Plan for Phil Carlisle
by Phil Carlisle · 03/30/2005 (7:42 pm) · 25 comments
Jeff's .plan set me off a bit just now.
He's right, even using great people, great tech, great everything. It doesnt equate to a great product!
One thing I've been working on recently is some research for an institute in the UK looking at how game developers manage to engage and motivate people (kids) to play games for huge amounts of time, when schoolteachers are unable to keep thier attention for more than a few minutes.
Anyway, getting away from various arguments there, one thing we've done with this research, is to interview (using some formal interview techniques) a bunch of local game developers, in an effort to classify and distill what THEY do to create this motivation and engagement in their games (so educational software people can do the same kind of things).
You know what?
They DONT KNOW!
I mean, sure, the designers have all these things they use, like feedback loops, like rewards and goal setting and reinforcement and such. But that is all almost entirely done by intuition and iteration. Usually a feature is championed by someone and then subjected to the group scrutiny of the rest of the devs and either makes it or not.
So my point is, that if you change the makeup of the team, the leadership, the group ego etc. Then essentially you totally change that process and get a different game.
If design is all about personal intuition, with each different person bringing different intuition, then basically "good" games are merely made by people with good intuition!!
I suspect this is actually the case for the greater part of the industry. Certainly Jeff keeps telling us to trust our intuition too. So that leads me on to the final part of my plan:
How do we make a game that plays so well that it feels like the game equivalent of crack?
I honestly dont think anyone can put a finger on the *WHY* yet. We all know a game is great, plays so well that we're addicted, but to put our fingers on one specific feature that if transferred to another game would produce the same effect? Nope.
So hopefully this summer, I'm looking to startup an MPhil (a thing on the way to a PhD) on the aspects of psychology that effect game design. I figure if there's any clues at all to what makes a game hit that sweet spot, its got to be psychology right?
I'm also looking at doing the same things in my own games. But that'll wait for another plan! But lets just say, there's nothing like trying to measure the addictiveness of your own game!!!
He's right, even using great people, great tech, great everything. It doesnt equate to a great product!
One thing I've been working on recently is some research for an institute in the UK looking at how game developers manage to engage and motivate people (kids) to play games for huge amounts of time, when schoolteachers are unable to keep thier attention for more than a few minutes.
Anyway, getting away from various arguments there, one thing we've done with this research, is to interview (using some formal interview techniques) a bunch of local game developers, in an effort to classify and distill what THEY do to create this motivation and engagement in their games (so educational software people can do the same kind of things).
You know what?
They DONT KNOW!
I mean, sure, the designers have all these things they use, like feedback loops, like rewards and goal setting and reinforcement and such. But that is all almost entirely done by intuition and iteration. Usually a feature is championed by someone and then subjected to the group scrutiny of the rest of the devs and either makes it or not.
So my point is, that if you change the makeup of the team, the leadership, the group ego etc. Then essentially you totally change that process and get a different game.
If design is all about personal intuition, with each different person bringing different intuition, then basically "good" games are merely made by people with good intuition!!
I suspect this is actually the case for the greater part of the industry. Certainly Jeff keeps telling us to trust our intuition too. So that leads me on to the final part of my plan:
How do we make a game that plays so well that it feels like the game equivalent of crack?
I honestly dont think anyone can put a finger on the *WHY* yet. We all know a game is great, plays so well that we're addicted, but to put our fingers on one specific feature that if transferred to another game would produce the same effect? Nope.
So hopefully this summer, I'm looking to startup an MPhil (a thing on the way to a PhD) on the aspects of psychology that effect game design. I figure if there's any clues at all to what makes a game hit that sweet spot, its got to be psychology right?
I'm also looking at doing the same things in my own games. But that'll wait for another plan! But lets just say, there's nothing like trying to measure the addictiveness of your own game!!!
About the author
#22
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.
03/31/2005 (6:34 pm)
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.
#23
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 :)
04/01/2005 (1:46 pm)
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 :)
#24
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.
04/01/2005 (6:53 pm)
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.
#25
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.
04/02/2005 (11:35 am)
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.
Torque Owner Jeff Tunnell
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."