure of having to worry about if a game will sell or not, you can explore where the fun is, what makes it fun, and what turns something almost fun into pure shit (or pure gold, if you get good/lucky)--and in my opinion trying to add "more game play" to something that just works isn't a good idea.

Let me phrase it more specifically. I think people are going to stop buying more GH games if the only thing that changes between outings is the song selection. (And you can just download content anyway) I mean why buy GH:Aerosmith? Why not just DL Aerosmith songs?

Let's say you are the guy in charge of the GH franchise and sales are flagging. You need a way to lure people to a new boxed game instead of downloadable content. What do you do?

Quote from: Margalis on March 02, 2008, 01:33:42 AM

I go back and tell my manager to get his head out of his ass--and check the margins on DLC of 1 song for 2 bucks as opposed to shipped content.

I do understand what you are saying, I just think that this particular example is a bad one. I'll never buy GH 1, 2, or 3--but if the songs were available, I'd be buying quite a few of them (yes, I know they won't work on RB but I'm talking market stuff here, not compatibility). Since the songs originally released as a group aren't available separately, I'll never be buying them, and that's money they won't see. I can't be the only one.

If Rock Band comes out with an "RB 2" that costs $60 and all I get is 30 more songs, I'll buy it in a heartbeat (assuming that at least 5-6 of the songs are interesting). If RB comes out and forces me to buy a keyboard just to get those songs, or even worse (and more appropriate for what you are saying) adds layers of "game play" that doesn't begin to approach my real "fun factor", I'll probably blow it off.

I don't find Guitar Hero/Rock Back/AudioSurf fun at all. I don't know if the supplied music is just shitty or I suck at it. But yeah, not fun. It feels too close to wacking the bar for a food pellet. It's like watching TV but you have to press buttons on the remote to keep the TV tuned so it doesn't sound like shit. Maybe that is why people like it.

The mode where you are playing against someone is competitive so in that respect it can be fun but other then that...

Unlocking things in games is the bane on my existence. Why would I pay $50 and then torture myself to get at what I paid for?

It might be different if you were actually creating new music with it. For example, if it was one of those Flash song remix apps where what you pressed on the guitar actually meant something or created some kind of visual effect that you could share.

Quote from: Margalis on March 02, 2008, 01:33:42 AM

Let's say you are the guy in charge of the GH franchise and sales are flagging. You need a way to lure people to a new boxed game instead of downloadable content. What do you do?

Add more shitty boss battles? Ohhhhh, I see.

Okay, serious answer: polish, polish, polish. The Guitar Hero series has gotten steadily better gameplay-wise if you charitably ignore GH3's boss battles. Having separate tracks for guitar and bass in GH2 was a big leap forward. The improved hammer-on/pull-off UI/mechanics in GH3 were also a pretty big win IMO. Their one attempt to add new "gameplay" (I use the term loosely) by putting those boss battles in was such a disaster that I'm pretty well convinced they're much better off focusing on refining the core gameplay of "push buttons in time with music to vaguely simulate playing an instrument".

If I were the guy in charge of the GH franchise, my next move would be to branch out into other instruments and make a better Rock Band.

GH/Rock Band has enough metagame in the form of unlocking songs, adding costumes, and the leaderboards, they don't need to mess with the clean flow of the gameplay. They'd do better to do more with the visual feedback, more responsiveness in the crowd, stage-diving, etc. It's best when played in a party environment, and more eye candy for the people watching would work well.

--Dave

I'm with you, Krakrok. GH is totally not the game for me, and I think you summed it up nicely.

I imagine it's part of their strategy, to ship boxed content as well as offering downloadable songs. Once they find out the best strategy, they're bound to stick with it -- likely song downloads -- and stop boxing their product. This is similar to Half-Life 3. Valve didn't make a new game and ship a new box. They just modded their own stuff and they're selling it online as an expansion to HL2.