Making fun games

I just bought a triangle strategy on Switch, it seems to have a newly created turn-based strategy game with Octopath Traveler, Final Fantasy Tactics and a child. In addition to the good reviews (they usually don't get very high points per game with the transition) I bought the game because I have some confidence in the Square Inics brand. They created many of my favorite games, and they seem to know how to create fun. Or maybe I was wrong. Because Square Enix from Platinum Games Bayonetta և Nier. Successful game developers, such as Automators, recently announced the fall of Babylon. And everyone, from critics to players, agrees that this is one of the worst games of the year, annoying and confusing.

We can assume that the developers did not intend to create a boring game. And they have experience creating good games. So while they may not be a direct follower of a successful game, they may think they know what makes the game fun. Only, of course, the results show that this is not the case. What is the question? Is there a scientific basis for creating a good game? Is it true that developers sometimes stumble in the dark, sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they do not?

I think the answer to that question will have a big impact on the games we get. If Platinum Games is thinking about how to create successful games, we can find a variety of new and exciting games from them. If only their series were successful, they did not know how to create a new game, then we would end up repeating the same elements over and over again.

Tobolld Blog