Game loop theory is bullshit

>there's no need to think about it because doom it so direct and simple, but for games where you have towns/dungeons/crafting or resource management it's a thing to think about and see if what you're doing really has a purpose and if the mechanics fit together

This breaks down even more if we are talking Atari style games.

>angry at a term game devs use despite not being a game dev yourself
Do they ? I find that it is only jurno fagots who spam this word and theory all day every day.

ITT: Retarded underageb&s realize what Finite State Machines are

every game has a gameplay loop you retarded autist

>Give an example of that
Not him however I think borderlands 2 is the perfect example.

It is
1) Go to new area
2) kill alla enemies
3) open crates and take loot
3 B ) sell / throw way bad guns and use new guns
3 C ) Buy bew gun from store.

It is so formulaic it hurts, when I returned to the game it was so monotonous.

But gameplay loops are why video games are so addicting

zelda
go to a town, talk to npcs, have some story exposition, go to a dungeon, learn the basic layout of the dungeon, get an item, solve the puzzles of the dungeon with the item, kill the boss, go to next town
this happens 10 times in oot, so it's definitely a thing they thought about

>every game has a gameplay loop you retarded autist
Prove that.

See what insane fagots these game loop theory fags are ?

>But gameplay loops are why video games are so addicting
Nope see Games who have loops in them are tiring and boring, repetitive and hold no value.

>but for games where you have towns/dungeons/crafting or resource management it's a thing to think about and see if what you're doing really has a purpose and if the mechanics fit together
even those games have a loop faggot
post a game you think doesn't have a loop then faggot
>Games who have loops in them are tiring and boring, repetitive and hold no value.
you are just a retarded autist

What would you say the loops are in strategy games?

>post a game you think doesn't have a loop then faggot
Dinosaur game in google chrome. Tell me what the loop there is.

And you will force it so hard.

How about tetris ?
And you will force it so hard.

yes, there is no reason to think about the gameplay loop of an atari, the same way there's no reason to understand the aerodynamics of a tree
other devs probably didn't call it the same, maybe didn't even had a name for it. it's a thing to think about when you're making a game with many parts, giving a name to it makes it easier to explain, but it's not a golden rule that should be applied to every single videogame and every dev should know about.

>even those games have a loop faggot
you're not even reading the posts anymore, just looking at keywords and responding

>tetris
line up blocks to break rows so you can line up more blocks to break rows
>Dinosaur game
jump over obstacles, get better score so you can jump over more obstacles and get better score
these game are literally on a loop you fucking autist

gather resources and conquer> build up your base/town/units> so you can gather more resources and conquer. up until you reach your desired ending.

simple as that.

>Hur dur they did not name it
More like the game loop theory is something that showed up in ~2020 and retarded jurnos started talking about it.

A retarded theory made by retards who never did think about it or made games and pretend like they are so intelligent by talking what loops a game has.

And you realize fast the games that stick to this formula are deeply flawed.
Example skyrim the game basically gives you dungeons to finish and you finish dungeons and all of them feel the same.

Now contrast this with mario party. Notice that every mini game is different. What if instead of clone dungeon #45 skyrimg did change things a lot ? What would that even look like ?

You notice the more you break up the formula the more interesting it gets.

Attached: maxresdefault sindel.jpg (1280x720, 92.57K)

Virtually every game has a series of systems that becomes increasingly more stringent as the game progresses. There are good ways to do this, like Mario Bros. which introduces more challenging enemies and geography, and then there are shitty ways to do it like Borderlands where you're still doing the same fundamental thing, just with bigger numbers against differently colored enemies. If a game doesn't have a loop, then that means every iteration of gameplay is unique and each challenge requires a different skillset.

Holy shit how hard you need to force them into a loop now you literally approached button press theory.

build units to collect resources and kill enemy units (that want prevent you from making more units and collect more resources) - to build more units and collect more resources
then explain it faggot, rpgs have a loop

WOW epic levels of forcing.

you are a retarded autist

What about games with no resource collection or troop production? Games like multiplayer battles in total war games or Field of Glory 2

user I think you're just picking and choosing what fits your narrow definition of what a gameplay loop is.

Mario party is literally >roll dice >land on spot > minigame > roll dice up until you get a star and the game is over. Literally any game can be dumbed down into a simple gameplay loop and you can also over explain something til the point it sounds far more complicated than it actually is.

DO you actually believe this or are you just shitposting today.

>dude can't even spell faggot but wants to call me one
lmfao based ESL schitzo autist

then explain why zelda has a loop, i explained here yes retard that is literally what i said

>It's another "Retard doesn't understand how the sausage is made" thread

I'm too lazy to read what you're arguing about but I just want you to know that "games without resource collection or troop production" are an entire genre called real-time tactics

>Yes now try to force Doom II into your loop theory.
Kill demons to find keys/weapons to kill demons more/faster

Field of Glory 2 is turn based, but thanks.

Is it good? Have had that in my library for ages but never got around to playing it
Does it have actual tactical depth? Those grid-based games always look like chess to me

I would think that games that don't have loops either have a single narrow activity or don't have gameplay that repeats at all.

For example an older arcade game might not have a loop. Centepede or Frogger would work as examples. Some mobile games also follow the formula. Such as a runner with no upgrades or puzzle games.

Games that don't repeat their gameplay are more rare. Its obviously work intensive to create a series of radically different gameplay and use it only once. Frog Fractions and Incredible Crisis are the only ones that come to mind but you could also argue that Mario Party minigame rush modes would count as well.

>Mario Bros.
>Borderlands

i like to mention one thing and this is especially visible in Dungeon Keeper 2 or other strategy games.

You notice that the single player of that game is basically a tutorial or introduction of new units (+1 new unity on every next map) it is formulaic however games like Doom 2 do the same thing, you basically get more weapons and different enemies as the game moves one its more like a graph where you get more new stuff that often feeds or changes previously introduced rules.

And the more subtle you make this, the more indistinguishable from natural like in mario you notice that the game becomes more fun. The goal here should be that you do not notice the formulas that make up the game.

You notice this is one game design idea not some grant theory that I need to force every game into.

Parody:
introducing graph theory, while the game progresses things change and you get more things.

Everything that has a level system ?
Your level increases THEORY PROVEN !

Do you get more weapons ?
THEORY PROVEN !

Do you get different weapons ?
THEORY PROVEN !

Do your new weapons have bigger numbers on them ?
THEORY PROVEN !

PS: And this graph theory makes infinetly more sense then thinking of games as loops.

Attached: depositphotos_82327458-stock-photo-growing-bar-chart-with-arrow.jpg (1024x1024, 66.37K)

You realize the fagots who worship the game loop theory will rage or try to force every game into their retarded game loop theory.

>Mario party is literally
See OP.

The point is not that you can force or describe a game this way, the point is is it useful to talk about a game this way ?

Contrast this with graph theory

>For example an older arcade game might not have a loop. Centepede or Frogger would work as examples. Some mobile games also follow the formula. Such as a runner with no upgrades or puzzle games.
I would say they have a basic loop of avoid thing to not die so you can avoid more things and get better score, basically a simplistic Mario game
but a multiplayer game where you just throw your army at the opponent and don't collect resources might not have a loop

It's just a way of explaining how a game is played or designed by abstraction. It's not meant to be used to explain the intricacies of a game.

you are a brain damaged retard

The point you did not get is that mario party starts quests/mini games that are not the same every time and this is a good thing, you going to smash dungeon #45 who is identical to dungeon #44 is bad.

Basically what I'm saying is that mario part has verity (even if they repeat) and this is good while doing a retarded formulaic game like above is not.

Well then OP should better form his point because its flat out atrocious. If OP just wanted to propose a new theory of gameplay, he shouldve just started with that.
This is why you hire people who can actually know how to discuss things for you.

Get even more angry you fagot !
I hope you get a stroke fro mall the rage !

It is literally written in the OP !
I wrote all objection and responded to them in the OP !
READ THE OP !

shut the fuck up you french faggot

Alright OP, I'm gonna educate you.

Every game ever made.
Yes, even that one.
Is a loop or collection of loops.

Every game has three things:
>Goal/reward
>Obstacle
>Player choice.

And in every game, you use
>Player choices
to overcome
>Obstacles
to get to the
>goal/reward

That's the big, over-arching loop, but there are also smaller loops within those loops to keep the game fun and engaging. For example:

In Mario Bros:
>Object: To get to the end of the game
>Obstacle: Jumping puzzles and enemies
>Player choices: Moving, running, jumping, hitting blocks, etc

BUT, if you zoom in:
>Object: To get to the end of each stage individually
>Obstacle: Enemies and jump puzzles
>Player choices: See above

BUT ALSO: You can zoom in further
>Object: To overcome a specific monster
>Obstacle: The monster itself
>Choices: Jumping ON the monster, jumping OVER the monster, hitting the monster with a fireball, etc

And on and on and down and down until you can see literally every single second of player engagement as a reaction to stimuli as a reaction to player input as a reaction to stimuli, on an instant-by-instant basis. That's a gameplay loop.

you are a retarded autist you can't comprehend simple things

>It's just a way of explaining how a game is played or designed by abstraction
This translates into making the game loop theory useless and a thing to be abandoned.

I know exactly the fagots who get their dicks hard over trash like game loop theory and its the same retards who get erections from UML.

Another shit idea that makes useless corporate drones feel superior.

Cool thanks friend

It's bready good. It takes a while to get a feel for how much all the modifiers affect yours and the enemy's units because there's a lot of them so early on you might end up sending your units into an unfavorable position because you thought all the bonus/penalties would have a greater/lesser impact. At least the flanking and rear attacks always do something and since it takes units an entire turn to rotate the game does require you to think several turns ahead if you want to pull it off.

op is too retarded to understand any of it
you are a brain damaged retard

Sounded more like you were just trying to act like there was no such thing as a gameplay loop. I read that shit multiple times and the thread and I couldn't figure out what the hell you were trying to argue.

Could put something more like," The gameplay loop theory is bullshit because X, I propose that every good game follows the graph theory instead, where things get harder or change ever so slightly as the game goes on." I think this falls on you not being able to communicate properly

They actually seem to be mostly ignoring it.

>I have never designed a video game in my entire life

Sounds good, I suppose it was a stupid question whether a Slitherine game has tactical depth lel
Is the manual necessary? I'm never quite sure with these games, sometimes you really need to read it, sometimes the game has a great tutorial and you just need the manual to reference specific modifiers and rules

op is an autist
he is too retarded to realize tetris has a loop, a game where you do the same thing over and over

>Every game has three things:
>>Goal/reward
>>Obstacle
>>Player choice.
Congratulations on making game loop theory useless in describing anything of value.

Your post is not different from
>Every game has you pressing buttons
>You press a button
>Then there is time when you do not press a button

What value does this bring to the conversation ? Any conversation ?

>Obstacle: Jumping puzzles and enemies
Yes practically all games have challenges and win/lose conditions.
Why the fuck do you feel the need to force this sane description into the abortion that is game loop theory ?

>>Choices: Jumping ON the monster, jumping OVER the monster, hitting the monster with a fireball, etc
This is simply pathetic.
This does not even look like a loop.

>And on and on and down and down until you can see literally every single second of player engagement as a reaction to stimuli as a reaction to player input as a reaction to stimuli, on an instant-by-instant basis. That's a gameplay loop.
And this fagot behavior is why I bash game loop theory and the fagots pushing it. These are these people everyone !

PS BONUS :
>>Every game has three things:
Except walking simulators ... if you consider them games at all ... I bet you find a way to force them also into your game loop theory.

This guy gets it.
This thread is blatantly disingenuous, but loops are essentially just what the gameplay looks like at the 'macro' level, which can be analyzed and critiqued independently of the 'micro' level mechanics. I've been playing through Mega Man ZX lately, and as much as I've been enjoying the minute to minute mechanics of the game, the overall structure of the game felt unwieldy, disjointed and unfulfilling; in other words, the loop didn't work. La-Mulana, on the other hand, handles it loops fantastically—despite the blatantly repetitive nature of its areas (enter area->get life crystal->get ankh jewel->kill boss->enter backside of area), each area approaches this formula in entirely different (and increasingly intricate) ways, making a strong experience out of what easily could've been a exercise in rote repetition.

Notice how both of my examples made no reference to player physics, enemy placement, weapon design, or anything else that makes up the core mechanics of the game. Although game mechanics give rise to loops, loops allow us to intuitively explain the larger 'skeleton' of a game, and I fail to see why that can't be a useful framework for discussion.

you are a brain damaged retard
told you op is a retard

>And this fagot behavior is why I bash game loop theory and the fagots pushing it.
Why?
What's wrong with it?
Are you trying to argue AGAINST that?
Are you trying to argue AGAINST the idea that video games respond to player input while the player responds to video game output? Like a loop?

didn't read lol
game loop is real

Attached: 1619454693361.jpg (1186x1014, 163.22K)

stop arguing with that autist

It's pretty easy learn just from playing it, I don't think the manual is necessary to play.
>Slitherine
Bunch of lazy niggers, I wonder how many years they've been reusing the same animations.

>propose that every good game follows the graph theory instead,
And here is the thing, I DO NOT PROPOSE THE GRAPH THEORY !

Because it would be to restrictive and I see some games that do not fit the theory.

Making up one observation that is conducive to some games while pretending its the great explanation OF ALL GAMES FUTURE AND PRESENT is simply stupid and can blind us.

And the graph model collapses in some games especially Atari unless you want to force it and insist that any numbers increasing means that the game fits graph theory.

This is my point, and objection to loop theory it forces itself and insists that it can explain all games if a game does not fit another thing is found that can be forced into the loop theory and the worshipers of this theory stay smug.

I think it is named an unfalsifiable theory and this is a bad thing.

Literally every single game can be broken down into a loop, or constituent loop components.

Every
Single
One.

Try me. Name a game. If I've played it or know enough about it, I'll point out the gameplay loops.

Your interpretation of "game loop" is as literal as it gets. What people are talking about is a meta analysis of games by creating a flowchart of meaningful interactions in the game. Your buttons analogy falls apart because it implies it's all arbitrary, but it's not. In terms of design, there is nothing to gather from a heatmap or chart of button presses.

>Most games, good games do not fit into the game loop
What games? I don't even know what games you consider good.

>I will not say that here are no games who will fit into game loop theory only the games that fit are 9/10 exploitative phone trash that is not fun to play.
This does not make sense. So are you saying that all games fit into game loop theory or not? That's pretty important for the second part of your statement.

Your post reeks of misunderstanding. Everything is subject to reductive analysis. Obviously if video games were as deep as these "game loop" charts, it would be just as stimulating to read the chart. But it's not, and nobody is trying to pretend that it is. It's a way of charting out what you do in the games, which can be useful in identifying design principles.

Attached: goodcompany.png (637x431, 252.56K)

>be mostly ignoring it.
Or they find a way to force it insisting that you pressing a button and not pressing a button is a loop.

The reason I have this level of disdain for loop theory is that these people are insufferable and because how they behave.

Seen it in UML, little fagots need to feel like super smart dudes and will say buzzwords and when you point out that this does not make sense they simply say that you do not know how it works.

They'll stop at the same time when they stop overcharging for their games because they're niche lel

>it forces itself and insists that it can explain all Pictures if a Picture does not fit another thing is found that can be forced into the Color Theory and the worshipers of this theory stay smug.

>it forces itself and insists that it can explain all games if a Song does not fit another thing is found that can be forced into the Music Theory and the worshipers of this theory stay smug.

That's you. That's what you sound like.