Techtite Feature Article!

Top 10 Biggest Mistakes 

in Game Design

Okay, so here's the latest Techtite Table Topic: What are the most annoying traits of games, that keep happening, over and over and over again? These are the flaws that you'd expect someone would've realized were mistakes by now, based on ill-received games released earlier. Yet even the most respectable game designers make these exact same mistakes, all over again! Here's my choices for the biggest reasons for a "Burnout" rating here at Techtite.com :

Open Endings. Open endings are a cheap plea from the game designer; "I'll finish the game in a mission disk/sequel...I promise!" Really? Then why was there never a conclusion to the open endings for Darkseed 2, Manhunter: San Francisco, Leisure Suit Larry 7...need I go on? Only a fool buys an unfinished game. As I said in the review for the just-released Heavy Metal FAKK2, if there is "more" to the story, shut up about it until the possible sequel, and give gamers the victorious finale they want and deserve.

Thinking that all the box needs is the disc (or, in the older days, disk). People buy CDs for under $15 every day. Is a mere game CD truly worth three times as much? That's the question people will inevitably ask, given a $50, big ol' box with one mere game CD inside. Don't let people ask this question; put something extra in the game box, that really packs a punch. Write a manual with flair; i.e., if it's a spy game, have the manual resemble a secret dossier. If it's an RPG, please, include the game map (a cloth map is extra-stylish). Even the tiniest of free trinkets keeps people from feeling gypped. Sure, you want to "save a buck or two," though don't get crazy about it. Some games (like Daikatana) even put the game in a cardboard case, and don't even give you the courtesy of a standard plastic CD "jewel" case. How cheap can a game company be?

No demo. Demos help sell games. ID Software would be nothing if not for word of mouth, via "shareware" games like DOOM, that used to be uploaded on mere online bulletin boards (pre-internet, of course). If it wasn't for the demo of Thief, I would never have known about it at all; its other methods of initial publicity, if any, never reached my computer. Then I played the demo and...hey, cool! I was there to buy it fresh on store shelves. The best games offer a demo of the final product; those that don't appear like they have something to hide.

No Single-Player. Yes, Everquest is fun. However, when your ISP is down, or there's too much "net traffic" to play until 1 A.M., you're left with a worthless disc. How cool would it be to be able to test-drive an Everquest mission, if just to up your character's stats? No single player game is a game designer's way of saying they want to go home early; after all, they don't have to worry about a decent save game feature (see below), a decent storyline, AI (no computer operated characters), and on and on. Think about it. 

Console-itis (no decent save game feature) Allow this software developer to admit it; save features are a pain, for any program. You have to keep track of every little thing that the user may want saved of their work, while keeping the file size as low as possible (nobody likes a one megabyte save file). I can imagine that it's even worse for a game, where a save must keep track of every single inventory item, every character, every opened/closed/locked door, the exact coordinates of every single person and item on that level, and on and on. However, to just save a game at the end of the level is just plain dumb. All you're saving is the number of the level you finished; big whoop! Before you shrug off a save game feature as non-required extra work, ask yourself what happens when the gamer has to go to sleep (on occasion), eat a meal (preferably), or even go to the little boy's room! Yes, your game needs a save game feature. Period.

No music. Imagine Star Wars without the music. Likewise for The Matrix, Titanic, and any other blockbuster you can imagine. Now imagine your game, with the only sounds heard are the bleeps when finding a good item, and the bloops when finding a bad item. Even if the music is digital (in some cases, that's even preferable), you need background music. Just look at how cool a simple RPG like Sierra On-Line's Hero's Quest was, thanks to its excellent heroic score.

Believing the myth, that  "all a game needs is to look like [that other game], and it will be a hit, too" Look at Diablo; a 2D game that was a smash hit, among a barrage of games that followed on the coattails of  the beginning 3D acceleration craze. How many 3D games did you pass by, perfectly happy with Quake/Unreal/Dark Forces 2 at the time? Comparatively, how many people passed by Diablo; a totally inspired RPG, with random-generated dungeons every time you played? Never think all your game needs is what that other game had; if anything, it needs what that other game didn't have.

No beta testing. Gamers can forgive a glitch or two; that's the truth. However, gamers want to be able to play the game they paid for; that's a no-brainer! Here's the irony of it all; beta testing really shouldn't require more than a few amateur gamers, anyway. In fact, you might find it easiest to comb local schools for kids who want the chance to test the latest game. All they often want in return is some meager recognition as beta tester (in the credits list for your game), and perhaps a free game when released. Fair enough?

Following Hollywood's "example." It's understandable when a bad movie is considered "like a video game," and, comparatively, a bad game is considered "like being forced to watch a bad movie." These are two different entertainment styles completely. The best games, as a rule, would often lead to the worst possible movies (need proof: rent the film, Super Mario Brothers). Never follow in Hollywood's footsteps. They may be going in the same direction, though in a completely different way.

Not loving what you make. If a game's own designer doesn't really want to play his/her game, who is a consumer to feel any different? Sure, they'll say in an interview that they feel the game they designed was fun, though the truth is evident soon enough. Why did Sierra On-Line soon get bought out completely? Because their initial games, in their heyday, were created by people who loved to make games, and in time, that no longer seemed to be the case. Their last few games (pre-buyout) were made with no real sense of fun. I can't imagine anyone truly thinking that King's Quest 7, Space Quest 6, or Quest for Glory 4 was one thimble as fun as the original, first games that inspired them. This isn't because they were sequels (which are rarely as good as the original); it was because the game designers simply wanted to release a $sequel$, not a fun game. Big difference.

...so, how do our lists compare? Are there game mistakes worse than this? If you want feel free to send your addendums to the list via Techtite's Letters page! 

This entire page's text and graphics were created by Techtite, copyright 2000; all rights reserved. For further "legalese" & disclaimers, click here...