LÖVE

Abandoned
Abandoned
AbandonedAbandoned
Abandoned
AbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandoned
AbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandoned
Abandoned
Abandoned
AbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandoned
AbandonedAbandonedAbandonedvAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandoned
Abandoned
Abandoned
AbandonedAbandonedAbandonedAbandoned

If someone were to ask me what I Wanna Be The Guy is, this would make a good outline for explaining it in one sentence.

Become "the guy"
Defeat bosses and Collect Secret Items
Jump and Shoot
Die

The structure seems like this to me:
---- Main Goal
-------- Conflicts on the way
------------ How to resolve conflicts
---------------- Power(s)/Tool(s)

But I don't understand why it's in circles.

IAsep-TrixI wrote:The answers are: A. Super Mario Bros.
B. Portal
C. Flower
D. Every fantasy RPG ever made

I would have guessed DOOM for #4. Because it's one of the only half-dozen FPS games that have ever been released in the history of forever because nothing else has ever come out because all those other never-created FPS games suck.

XHH wrote:If someone were to ask me what I Wanna Be The Guy is, this would make a good outline for explaining it in one sentence.

Become "the guy"
Defeat bosses and Collect Secret Items
Jump and Shoot
Die

The structure seems like this to me:
---- Main Goal
-------- Conflicts on the way
------------ How to resolve conflicts
---------------- Power(s)/Tool(s)

But I don't understand why it's in circles.

Well it looks much better that way.

I don't honestly think this kind of approach actually works, games are tend to be vastly more complicated than this. And even then, "saving the princess" is not a part of game mechanics whatsoever, neither progression is.

Here's what I normally think through:

1) basic idea, goals and how do you achieve them
2) deeper insight on tools to achieving goals
3) even deeper insights
4) and so on

That works really well. At least, for me.

The core mechanic of portal is not shooting... it's spatial modification or something like that.

IAsep-TrixI wrote:something I've been working on for a day or 2, something to whip up if you want to create an awesome game for love2D.

From this line I am not quiet sure if you are claiming that you invented or developed this scheme. If so, please be aware, that copying others content is plagiarism. The diagrams have been published here and here.

Plu wrote:The core mechanic of portal is not shooting... it's spatial modification or something like that.

Oh, I would argue it is shooting... but shooting portals, not shooting in general.

Also, raidho36, yes it is a simplification, but that's because it is a model. The relevant question is not "Does this completely and in great detail represent any and all games?" but rather "Is this a useful abstraction (for some purpose)?". I would argue that it is, for both the purpose of reviewing games and that of creating games.

Why is it useful? It provides a structured way to look at games. Do... do I really have to explain why that is useful?

Oh, I would argue it is shooting... but shooting portals, not shooting in general.

Given the meaning applied to the word shooting in games, I don't think you'd be able to get the game pitched if you used the word "shooting" to describe what it's about. There's no way I would've figured out that the 2nd one was Portal because it showed shooting as a core mechanic. Just like I probably wouldn't be able to figure out that one described Angry Birds if it used "shooting" as the core mechanic, even though technically it applies there as well.

It's just this whole thing looks like forcing a question for prepared answer. If you really think of it, none of that stated things about design even make sense, and diagram is only there for the sake of making it look prettier. IMO.