<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Better Games Use Fewer Mechanics?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://news.filefront.com/better-games-use-fewer-mechanics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://news.filefront.com/better-games-use-fewer-mechanics/</link>
	<description>News for Gamers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:36:36 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Mylon</title>
		<link>http://news.filefront.com/better-games-use-fewer-mechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-125552</link>
		<dc:creator>Mylon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.filefront.com/better-games-use-fewer-mechanics/#comment-125552</guid>
		<description>I disagree.  Mechanics need to be more organic and natural and, most of all, intuitive.  Rather than follow some weird function where  y = no point where gamers are left to figure out this mysterious zone between x and y where this action is profitable, if games didn&#039;t rely on such steep, leveled mechanics, it might be easier to jump in and play, as even if someone is doing it &quot;wrong&quot;, according to the game developer, the player could still be doing it in a way they find fun.

Games are about interesting choices.  If the mechanics make one choice a no-duh option, then the choice, and thus, the interesting part, is gone.

Though, there is something to be said for fewer unnecessary game mechanics.  A prime example of unnecessary mechanics is Dark Cloud, where there exist buttons in a dungeon that forces the player to switch to a character just to progress in the dungeon.  There is no challenge to be had of any sort, it&#039;s quite literally a hoop for the player to jump through like a trained dog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree.  Mechanics need to be more organic and natural and, most of all, intuitive.  Rather than follow some weird function where  y = no point where gamers are left to figure out this mysterious zone between x and y where this action is profitable, if games didn&#8217;t rely on such steep, leveled mechanics, it might be easier to jump in and play, as even if someone is doing it &#8220;wrong&#8221;, according to the game developer, the player could still be doing it in a way they find fun.</p>
<p>Games are about interesting choices.  If the mechanics make one choice a no-duh option, then the choice, and thus, the interesting part, is gone.</p>
<p>Though, there is something to be said for fewer unnecessary game mechanics.  A prime example of unnecessary mechanics is Dark Cloud, where there exist buttons in a dungeon that forces the player to switch to a character just to progress in the dungeon.  There is no challenge to be had of any sort, it&#8217;s quite literally a hoop for the player to jump through like a trained dog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: erathoniel</title>
		<link>http://news.filefront.com/better-games-use-fewer-mechanics/comment-page-1/#comment-125542</link>
		<dc:creator>erathoniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.filefront.com/better-games-use-fewer-mechanics/#comment-125542</guid>
		<description>Actually, games with fewer necessary mechanics make better games. I want the ability to craft stuff, I just don&#039;t wanna have to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, games with fewer necessary mechanics make better games. I want the ability to craft stuff, I just don&#8217;t wanna have to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
