Am I the only person annoyed by the usage of "game loop" as an objective measure of a game's worth? I understand game loops exist in programming, but reducing it to a bullet point on a book report style game review seems weirdly reductive.
Also wondering how much this mindset exists in commercial game design, and if that attitude is detrimental to good design.
Am I the only person annoyed by the usage of "game loop" as an objective measure of a game's worth? I
no!
Also wondering how much this mindset exists in commercial game design,
seems like a lot!
and if that attitude is detrimental to good design.
it HAS to be.
I haven't seen "game loop" used in that way. What I understand a game loop is is a way to structure your game from a desing perspective, not a programming perspective.
For example you have a game about farming, an example of loop can be:
For that reason I don't see it as something good or bad. Just a game design concept you can use.
Edit: I just remembered the actual name of the concept is "Gameplay Loop". Still I think that must be what they are talking about because I can't imagine someone complaining about the Game Loop in programming.
I first saw it used that way while reading user reviews on sites like Steam, so I'm wondering where the origin of "game loop" as an objective descriptor comes from. Professional reviewers or reviews on big sites might have used it that way first, but I can't confirm.
I suspect modern game design adheres to game loops as a concept more strongly than older games, too, which had "game loops" in a programming sense, but not always a thoughtful design sense. It's something that I immediately notice when playing an older game vs starting up a modern commercial one. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate, but I'm also wondering if that might be the origin of the term "game loop" as a descriptor.
Edit: Thanks for responding to this! I had a sense of what game loop meant in programming, but not a design sense, so that helps clarify things.
Yeah, assuming the "game loop" comes from a misunderstanding of "gameplay loop" (because I really don't see how it could be related to programming as something worth talking about), I don't really understand how this could be used as a measure? Do you have any example?
Like, you could say the loop is good or bad the same way you'd say the game is good or bad but that's about it? There's no universal target loop games should reach or anything like that. It really just comes down to saying "here's the things you do in the game and how it's structured".
So idk, if the review mentions a gameplay loop: fair, because they're describing the game (in a way that probably tries to be smarter than just saying gameplay). But that's not an "objective measure", just a part of the game. If the reviews say "there's a gameplay loop so it's bad" or "the gameplay loop has more than x steps so it's good" then yeah it's BS :D
And if it's really the programming "game loop", which afaik is just a way to say "what happens on each frame"... then wth are those reviews talking about?!
@tomyatemo's post was helpful for me understanding what "game loop" means, but I'm definitely going to think about that now in relationship to the ttrpg design space. I wonder how many games could be described as "fight monsters, gain exp, level up, fight harder monsters."
One must imagine Sisyphus in a game loop.
"game loop" is one of those things that's so ingrained in game design discourse nobody actually checked to see if it's true
like, what is the "game loop" of chess?
whats your Opinion on the word "mid" being used as a negative descriptor for a game
I was wondering when someone would notice that tag lol.
Basically it frustrates me when people associate the concept of something being average or mundane as meaning it has no intrinsic value. This attitude probably explains why all AAA games are now the video game equivalent of a sirloin steak served at an underground steakhouse where the cow is carved and served up right in front of your eyes. Except that steak is also a second job since it has to be the only thing in your life that matters.
Compare/contrast with a game that is "mid", which commits the sin of... just trying to be a video game. Not something to fixate on for the rest of your life, but something that might still have an impact on you.
Edit: I realize that uncharitable take on modern gaming is unrelated to my beef with the word "mid". Rather than remove that rant, I'll just say modern game design irks me sometimes. I have yet to find an exact reason why, other than it seems to demand more of my limited attention than I have available.
