Quote from I
If you get to that high level, and don't get that silk touch enchantment, it makes the game longer, and more challenging.
Challenging implies that there is a task to overcome by skill and learning new things.
Deciding wether you are successful at something by pure chance doesn't make it a challenge. So now you'll have to go out and manually grind mobs in the wilderness again until you are lvl 40 or something, wasting many hours of game time, just to try again.
The random system punishes players for putting legitimate effort into something like enchanting. I distinctively remember Notch saying that the game shouldn't punish players for things they cannot control. Something like putting several enchanting spells in sequence or the enchantment fails would have been a very reasonable mechanic to put in.
Enchanting should only punish you if you **** it up yourself, that way you only have yourself to blame because you were in direct control of the process.
Games stop being fun when it cheats you out of your effort, and it's a cheap and lazy way of prolonging gameplay. Either you give the player what they earned, or you place the player in control of the process of enchanting so that any mistakes they make are their own.
2
The reason Ryon is saying it makes him cry is that this is much more complex to manage than a normal program, and there are tons of fun and exciting errors that can occur, many of which are very hard to debug. Its a powerful thing, but makes things harder to code.
1
Immediately upon starting a map, you have to get into cover. if there is a nearby tree, run under it. A ledge works. If there isn't anything, quickly dig a hole underground.
Once in cover, you cannot go into direct sunlight. If you have a ceiling over you, even if its just leaves, you are protected. You can freely go outside at night, or when its raining, but whenever the sun is up you need protection.
If you want to enhance the challenge, you can disallow underground/indoor farms. You rely on the surface for resources, but can't brave the sunlight. This makes night the time to go out and harvest things, which forces you to deal with the mobs at night. Rainfall is your friend, as it can block the sun without spamming mobs. An underground tunnel network becomes vital for travel.
1
There is definitely a problem with the learning curve. The acheivements are meant to help with that,but they need more expansion. However, the recipes are highly sensible and easy to remember. You may need a wiki to learn how to play, but to play the game.
They have clear plans to address this
How? I though killing the enderdragon made a portal back.
It is not impossible, I use them for that purpose on a regular basis.
Thats more of a quibble than something making it not complete.
I love the new biomes. Oceans can create for some cool "deserted island" scenarios, and make for some great scenery. They offer a room to build elaborate undersea creations. They are also the only place to find mushroom biomes. The "Survival" playstyle is still perfectly, 100% there. I do it all the time, and if anything, the addition of hunger bolstered that playstyle. Combined with spawning on a deserted island, and you get a real survival experience. Adventure is 100% in the spirit of minecraft, both from its early plans to what a significant number of people have always been expecting from the game. There have always been caves sprawling for miles, and resources have never been particularly hard to get. I consider spelunking to be core to the game, and this just enhances the experience. having to mine through stone to randomly run into materials is not a great mechanic. It is good as an option, but spelunking is where the real gameplay is, and should be encouraged. They have drastically lowered the commonality of mineshafts. Harvesting the wood from them is a waste of time, actually. It is much faster and more efficent to harvest a stack of wood, and then craft it into lumber as needed. Combat needed more rewards. Mining and crafting were already fully fleshed out, and offered adequate incentive. You can't fault a game for improving its weaker points.
They have frequently said that there isn't really anything different. Its just a milestone, them declaring that they have finished what they considered to be essential to the core experience. Namely, the progression to the end and the final boss, as the final capstone to their work.
Jeb is working on that now.
You are right. The game is not finished. No one is claiming it is. It is still going to be developed.
1
This opens them up for later enchantments.
4
Game Design Theory 2 - Linearity
Game Design Theory 3 - Leveling and Grinding
Game Design Theory 4 - Complexity
Game Design Theory 5 - Fun
Game Design Theory 6 - Difficulty vs. Challenge
Game Design Theory 7 - Adventure games
Game Design Theory 8 - Level Design
Game Design Theory 9 - Crafting an Experience
Game Design Theory 10 - Interfaces
Now, I cannot justify saying "Games must have flow". There are many games, and entire genre's, that are not dependant on the flow of the game. However, I will say this:
Having good flow can only improve a game.
For some games, it is crucial. Sonic, for example, or N, or super meat boy. So, what do I mean by "flow"? Flow is the ability to have your actions in the game move smoothly into each other. Now, flow does not have to be automatic. It can, and perhaps even should, require skill to achieve. However, the game, when played properly, should achieve a good flow. Lets take Sonic as an example, mainly because I've been playing it alot recently. played medicorely, you can walk through some parts of the level, look around, jump on enemies, dainty hop around the spikes. You can play it like a standard platformer, like mario. The level design supports this very well. However, when played well, you are speeding through the levels. All of the mechanics are designed to support this. You have the spin-dash to quickly gain momentum. You have loops and twists that serve no real purpose beyond showing off your speed. You have plungers that can quickly accelerate you, and change your direction instantly. You can do a roll while at speed to simply smash through enemies unharmed, and be unslowed by it. Once going, you can simply keep going, jumping up to more optimal paths, finding that hidden route that will take you across the level easily. Such routes are often not only possible to take at speed, but require you to take them at speed.
N has a different approach, but flow is still crucial. If you try to carefully step through the levels, you are going to get blown up by missiles. You have to have enough momenteum to make the jumps, keep moving to avoid homing missiles, take the right routes to avoid enemies. Super meat boy begs you to keep the momenteum up, designing the jumps to be taken at speed. If you look at speed runs of mario, the person has found a flow through the level such that they can do it without stopping.
How forgiving you are about the flow can depend on many factors. In a short, 1-screen level like n, it can be rather unforgiving. A mistake doesn't set you back much. In a long, sprawling level like sonic, you need to be more forgiving.shy away from flow-breaking being instantly lethal, and instead drop the player down into a less optimal path. It should be something they can recover from, and get back into the flow, but that act of slowdown is a cost to the player. If you are scoring on time, this mechanic works great.
Another key aspect to consider is timing. Even if you don't consider flow to be integral to your game, putting in proper timing can make things so much nicer to play. If you have a series of platforms you need to jump between, make sure their timing is synchronized. You shouldn't have to wait for their respective motion cycles to happen to coincide. They should be integer multiples of each other's timings, so when the platform reaches the end of its cycle, the next one is waiting. They don't necessarily have to have the same timing, but the one you are coming from should be the slower one. This means that when the one you are on reaches the end, the next one is waiting. Going backwards may be less smooth, as it means that the platform will go out, and there may not be anything to jump to, but if the player is going backwards, flow has already been broken. Furthermore, as much as possible, try to make the platforms ready to use as soon as the player reaches them. If there is a button to start them moving, the time it takes to go from the button to the platform should coincide with the platform being ready to use. Having the platforms start by jumping on them can ensure this timing. In a short, n-like level, you know how quickly a good player will reach there with proper flow, and can time it accordingly,but the viability of that approach will depend on your game.
Jump spacing also effects flow. If you have to carefully jump out, and then pull back to land on the platform, there isn't much flow to the process. If the platforms are spaced at your natural jumping distance, then the process becomes smooth and fluid. If your jump distance is dependent on speed, then spacing platforms to be jumped at speed helps facilitate flow. having other platforms in between can make it so you don't need the flow to get through, but the basic design should facilitate a smooth transition.
Flow is very crucial if your game relies on speed. Racing games also need to have a good flow. However, it can also improve other types of games. Combat, for example, greatly benefits from good flow. The ability to take an attack, and have it flow smoothly into the next, to smoothly transition into a dodge, to combine your motion and attacks. Combat that is fluid tends to be more satisfying.
Good flow has also resulted into some amazing aspects of otherwise mediocre games. Spiderman 2. Not only is it a superhero game, its a movie game. Judging by general trends, that means it should have been a really awful game. But its not, and its mainly for 1 reason; it has AWESOME web-swinging mechanics. I have yet to see another spiderman game match it. It worked very smoothly. Push the stick in the direction you want to shoot the web, and hit the web button. Bam, you now have your webline attached to an appropriate corner in that direction. You can now swing from it, and it behaves as you expect. You can fire out a second line and have both out. This lets you smoothly transition from one webline to another, as well as pull off maneuvers like slingshotting yourself. Or, you can let go of your line completely, go flying through the air, do some flips, before launching out a second line for a new swing. It carries momentum well, and gives you good control over the swing. You can even do a boost while on the webline, giving yourself more momentum. Forget physics, its tons of fun. This same sprint button also allows you to run along buildings, given enough momentum. The webbing will also attach to new surfaces it hits, becoming a new anchorpoint for your swing. All of this together results in a really awesome web swinging mechanics. It captures all of the potential of being spiderman swinging around the city. An it is a blast. I literally start up the game from time to time for no other reason than to swing around. And at the heart of it all, is flow. Everything is fluid. You are carrying your momentum forward, up the wall, around the swing, using it to sing up and over, reversing your direction, or carrying it through your swing around the corner. It gives you the means to build your speed, and maintain it upon collisions with walls. It flows, and hence it is fun.
This is a general rule, but it partially relates to flow: Don't punish the player for being too good. I've seen it happen. For example, you have racing game with a door. It will open as players approach, making for some good dramatic scenes. However, if you are doing exceptionally well... you can get there before the door opens. Suddenly, doing very well translates into being a fireball. Not good. Other ways you can punish the player for being good is with collectibles. I'm talking about those rare collectibles that you collect once to unlock things, though this can apply to other highly desired collectibles. If you take a pit that looks like a bottomless pit of instant death, but make it into a pit with a collectible in it, you are rewarding players for messing up and falling into pits, and punishing the players who are good enough to not fall into random pits. Instead, put it on the ultra-good path that is tricky to get to. This rewards the player for playing well, and trying to seek out the collectibles can drive them to learn the more optimal routes. Thus, you are encouraging proper flow.
Game Design Theory 12 - Replay Value
2
Game Design Theory 2 - Linearity
Game Design Theory 3 - Leveling and Grinding
Game Design Theory 4 - Complexity
Game Design Theory 5 - Fun
Game Design Theory 6 - Difficulty vs. Challenge
Game Design Theory 7 - Adventure games
Game Design Theory 8 - Level Design
Game Design Theory 9 - Crafting an Experience
Game Design Theory 10 - Interfaces
Game Design Theory 11 - Flow
Replay value is a term you often see tossed around in views. The lack of replay value is a tick against the game. It is something that many people care about, and having it is universally considered a plus. So, what is it? A the surface, it is how much value you will get out of the game on a subsequent play-through. At a slightly deeper level, it also includes how well the game makes you want to play it again.
Some genre's pretty inherently have low replay value. Puzzle games, as a particularly strong example. The gameplay in a puzzle game is solving the puzzles. Once you know the solutions, the value in playing the level again plummets. This is why portal lacks replay value. Once you have solved a test chamber, you know how to handle it. Now, there is still some replay value, as you can try to figure out alternative solutions, or figure out how to minimize the number of portals, or time spent. The thing that is most likely to get someone to play it again is having more levels. Providing fresh levels, either from an official level pack, user-access to editors, or procedurally generated content, can greatly extend the playable time of the game. This is not the same thing as replay value, but it serves the same basic purpose, and serves as a good substitute.
So what does create replay value? Basically, the ability to get a different experience on a new play-through. A game like chess has a lot of replay value. Every game is unique. There are a huge variety of strategies you can try, your opponent will be doing different things, and each game stands on its own as a fresh experience. That fundamental replay value is what enables people to devote their lives to becoming grandmasters. Tic-tac-toe lacks this property, as you can quickly figure out every possible game, and become unbeatable. There are a very constrained number of ways a game of tic-tac-toe will unfold, to the poitn where you can make an unbeatable opponent out of Tinker Toys. It does possess some replay value, but it is fairly quickly exhausted.
RPGs often have a good replay value due to the character creation aspect. There tend to be several obvious archetypes, from mage to rouge to fighter, and various sub-archetype withing those, from the pyromancer mage to the necromancer mage, to the two-handed weapon fighter to the sword-and-board fighter, just to use some classic examples. These different builds play differently, so you can play through the game several times, and see how the different builds operate.
The variation in the actual gameplay is also a major source of replay value. The ability to utilize different tactics, the ability to make meaningful choices, can make each playthrough a fresh experience. The character-build source of replay value is really a gatekeeper to this source of replay value. Different builds enable access to different tactics. If the builds do not really result in a different experience, then they are not going to provide a good source of replay value. If the two-handed fighter does twice the damage, and the shield fighter takes half the damage, the two builds are not going to really play differently, the shield fighter is just going to take twice as long to make it through any given fight. If you have a team-based situation, such distinctions are more meaningful, as it effects how they fit into the overall tactics of the group.
You also need a more adaptable difficulty curve. As I mentioned earlier, you want to match the difficulty curve and learning curve to provide the player with a good challenge. If that matching is broken on subsequent play throughs, there is no challenge to it, and the player will get bored of it. Having difficulty settings can help address it; this is the "I'm going to play through on the insane difficulty now" effect. considering the relative flatness of long-term learning curves, this can keep the challenge going for a long time, if sufficiently hard. A competitive game has a distinct advantage in that regard- you are pitted against another person, and they have the same capacity to master the game that you do. This is a large part of why multiplayer aspects of games tend to see a lot more long-term play than single player campaigns. part of it that you will eventually beat the single player campaign, but the competitive framework is very conducive to long-term play. Chess is a competitive game. You are facing off against another human being, who has a skill level that can also scale. The point of playing the game is not to win. Otherwise, the chess grandmaster will just play against their 9 year old sister and win every match. They want to win, but more importantly, they want to earn the victory. They seek out skilled opponents, people who can push them.
I would say there are 3 main classes of replay value. This is really a continuum, there are nuances and degrees to all of this, but they can still be classified.
The first is no replay value. Puzzle games fall into this category. In order to extend the lifespan of the game, you have to offer fresh content.
the second is limited replay. There is a clear added value from playing through the game several times, but eventually the game will be exhausted. There is nothing new to learn from it, nothing more to explore, and it will be exhausted.
the third is unlimited replay. There is no real limit to how much value you can get out of it, at least not within a human timescale.
Typically, a video game only needs to get limited replay. people don't need to devote their life to it, your game does not need to be the ultimate game that they will experience for the rest of their life. Unlimited replay is a nice aspect to have, but typically not something you need to concern yourself with achieving. Even no replay value can be acceptable, if done right. What you need to acheive will depend on your game, and is something you need to consider for yourself.
Some games have a suprising amount of replay value. Sonic, for example. For a platformer, there is a lot of replay value. Part of it is the level design. There are many routes through the level, so playing through the level multiple times can give you a distinct experience. It also has a flexible challenge to it, which also extends the replay. There is the base level of "complete the levels" that requires one level of skill. Then there is finding secret passages and cool items which is another level, and then there are taking the best routes which is yet another level. Each level is designed in a such a way that it supports multiple skill levels, which is part of its genius. There is a distinct difference in watching someone stumble through the levels, just trying to complete it, and watching someone attempting speed-runs. Both are normal, intended play styles, operate on the same levels, but require entirely different levels of skill. And hence, replay value.
There are also things that people do to create the illusion of replay value. For example, a morality system. A morality system, by itself, does not create replay value. It bribes the player into replaying the game, which is an entirely different thing. If all the morality system does is add a few discrete differences, such as a different ending, or a few different choices, you are not truly adding replay value. Bioshock, for instance. The morality system makes a fairly minor difference in the game. Your choice comes down to pressing a different button when you find the little sisters, meaning you do need to replay the entire game to see the different content. However, the gameplay difference resulting from it are very minor. Same thing with mass effect. They have the paragon and renegade choices, and a few basic differences in plot between them, but it is not truly adding replay value. There is some replay value to the games from other sources, but it is not the morality system. KOTOR does a better job at it. Whether you are light side or dark side will give you a very different set of potential force powers, meaning playing through as a good guy or bad guy actually effects your gameplay. Or as a great example, Iji. the difference in your morale choices is a gameplay difference. Playing through the game killing everyone, or playing through as a pacifist run, provides a completely different experience. The story also strongly adapts to the change, meaning that the story is something you will continue to play attention to. Most times the story is static, so the player will ignore it on replays. adding in a few minor differences from the morality system is more bribing the player to paying attention to it than adding real value to paying attention a second time. That was part of the problem in mass effect; you play through with paragon or renegade, and people are saying the same things in a different way. With iji, the entire timbre of the story is different, the plot feels different. It is quite powerful. Morality systems are quite doable with replay value, but their addition alone does not create replay value. They work best on a game that already has replay value.
2
Replaces all terrain graphics with ACII letters. Think of it like a 3D rougelike. Unfortunately, many blocks start with the same letter, but they have coloring appropriate to what they are, to help alleviate confusion. Items and mobs are unaffected, but the sun, moon, rain, and stars are changed.
This does not have the 1.9 graphics, which is why there are some purple boxes in the screenshots.
Screenshots
3
Game Design Theory 2 - Linearity
Game Design Theory 3 - Leveling and Grinding
Game Design Theory 4 - Complexity
Game Design Theory 5 - Fun
Game Design Theory 6 - Difficulty vs. Challenge
Game Design Theory 7 - Adventure games
Game Design Theory 8 - Level Design
Game Design Theory 9 - Crafting an Experience
Whatever your game, it is important to have a good interface. Your interface is the link between the player and the game. It is what facilitates the entire game experience. The best interface is the one nobody notices. It should create a seamless experience.
If the player every actively notices your interface, it has failed. There will be a initial learning curve where the player learns the controls; The only way around that is for the learning curve to be placed in another game. For instance, first person shooter tend to use a fairly standardized set of controls. Because of this,most players have already learned how to use those controls, and don't suffer that learning curve. A good set of controls is intuitive enough to learn easily, and minimizes the learning curve associated with them.
After that learning curve, it should provide a smooth experience. There are many game I have played and loved, and even when playing them on a regular basis, I would be unable to tell you what the controls were. They worked smoothly, and I could simply use them without thinking about it. However, if a game has bad controls, it creates a hindrance in the game, and becomes noticeable. This is why I can tell you that sonic generations used X for speed boost, and B for duck. Normally this is not an issue, but there is a part where you need to be boosting, and ducking under lethal blades. A single mistake will force you to restart. And this was a problem, because X and B are on opposite sides of the key arrangement, making them difficult to use in conjunction. This is also why I can recite the control sequence in Red Dead Redemption needed to quick travel. Pull up the start menu, select the map, then place a waypoint where you need to go, then go back to the world, pull up the inventory, go to the second screen, select your campsite(and you have to be in an appropriate place to use it), select quick travel from the campsite menu, select your waypoint as the destination, and finally quicktravel. It is an ordeal. Contrast oblivion, where you hit a button to pull up your map, click on your destination, and then quick travel there. No muss, no fuss.
The challenge in a game should never come from the controls. Awkward controls never make a game fun, it is just annoying. If you find yourself designing a section where the challenge comes from working with awkward controls, redesign. Make smooth controls, and have a more challenging task.
What makes a good interface? To put it simply, a good interface is one that does what the player expects it to. This is another reason to use standardized controls. If people use a certain set of controls in one game, they create the expectations that they will work like that in a similar game. Deviating from standards can take an otherwise fine set of controls, and make them into a barrier. This requires particular consideration with sequels. If you are going to change basic controls between installments in a series, you better have a really, really good reason.
Customizable controls can go a long way to addressing these issues. The functionality available to assign still needs to be well-planned, but you can't meet the needs of every player. For instance, inverted Y-axis. This is a huge divide among gamers, should the y-axis control(and sometimes even x-axis control) be inverted? I can actually play with both(even x-axis inversion) given a warmup period, but the option to select which one you want can be a godsend for most players. Player's also tend to have quirks in their preferences. For instance, I prefer to have crouch attached to my side mouse button.
Speaking of extra mouse buttons, never require an unusual input device. Never require more than 2 mouse buttons, never require the use of the control wheel, etc. You can utilize them. The scrollwheel can be a convenient method of streamlining controls. However, it is not guaranteed(albeit rather likely nowdays) that it will be present, so other options should be available. In FPSs, it is often the weapon switching control. However, you can still use the number keys to select your weapon, even if you lack a scrollwheel.
One important guideline is to make it so the player does not need to reposition their hands. If they have both hands on the keyboard, they should stay on the keyboard. They should not need to reach over to the mouse. If the player's left hand is on the WASD keys, the controls for that hand should be easily reached from that position. For similar reasons, unify your game and menu controls. Don't control the menus with a mouse if it is a keyboard only game. Don't make enter the select key if the fire button also works. This lets the player use the same set of controls throughout the experience, making it more streamlined. The more mixed-in with the gameplay this is, the more important that is. For example, if you have a victory screen between levels, and the game is a keyboard game, don't require the player to use the mouse to interact with the victory screen. That just breaks the flow. However, if you have unusual menu controls, make sure they are obvious from the menu screen. There is nothing more frustrating that starting a game, and the hitting random keys on the keyboard to figure out how to select start.
The GUI is also important. First, it should stylistically match your game. Second ,it should be streamlined. Display everything you need clearly, and don't clutter it up. Don't hide things if they need to be conveniently accessible, but don't display things that aren't needed. also try to match the screen space used and the importance of the information. The exact health of every peice of armour you have probably isn't the most important piece of information to you at any given time, so you don't need an ever-present, full-body wireframe displaying all of their health. Your current health is probably extremely important, so it is appropriate to have a prominent health display. However, don't let it get in the way.
Try to display the information in the most relevant manner to the player. A numerical display of health may be very precise, but the player is generally more concerned with the percentage of their health left. Displaying it graphically makes it easier and quicker for the player to take in. Hence, the health bar. It may be appropriate to have a numerical display in conjunction with the health bar, but the quick overview of the situation is what is needed on a moment-to-moment basis.
Symbols can be a good way to label your interface without taking up much screen real estate. However, make sure your symbols are clearly distinguishable at a glance, and indicative of what they represent. Having a series of alien glyphs may fit thematically with your game, but is not going to convey meaning to the player. This is another place where standards are useful. The red cross may be cliche, but it has a clear meaning to the player.
Even better is the interface that needs no labels. Take minecraft, for example. the health bar, the hunger bar, the air bar, the armour bar, all are clear in their purpose, with no need for a label. The inventory screen is also designed intuitively, so there is no need for labels like "your inventory" or "chest". The few things that do need labels are done with clear symbols in a non-intrusive manner. The armour slots have a clear symbol of what goes in them, emblazoned directly on the slot, making it streamlined and keeping the interface clear. The furnace symbols are clear. The fuel goes under the fire, you put what you are smelting over the fire, and the arrow points to the output. Simultaneously, the fire acts as a gauge for how long the fuel will last, and the arrow acts as a gauge for how long it will take to smelt.
Also consider how much time the player will have to look at the interface. If it is a high-action, fast paced game, they won't have more than a quick glance to see if their health is low, and it would be really helpful if you can make low health highly noticeable. If it is a relaxed, tactical game, you have more leisure to display stat blocks, add in mouse-over text, and provide a wealth of information. If you are in a menu screen, there is no action, and you can take the time to display the information fully. This does not mean you shouldn't still present the information clearly and well, and have it easy to understand. Good design is important still, but the time constraints are different. Accessing a character's biography may be appropriate in a menu, it is almost certainly not appropriate in the middle of combat.
Game Design Theory 11 - Flow
1
Game Design Theory 2 - Linearity
Game Design Theory 3 - Leveling and Grinding
Game Design Theory 4 - Complexity
Game Design Theory 5 - Fun
Game Design Theory 6 - Difficulty vs. Challenge
Game Design Theory 7 - Adventure games
Game Design Theory 8 - Level Design
Now, many people will tell you that you don't need good graphics to have a good game. I am among them. As long as your graphics are good enough that they aren't interfering with the game, you can have a wonderful game with awful graphics. I mentioned I grew up with adventure games. Newer adventure games look good, but many of the old ones have pixels so big you can trip over them. People tend to neglect sound in this, buthte same thing applies. You don't need great sound for a game.
However, this does not mean that good graphics won't enhance the experience of playing the game. This does not mean that every game needs ultra-realistic HD graphics. Style and aesthetics are more important. If going to HD graphics ruins your aesthetic, then it is not a graphical improvement. Look at plants vs. zombies. Very stylized, cartoony graphics. If you replaced it with 3d-rendered, realistic models, it would not make the game look better. The aesthetic is part of the game. Choosing a proper aesthetic is important, and it visually sets the tone for the experience.
The visuals also help involve the player in the experience. If you took fallout, and replaced the main character with a knight in armor, the guns with water pistols, the enemies with lego structures, and the scenery with a rave-like world of lights and color, but kept all of the gameplay mechanics the same, you would be radically altering the experience of playing the game. The game itself would be the same, but the tone would be destroyed, and it would impact the player's enjoyment.
Sound is also crucial to creating a game's experience, something most people tend to overlook or downplay. I divide this into 3 parts - sound effects, voice acting, and music.
Sound effects- sound effects create the soundscape of the game. proper sound effects help cement it as a proper world. Everything from the sound of birds in the trees, to the sound of the wooden walkway under your feet, to the distressed moans of your enemy. The player may not even notice some of the sound effects- they are simply part of the experience. You don't consciously notice that walking onto the boardwalk makes a board sound, but it fits in and makes the experience that much richer. Sound effects are also a great way of providing feedback to the player. You are out of ammo, and your gun clicks. You hit an enemy, and receive an auditory confirmation. You are charging an attack, and the sound tells you its ready. Your health is low, an you hear a heartbeat, simultaneously raising the tension and warning the player they are close to death. The player can't look at everything on the screen at the same time, and audio cues convey information that would not be convenient to show visually. This often works best in conjunction with visualfeedback- your low healthbar throbs, there is a splurt of blood when you hit the enemy, etc.
Voice acting - not always applicable, but if you do have voice acting, good voice acting can be the difference between a character seeming real and believable and them seeming like a cardboard cutout. Good voice acting conveys the character's emotion. Bad voice acting conveys the words, but destroys the emotional context. It is better to have no voice acting than bad voice acting. If the dialogue is pure text, the reader can still interpret the inflection and emotion into it. Bad voice acting is simply destructive.
Music- Music is key. Music sets the emotional tone of the game. Be it a nice, peaceful piece as the player toys around in a sandbox, or an action packed piece as you are blasting aliens to bits, the music helps get the player into the proper emotional context to enjoy the game.
In Mass Effect, there is a part near the end where you need to get to a certain place quickly. The fate of the universe is ridding on your shoulders. You get into your vehicle, ride down a fairly boring stretch of road for a while, and get to where you need to go. As it is, that section is fairly boring. However, if they had put on some suitably epic music, it would have felt like you where riding on to glory.
To demonstrate the impact music can have, watch this. If music can have that impact on something like that, imagine what it does for something that is already awesome.
All of these extra's can be classified as "polish", but polish is important. Polish is what will take a good game, and elevate it up into a great experience.
Game Design Theory 10 - Interfaces
1
Well, considering that you have to accomplish the rest of the game before you can access it, all it does is provide you with a convenient way to explore. Since its confined to a dragon, you have to deal with its maneuverability, meaning it would only be suitable for above-ground travel in the overworld. You can't just leap into the air whenever you feel like it, you have to go to the dragon, mount it, and take off. The 8x speed boost of the nether will probably still provide a faster means of travel between fixed points, meaning it is mostly advantageous for exploration, or for a funner means of transport between places. A dragon flying is much, much more balanced than fly/setspeed 5, both in inherent limits to its use, and in the pre-requisites to accomplish it. Its not going to get you more diamonds, its just going to let you explore the world easier.
Now, I will acknowledge that the technical constrains in multiplayer are a valid concern. However, technical constraints are a challenge that can be overcome with clever development. The current server technology may not be able to hold up to a dragon exploring, but it hasn't had to. That was never a design consideration. It is a limit that can be overcome, if the end result is worth the effort. Gameplay issues are a bigger problem.
The balance issues would arise from the potential combative advantage a dragon could bring. Mainly in multiplayer, I don't think riding around a dragon and slaughtering everything on the surface is that problematic in SSP. Esp. if being on the back of a dragon makes it hard to collect item drops/exp orbs, or if dragon kills don't net xp. However, how the dragon combat works is unknown, so its hard to make any solid comments on it.