Plan for Phil Carlisle

Submit your own resources!

Chris "DiGi" Timberlake   (Mar 30, 2005 at 19:59 GMT)

I believe its imagination. Thats what always got me.

Jerane Alleyne   (Mar 30, 2005 at 20:17 GMT)

Hmm, Game-crack? I think I'd be happy with Game-LSD...

I always thought it interesting that games thought to be so good, aesthetically outstanding and interms of gameplay, but don't sell well. When the first Prince of Persia game came out it was so honored on every level, yet it had to be packaged with Splinter Cell inorder for it to sell well. Another example is teh NOLF series. Two great games, and that never really sold well, and then they came out with that Contract J.A.C.K., I would guess a similar reason as to why Ubi Soft made POP: Warrior Within.

There are much more subtile reasons as to what makes a game sell it seems. Player cahracters, environment, gender, etc. I do think though, that the more you dwell on the subject of what makes a great gamne, you can find yourself down the road of the "tried and true" formula so many developers find themselves in.

Jeremy Alessi   (Mar 30, 2005 at 20:23 GMT)

It's a balance ... everything's got to be good ... but balanced. It's like building an engine in a car. If you build an engine with balanced parts it'll run like a raped ape ... if you throw in a bunch of good parts but they aren't balanced because the camshaft is just too big then it'll choke.

Additionally, I think education is misunderstood. You're not supposed to be sitting in a room memorizing stuff ... you're supposed to be interacting how you want to interact ... you're supposed to be experimenting how you want to experiement. Games let you do that ... games are education. Now with all the 3D and physics you can see what it's like to do a 720 barrel roll in a Chevy Caprice because games let you interact in a world with no threat of physical danger. All you'd need to do is make a free roaming game like GTA and throw up little pop up windows explaining different behaviors that occur in the world when the player triggers them ... that'd be the best educational game. Don't lead the player by the hand just let them do their thing and pop up little ecyclopedia quips ... this is gravity, this is velocity, this is love, this is hate, this is stereotyping, this is racism, this is insider trading, etc etc....

Michael Cozzolino   (Mar 30, 2005 at 20:24 GMT)

Quote:

---

it'll run like a raped ape

---

Thats funny. I have to remember that one.

Brian Wells   (Mar 30, 2005 at 20:34 GMT)

Raping an ape is the easiest way to get kicked out of the zoo. And no, I don't want to talk about it...

Charlie Malbaurn   (Mar 30, 2005 at 20:39 GMT)

It all comes down to entertainment. I can remember only a few of my teachers when I was a kid and each one of them due to there style and humor.

J. Alan Atherton   (Mar 30, 2005 at 20:45 GMT)

I think it also has to do with popularity. Playing games is cool, while sitting at school is boring. At least, that's what everyone thinks. Or at least the popular people.

Jeff Tunnell   (Mar 30, 2005 at 22:38 GMT)

Nobody knows what makes great games, music, art, literature, or movies. There is no answer or it would be bottled up and anybody could do it. When I went to a high level educational conference a couple of years ago, I saw a lot of really smart people sitting around trying to figure out why games like The Incredible Machine were so good. They were doing research by watching kids play, doing interviews with kids, etc. Lots of research to unlock the keys as to why these games were so good, why they were eductional, and why we don't have games like that coming out any more.

My feeling was they were barking up the wrong tree. They asked me what I was thinking about when I designed certain games, what formulas dis I use, etc. My answer was that I didin't think about it that deeply. I told them to just make games. Some will be good, some won't, but sitting around trying to come up with a formula for how to do it will certainly not get it done. This is not science, it is art.

Bottom line is that for games or even for business applications, "nobody knows nothing". Games and applications get done when they get done. It does not matter how much scheduling or planning you put in. If the richest company in the world uses the best engineering talent in the world and still misses its deadlines by at least 200% (Longhorn, or any other MS application as far as that goes), then what chance does anybody else have? When they are complete, they are either good or not, but it didn't matter how big or complete the design document was. What matters is whether or not there was a person or small cadre of people that share a vision and can fight off the rest of the world long enough to make it happen. All the process in the world can't replace this, an, in fact, just gets in the way.

It's funny because once the small team has the success, either as an indie or a reclusive part of a big company, the money guys/suits/processors/historians come in and try to "tame" them so they can make sure and get it right the next time. History has proven that they can't.

Paul Malyschko   (Mar 30, 2005 at 22:39 GMT)

I'm not sure if this will help, but since a lot of this seems to be a formalisation of game design, you may want to take a look at "Rules of Play" by Eric Zimmerman and Katie Salen. It really is a great place to begin, as it covers so many different aspects of games and game design. It may be a little confusing at first, but you'll slowly find that the authors are building up some interesting arguments.

Phil Carlisle   (Mar 30, 2005 at 23:10 GMT)

Jeff: Well, if youre happy to rely on the hit and miss of "intuition" thats fine. But obviously places like EA have certain processes and systems that allow them to create bigger games than everyone else.

So there are two sides to that coin. Yeah, inspiration and intuition do play a huge part in it. But what makes one person's intuition better than someone else's. The mere fact that we have the Miyamoto's and the Tunnells of this industry kind of suggest that in fact there ARE internal mental processes you go through. Even if its internal to yourself and almost without concious thought, its still a process.

Studying people to try and understand it is a fundamental part of academia, as scientists you want to know what makes things work the way they do. Jeff Tunnell as a mental laboratory is as good as anyone else. Its like we try to learn about all sorts of mental behavior, because once we understand it, we can then try to affect it. Academia isnt about trying to "produce" a game as such, but in understanding the factors that go into that production.

Of course, education has gotten entirely the wrong end of the stick. Theyre not even comparing apples and apples. A game with a 10 million dollar budget is ALWAYS going to be more compelling than a game costing 100k used to deliver some cheesy educational subtext.

Also, I'm not sure agree with you about the "no-one knows" theory. Because its quite obvious that we ALL know what makes great art, music etc. We hear a peice and we know its good. Its THAT simple. Now to actually create a process around that inherent understanding is a totally different issue :)

Paul: yeah, we've touched on Zimmerman, and some stuff be Jesse Schell and a good few others (Raph Koster etc).

I'm not sure Ive ever seen a design book that I totally agree with. I guess thats because there isnt any single approach that works.

Firas   (Mar 30, 2005 at 23:26 GMT)

Mr. Phil, you are doing really a greate work and this research will be really greate so don't stop the greate work :)

I like to ask about somthing I'm really wait for it, do you know what it's the AI pack is this project still on going or is it dead, i think any info. about it will make use more happy.

thanks

Jay Barnson   (Mar 30, 2005 at 23:55 GMT)

The problem is that at the end of the day, with games, books, movies, TV Shows, or anything else... you are talking about art, not science. No, it's not masterpieces necessarily that will be on display in a gallery or argued about by scholars a hundred years from now - but it's still art.

Art is a funny thing. Much of it is in the eye of the beholder. You can break down the features common in the "best" art --- and of course some artist is going to come out and succeed by breaking all your rules. Art is non-repeatable (for the most part)... doing ALMOST exactly the same thing over and over again yields crappy results, because you are going to bore your audience.

The guys in the suits hate this response, because they really want to reduce it down to a science. They want factories. It just doesn't work that way.

Vashner   (Mar 31, 2005 at 01:25 GMT)

When I went to the Halo 2 launch party. I said "I want this someday". My game so popular people body surf for 4 hours waiting at midnight in the cold. We got this airman kicked out of the airforce once cause he was addicted to Everquest and his Ogre Shadowknight "Throgg"(he was in my guild). I think they arrested him in his dorm in his briefs drooling on himself. I think with the 3 GG engines it's only a matter of time before something magical happens. Not to say anything about the existing successes. I am thinking BIG I.E. Halo 2 big. Ok well maybe not.
:)

Jeremy Alessi   (Mar 31, 2005 at 01:59 GMT)

Quote:

---

When I went to the Halo 2 launch party. I said "I want this someday". My game so popular people body surf for 4 hours waiting at midnight in the cold.

---

I did the same thing and said the same thing to my sister waiting in line with me.

I think that essentially great games come from inspired people. No you cannot turn it into an assembly line ... it can't be done on schedule exactly or anything like that. Even Miyamoto has scrapped projects because they weren't good enough ... in fact I've read that they tend to completely remake the game 3 - 4 times if it's not good.

Games are using science to produce art ... all the science behind it can be replicated ... it's arranging the science based components into something meaningful that makes it good or not.

Ken Paulson   (Mar 31, 2005 at 04:27 GMT)

Quote:

---

Also, I'm not sure agree with you about the "no-one knows" theory. Because its quite obvious that we ALL know what makes great art, music etc. We hear a peice and we know its good. Its THAT simple.

---

But it isn't. If it was then countless albums wouldn't flop every year. You can have the finest technique in the world, but it doesn't guarantee that your songs will move someone. Music has been a part of culture pretty much since the dawn of man and the formula for it is still elusive. I don't think game design will be any easier to crack.

Joe Maruschak   (Mar 31, 2005 at 04:55 GMT)

Certain thinngs can be learned. When one goes to film school, they learn the concepts of how one can use movement on the screen and sound to affect what the viewer sees and feels. In art school, one can learn how color and shape, and the arrangement of these items can elicit an emotional response and communicate to the viewer of the art in subtle ways.

Teaching can also improve ones craft, teaching them techniques to put polish on things.

Art had been around for a long time.. the study of how art affects perception has been around for hundreds of years.. film for a hundred years or so. Unfortunately, interactive experience has only been around for a short time.. and the language of design or an interactive experience is in it's infancy. As time goes on, the craft will improve, and we will begin to understand the experience more and there will be some 'rules' one can use..

all that being said, if one studies film, it will not make them a Speilberg. One can learn the craft, and they may be able to make good choices to make a decent film, but it is not necessarily going to make them a master filmmaker.

I feel much the same way abouit games. There are things anyone can do to make their game a better game. In time, there will be techniques and processes that one can follow to take care of some if it, but at some point, it is about creating magic.. and since every project is unique, it is wiser to just take an approach where you test and iterate the design, and fix the problems that you see.. throw out junk and keep what is good.

The part that I think is important is getting to a state where one can be objective enough to recognize what is good and what sucks.. to be opne enough to listen to others, and to trust yourself enough to know when to ignore others and go with your gut.

To me, game creation is not about finding a repeatble formula.. it is an exercise of making many decisions, every day, every week, every month, that lead to the final product. Every day presents a new an unique problem, and it is how you solve the problems that matter. The solutions will always be as individual as the project and the people working on it..

with thinktanks.. our end users think it has that special 'something' that resonates with them. For me personally, it was not saying it was 'good enough'.. it was working and tweaking and adjusting until it resonated with me.. and some fo thsi was very subtle.. the shaking of the tanks when they idle.. the 'pop' of the brains when a tank is destroyed.. all of it was tweaked until I 'felt' the experience.. until it felt very natural and 'right'.. and this is what I think helps to connect with people, to have them enjoy the experience.. It is not one big thing, it is a thousand little things that matter..

I could probably write a whole book on all that I have learned so far (as could anyone who has worked on several games).. but I am not sure how useful the information would be to anyone.. as having the information I have is not going to make them make good decisions (it probably causes me to make as many bad decisions as good decisions)....

The only process I would say would be a good one to follow is to work on the game mechanic before working on layering the 'stuff' into the game that supports what is fun about it. If the game is just fun to play, a horrible story cannot kill it.. if the playing of the game is just not fun.. if it is not fun to interact with, then a great story and great art, and particles and ragdolls, etc, can not make it good.

the only formula I have seen work is to take good people that know what they are doing, give them time and resources, and wait.
Edited on Mar 31, 2005 04:59 GMT

Jeff Tunnell   (Mar 31, 2005 at 06:14 GMT)

Phil: EA does not have processes for making great games. They have intense political processes that have to be endured in order to allow the occasional Sims to leak out. In the early days they subscribed to the "all hits are flukes" strategy and had enough success to create the cash cow, marketing driven profit machine they now have. I don't think self funded indies can repeat their process.

It seems as if you are looking for an algorithm for success. I'm sure it doesn't exist, but if you find it, let me know, and I'll invest.
Edited on Mar 31, 2005 18:03 GMT

Phil Carlisle   (Mar 31, 2005 at 10:10 GMT)

I am in total agreement with Joe I guess. I've learnt some things as Ive worked on games, things that are good general "rules".

I tend to think that yeah, we cant prescribe a simplistic checklist of "things to do to make a great game". But we can certainly figure out commonalities that create good games and commonalities that create poor ones.

Jeff: Its a pity that almost the whole of the commercial industry wants to follow the EA model (seeing as theyre the heavy hitters). They obviously DO have some form of process though, because they rarely sell under a million units. Of course, you can quite rightly argue that its because they have the marketing sown up.

I think what we (and others like melissa federoff) are trying to find, is that sort of heuristic measurement that gives us some notion of our craft. Joe put it really well above, in that artists can be taught how colour effects people, film makers can draw on years of experience of other filmmakers in how to approach a given shot.

I guess what we're really trying to do, is formalize the "technique" of game design. As anyone who plays an instrument knows, technique isnt the be-all-end-all of playing the instrument, but it sure can help to be technically capable. Inspiration is a different matter, you might be an amazing technician and still come across as feeling soul-less. But at least if we pinpoint technique, we start to pinpoint areas of truly bad technique. This isnt to be 100% prescriptive, but to try and make things easier for people with less understanding of the craft.

You wouldnt give a newbie chef the task of cooking a 5 course meal in his first day, you'd start off with the basics, with sauces and such.

How is it we expect game designers to be able to produce usable designs without teaching them the first principles? We of course, havent gotten any formal principles, but there ARE patterns that we've come across that speak to the notion of technique.

For instance, a common technique, is to use lots of small goals to motivate the player. Another is to show the player in an obvious way thier current "status" within the game. Those are "techniques" which can be applied to games.

Art is all well and good, but you can become better at art by studying others.

Joe Maruschak   (Mar 31, 2005 at 15:30 GMT)

phil,

there is a book I recommend highly:

The Visual Story

It is a crash course on art. It will touch on all you need to know about shape and color and rhythm and the use of them in making films, much of which can be applied to making games.

For me, the techncial part of the 'technique' is understanding the mechanics of production, which is why I read a lot of books on art, design (as in general design) and books of software methodology, so I can understand the construction process and how it will affect development.

There is a good book called A pattern language which is really interesting and may give you some insight into general 'design' and how people respond to the arrangement of'space'.

I also do a lot of reading on business and people/project management, as the team that makes the game has a HUGE impact on how the game comes out. Reading about how to deal with people can give you tools for managing a project, how to interact with people to get the things you want done.

The problem with game design is that it draws on so many disciplines, that to get 'book smart' about it, you would need to do a lot of studying.. and the application of what you may learn is the hard part.... would it not be better to just assemble a team that each have all the specific disciplines covered?

The key then would be having the skills to mediate the interaction of the team and keep them focused. To me, this is a pretty simple thing.. have a vision for the game (either at the outset or through evolution) and find a way to keep refocusing the vision so the team all works toward making the product work together to make a 'whole'.

When I see a game like Halo.. I look at it and I am struck at how unremarkable it is. The designs of the characters and aliens is good, but not great, the story is good, but not earthshattering, the controls are really well done, but nothing innovative or especially different from what has gone before.. what they did, was they did everything 'right'.. they tied it all together in a tight little package that felt good, and then they just happened to be the only game on xbox that was worth playing. A little bit of deliviering on the goods and a little bit of luck.

I have no doubt there are some simple things that can be followed to help make the 'process' better. My experience suggests that even the simple ones are not being used by the 'big' players in any meaningful way.

There is a simple approach.. come up with an idea, prototype, test , decide on the next prototype, repeat. If the team is sensible enough to know what is good (what to keep) and what sucks (what to throw out) and they are given time, they will get a good game.

Knowing what to keep and what to throw.. maybe there are some people who have a 'knack' for knowing.. I don't know.. What I have seen is that many teams lose all objectivity when working on a product, and that they cling to bad decisions.. have ideas of what should work (when it obviously is not working), and just have strange feelings about what is 'the most important' thing to focus energy on.

so, the steps for making a successful (good) game are remarkably simple.. but the guildelines are a lot like general stock market advice (buy low - sell high).. the specific implementation of that process on any particular project is way too complex for any formula to be applied to it..

with the exception of some little 'techniques' that can help at the micro level.. I don't think that you are going to find a big picture process.

Paul Dana   (Mar 31, 2005 at 15:53 GMT)

Great conversation here.

I expected Clark F. to pipe in. Psychology of gaming. Would seem to be right up his alley.

Hey Joe...nudge Clark.

Jeff Tunnell   (Mar 31, 2005 at 18:29 GMT)

You don't have to look any further than this post to find EA's "secret" to success. Here it is in one simple paragraph.

Not many companies can afford to buy out the monopolistic rights to the NFL in order to assure they get million sellers. Nor can many companies afford to buy out the lifetime gaming rights to a young Tiger Woods, or displace the billion dollar Sierra in order to get the rights to NASCAR. What chance does a normal company have of buying out the rights to the best selling kids book Harry Potter? Once you have all of those marketing driven hits generating profits, you can allow a few crumbs to reluctantly filter through to one of the best designers in the industry, Will Wright (picked up by buying out his original company for something like $125MM), so you can point to the fact that your $3B (for billion) company does cool products.

I think that looking at what EA does and trying to apply that strategy to making great games is barking up the wrong tree.

Phil, I think back to an email I got from you about four years ago where you stated you would be happy to be the equivalent of a "gigging musician", and it was actually a turning point for me because it made me realize that many people might want to do this just because they like it (which is funny because that is what I was doing). To this day I still think the "band" metaphor for making games is a lot better than the movie industry metaphor that EA likes to tout. Give me the GG Toolset and a team of five great game developers and we will come back in 18 months with a game that will rock the industry. This is about the equivalent amount of effort that is put into a music album.

Assuming I'm right and this rock band metaphor works (or I might be full of crap), maybe it is better to look at the successes and processes of great rock bands or musicians. But, do you think Kurt Cobain or Mick Jaggar thought about the process of making great music? I doubt it. I bet they sat down at night, got a little tipsy, felt their internal pain and wrote songs. Later, when the music press or interviewers asked them about what the deep meaning was they were trying to communicate was, I'm sure they replied, "I was just making music."

Reverend James Langford   (Mar 31, 2005 at 18:34 GMT)

The best game process that I have found, is performing improv in front of people. some of the artists on my team and I work out our game plans by performing an improv show each week. We have been performing for years together and have found great benefits:

1. Instant feedback on concepts
2. Grass roots marketing
3. Thousands of hours of video with real international audiences / tourists (we perform in Hawaii)
4. It's awesome fun
5. We get paid.


We can look a the tape find out what works and extrapulate on our own creativiy insuring uniqueness of our content. Whatever anyone says, Content is King and Unique content is what truly makes a game worth playing.

Phil Carlisle   (Apr 01, 2005 at 13:46 GMT)

Actually Jeff, youre right, Jagger and the like obviously just sat there and made up thier own music. No-one could disagree there.

But youre missing out on the other factors involved:

1) Thier prior musical training.

That being, they must have at least learnt thier instruments enough to make *something* and obviously that implied some sort of learning method and a way to tell right from wrong. These things come from focussing on the technique. Ok, so the stones wont be fully technique driven, but I know of a crapload of bands who are really nice and have great technique.

2) Thier prior artistic influences.

Before there was the stones there were the people that came before them. Thier influences, the things they learnt from them (like how to do a 3 chord trick) and such.

I'm certainly not interested in advocating some kind of checklist mentality when developing these things. But I do think (as in the band analogy) people have to learn thier game development "chops". They should learn by practicing the basics, for example in a game in a day. They should progress (once at a certain level) into playing in a school band (i.e. working with a team on a mod).

Then when they become competant enough that they can really hold thier own on a stage, know thier instrument and can truly understand and control thier technique and craft.

Thats when they are capable of doing the whole 18 month virtuoso project.

See, you guys at GG are all pretty much at the virtuoso level. Youre like the stones or the beatles. You know the score and are able to do the tours and stuff without really thinking about it. Its now become instinctive to you.

But what about all those guys who see what youre doing and want to learn from it? Or see other companies and want to emulate them?

They need to understand the fundamental benefits of having good technique as a cornerstone of what they are trying to create.

As game deverlopers and designers, we really havent achieved that level of clarity as to what IS the conerstone of our craft. You might well argue that we dont need to, citing guys like Marc Bolan as being able to craft great songs with only 3 chords.

But I'd suggest that we cannot constrain people to that level of thinking. We need to allow for the Alan Holdsworths or the Joe Satriani's of this world too.

Hahaha.. Ive taken the music analogy a bit too far havent I :)

Jeff Tunnell   (Apr 01, 2005 at 18:53 GMT)

Phil: I didn't realize you were going to that low of a level. You stated you were looking for a process that allows creation of million sellers, or the game equivalent of crack. That implies to me that you were talking about game creation at the highest levels.

I do believe in learning your craft, and you have to start somewhere. GG is putting tremendous effort into lowering the game development bar so that young, bright kids (or second career adults, etc.) can get in on the fun. I am actually a big fan of game development schools. There is definitely a lot to learn from listening to the experts or working on small projects. This is very similar to film school, and it works. In fact, this is what my keynote at IGC 2004 was all about, i.e. just some simple processes that I use to think about games.

Jumping from the basics to making great games, however, is a much different process. That is what I thought you were referring to.

Phil Carlisle   (Apr 02, 2005 at 11:35 GMT)

I guess I view it as a holistic process Jeff. Learning from people at all levels of the industry has taught me that there are processes all over the place, but that most of them are unwritten and untested.

Game development is massively based on intuition right now, which in terms of teaching new people in the industry is kind of wasteful.

At Bolton,we dont expect to deliver the nuts and bolts of every peice of knowledge, but really more the attitude that it would take for a student to work well in the industry.

I think schools have a major place to play in getting people with the right mental attitude and ethic placed into game developers. People who can self-teach, who can problem solve etc. But its definitely an uphill struggle.

I definitely dont think that knowing even the basics of game dev is going to add that inspiration that makes great games. But as we hone our understanding of what "the basics" are, we surely will equip people to have a better chance of doing them.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved