Plan for Phil Carlisle
by Phil Carlisle · 03/30/2005 (11:42 am) · 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
#2
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.
03/30/2005 (12:17 pm)
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.
#3
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....
03/30/2005 (12:23 pm)
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....
#4
Thats funny. I have to remember that one.
03/30/2005 (12:24 pm)
Quote:
it'll run like a raped ape
Thats funny. I have to remember that one.
#5
03/30/2005 (12:34 pm)
Raping an ape is the easiest way to get kicked out of the zoo. And no, I don't want to talk about it...
#6
03/30/2005 (12:39 pm)
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.
#7
03/30/2005 (12:45 pm)
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. 
#8
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.
03/30/2005 (2:38 pm)
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.
#9
03/30/2005 (2:39 pm)
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.
#10
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.
03/30/2005 (3:10 pm)
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.
#11
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
03/30/2005 (3:26 pm)
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
#12
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.
03/30/2005 (3:55 pm)
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.
#13
:)
03/30/2005 (5:25 pm)
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.:)
#14
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.
03/30/2005 (5:59 pm)
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.
#15
03/30/2005 (8:27 pm)
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.
#16
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.
03/30/2005 (8:55 pm)
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.
#17
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.
03/30/2005 (10:14 pm)
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.
#18
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.
03/31/2005 (2:10 am)
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.
#19
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.
03/31/2005 (7:30 am)
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.
Torque 3D Owner Chris "DiGi" Timberlake