I had a go at putting my underlying game design philosophy into explicit terms recently. I think it's pretty good. Does anyone have any criticisms, better ideas, different ideas?
https://sephnorth.wordpress.com/ideas/game-design-philosophy/
Game design philosophy
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 06:44
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 07:55
#1
Generally a good philosophy,
Generally a good philosophy, I'd say. One quibble, for me:
There need to be right and wrong choices in the game. For there to be a game worth playing the choices need to matter. The players need to be able to make the wrong choice. The skill in playing the game is in being able to work out which choices are the right ones.
I feel like this could result in a game that can be "solved." If there's a 'right' choice in every situation, doesn't this take the fun out of the game? I prefer games that offer a suite of strategies, and the 'right' choice isn't so important as picking a good choice.
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 08:46
#3
I agree with every single
I agree with every single point you made, especially this:
"Put everything in, then trim it down. Take every cool idea, every innovative mechanic, every little fun feature you want in your game and slam it in there. Test them all out, give them all a chance, then you can keep the ones that work best and cut the ones that aren’t necessary."
I've seen a lot of opposing philosophy to this, but my way has been always the same as yours.
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 11:31
#4
It's ok.
I teach game design at the college level and I see that you've started into game theory, but I literally have a huge chunk of lecture for every point you have.
But it's a great start. Here are my thoughts on each of your points:
The game idea I breakdown in as 2 lectures specifying how businesses will take it. There's the One-Sentence-Marketing-Description, the Hook, the great ideas...all of this I explain in detail.
Randomness I teach as conflict resolution methodologies. I go into how games use (in details) dice, physical applications of resolution, adjudication, card revealing, etc.
"Right" and "Wrong" isn't the term I would use. I would use "cool decisions" and "acceptable sacrifice". When you're forced to decide between a pistol with long range, 12 bullets, but takes big accuracy to take down a target as opposed to a shotgun with short range, 5 bullets, and can take down multiple targets...there's no "right" or "wrong", only a "cool decision" that requires "acceptable sacrifice".
A clear way to victory with multiple in-roads is what games are made of, but you need to explain that there are also multiple and singular starting positions AND multiple and singular victory conditions. I have a whole lecture taking this into detail.
Analysis Paralysis is a very strong term that needs to be defined before you offer solutions. Why are people going into AP? The solution is to give the players something to do while the active player is going. There are ways to do this. Explain them all.
I rail on my students the emphasis of playtesting. It's a theme I stress throughout the courses I teach. The playtesters are the last line of defense before a game goes out, "fail fast, fail often" isn't something I would say. Rather, I'd explain in detail why play testing is important so that they know that failing fast and often is just par for the course. I also go into detailed bug reports so that communication lines aren't interrupted.
I tell my students there are 2 rules of game design: 1) Keep It Simple, Stupid, and 2) Use available resources. Trimming down is "keeping it simple". This doesn't mean that you have to create simple games, it just means you have to keep it easy for the player to digest and it saves a TON of time when you're designing.
Being brutal with your game is part of the creative process. Again, this is something I emphasize over and over. You never stop on the first idea. You refine and keep refining until it's awesome. It starts with having a library of ideas you can use. Therefore, I bring in tons of games for my class to play...co-op games, timed games, card drafting, deck building, party games...as much as I can. The more ideas, the better the creative process.
My classes go through a lot of assignments trying to think up game pitches to exercise their brain. As such I criticize them in class when they preset so that they start to become accustomed to taking criticism.
Overall, your website is a great start in talking about game design, but you can go so much more deeper that what you have. Every point you have there can be spelled out in several page with tons of examples. Remember to define the issue in detail and offer solutions to the issue.
I like what you've done. Keep it up and good luck!
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 12:30
#5
“Put everything in, then trim
“Put everything in, then trim it down. Take every cool idea, every innovative mechanic, and every little fun feature you want in your game and slam it in there. Test them all out, give them all a chance, then you can keep the ones that work best and cut the ones that aren’t necessary.”
This might work for an experienced designer but I see the unexperienced struggling to finish a design because they have put too much in and can’t determine what is causing the problem. Better to start small if you're new to game design.
“Be brutal with your game. Don’t get too attached to features. Keep your Game Idea in mind here; think about whether the feature is necessary for the integrity of the game. If a feature is giving you trouble, either fix it or cut it. Don’t keep broken elements in your game over your personal attachment to them.”
I let my passion for my design get the best of me. I have been designing for over a decade now and have several published games but got stuck on my wizard dueling game ‘Order of the Wand’ for a long time because instead of cutting out the dead wood I wanted to shore it up. I finally at the advice of my game designer friends cut out everything but the core mechanics. I’m on version 5.0 and the engine works great now. All there is to do is expand on the core, polish it, and look for a publisher.
Fri, 08/21/2015 - 18:31
#6
Thanks for the replies :)
Analysis Paralysis is a very strong term that needs to be defined before you offer solutions. Why are people going into AP? The solution is to give the players something to do while the active player is going. There are ways to do this. Explain them all.
That's a good point, I wrote a post about it.
Good ideas on alternative methods of dealing with AP, so potentially giving the other players things to do while it happens. But I think it's good to place an emphasis on *removing* AP where possible.
I tell my students there are 2 rules of game design: 1) Keep It Simple, Stupid, and 2) Use available resources. Trimming down is "keeping it simple". This doesn't mean that you have to create simple games, it just means you have to keep it easy for the player to digest and it saves a TON of time when you're designing.
Yes this is a subject I've been working on a lot with my current game design. It started out as a huge complicated beast. I've been doing my best to trim it down to what really matters, but the last playtest session took 3 hours. It's certainly not a *simple* game, but it is a lot more *clear* than it used to be.
Being brutal with your game is part of the creative process. Again, this is something I emphasize over and over. You never stop on the first idea. You refine and keep refining until it's awesome. It starts with having a library of ideas you can use. Therefore, I bring in tons of games for my class to play...co-op games, timed games, card drafting, deck building, party games...as much as I can. The more ideas, the better the creative process.
My classes go through a lot of assignments trying to think up game pitches to exercise their brain. As such I criticize them in class when they preset so that they start to become accustomed to taking criticism.
Interesting idea, and this is the same reason that I've started taking part in the GDS when I find it interesting enough to hook me in. It's hard to make a solid concept in the 2 or 3 hours I spend putting those together, but it's good practise and I'll get better.
Overall, your website is a great start in talking about game design, but you can go so much more deeper that what you have. Every point you have there can be spelled out in several page with tons of examples. Remember to define the issue in detail and offer solutions to the issue.
I like what you've done. Keep it up and good luck!
I absolutely agree that there is a load more depth I could go into on every point. You've given me a few ideas for other subjects to write about too. When I have the inclination and time perhaps I will more in depth on each bullet point, but I think useful to pin down the central ideas to something short. When I write more depth on each point, I can add links to elaborate.
“Put everything in, then trim it down. Take every cool idea, every innovative mechanic, and every little fun feature you want in your game and slam it in there. Test them all out, give them all a chance, then you can keep the ones that work best and cut the ones that aren’t necessary.”
This might work for an experienced designer but I see the unexperienced struggling to finish a design because they have put too much in and can’t determine what is causing the problem. Better to start small if you're new to game design.
I agree with this in part, but I don't think this is a part of game design philosophy. This is more about general project management philosophy, which can have reach across different types of project.
I think someone could learn to manage complicated projects outside of game design, then take that knowledge into game design. So they'd be a beginner game designer, but know how to manage complexity. (and the opposite, for that matter)
Tue, 09/01/2015 - 20:08
#7
I've been writing more about
I've been writing more about this.
Hmm, yes, the way I phrased it could imply that there is only one right *strategy* as well as only one *choice*.
There should be multiple viable strategies in a game too, if there is only one solution then there is no fun once it is found. I think a clear example of this is in a fighting game, if one character wins against all other characters, where's the fun? Everyone chooses that character, the rest of the game is ignored.