next »

[ASnogarD]

Yes you can design stuff that you yourself don't like. The main trick, is to make sure to get lots of feedback and testing from the actual audience your designing it for. Also most stuff is really just re-makes or slight twists/iterations on existing designs, so its fairly easy to have a good starting point most of the time.

I would have to disagree here, I would say what you are suggesting is to allow a community base designed game and you are not the designer per say but more a coordinator of a community design.

If I designed a racing game all I could put in is a basic form of racing, I wouldn't understand the nuances of a true racing game... and trying to design by feedback is merely pandering to the common variables of your fan base.
The fan base is often a source for good ideas but is littered with pitfalls a designer without a clear goal can fall into, pandering to the whims of your fanbase will inevitably lead to a mishmash of a lot of ideas without purpose.

I still say you must at least understand and like the genre you are designing for, even if you are not designing the game you personally would like.

[Gregg Williams]

Yes you can design stuff that you yourself don't like. The main trick, is to make sure to get lots of feedback and testing from the actual audience your designing it for. Also most stuff is really just re-makes or slight twists/iterations on existing designs, so its fairly easy to have a good starting point most of the time.

I would have to disagree here, I would say what you are suggesting is to allow a community base designed game and you are not the designer per say but more a coordinator of a community design.

No not really community based design, just feedback, which you tend to need for any game design, but even more so if its a genre/etc that you yourself aren't super into.

You certainly still need to understand the genre and many specifics around it, this is part of researching the genre, and its audience. The feedback is more for dialing in the "feel" of things which you yourself maybe lacking a good sense of, than for querying design features, which in many cases are simple enough to gather from highly successful entrees in the genre.

Of course all of this is assuming your talking about designing a run of the mill game that falls into some standard genre and audience with pretty much known solutions. I don't think your going to really move forward the genre or do anything super innovative or breath taking if your not really into it.

[Udderdude]

Since I'm almost entirely interested in making the kind of games I'd like to see made, I only design for me.  I would only care about what other gamers wanted if I was targeting them to make a profit ..

[hmm]

Thanks again for the responses to this post. I've got a couple more questions/observations to keep this topic rolling.

Most of you make games that you would like, but that don't yet exist. I do this too. But...

• Does this approach lack the challenge required to really push you to develop your game design skills?
• Do you think that the constraints of designing for another audience would push you to be a better designer by forcing you outside of your comfort zone?

I agree with the sentiment that a compromise between your tastes and the tastes of your target audience is a bad approach that would result in a game that neither audience enjoys, and that the intersection of your tastes is the more fruitful area to explore. But...

• Is there always going to be an intersection of tastes? Things that both you and your audience enjoy?

Finally, _e_va touched on the barrier to entry for some players into genres such as the FPS due to the physical skill required. What do you think about the idea of creating a series games that teach the fundamental physical skills and controls required by these games? e.g. 'My First FPS', 'My First 2D Platformer' etc...

[Udderdude]

Is there always going to be an intersection of tastes? Things that both you and your audience enjoy?

Depends entirely on your audience and what genre you're working with.

'My First FPS'

Most old timer's first FPS was Wolf3D or Doom, and both those did not use the now standard WASD+Mouse.  It used arrow keys for turning/moving forward and backward, and to strafe you held down Alt.

I think a FPS with more basic controls would be easier to pick up, at least.  And the FPS controls on console FPS are total garbage. 

[Alex Higgins]

• Does this approach lack the challenge required to really push you to develop your game design skills?
• Do you think that the constraints of designing for another audience would push you to be a better designer by forcing you outside of your comfort zone?

Types of games that you like and types games that you are uncomfortable or inexperienced making are not necessarily exclusive from each other. For example, a totally new game developer who likes FPS games would still be challenging himself by making an FPS game for the first time.

Additionally, you can make a game in your favorite genre and still challenge yourself by making better graphics than you are used to, adding online play if you've never done that before, etc. There is always a way for one to challenge oneself.

• Is there always going to be an intersection of tastes? Things that both you and your audience enjoy?

Every game appeals to at least someone (expect for maybe something like Catpoop Eater 2* idk). If your tastes don't intersect with your audience, just find a new audience.

Finally, _e_va touched on the barrier to entry for some players into genres such as the FPS due to the physical skill required. What do you think about the idea of creating a series games that teach the fundamental physical skills and controls required by these games? e.g. 'My First FPS', 'My First 2D Platformer' etc...

Interesting idea. The problem is that such games would appeal to a much smaller audience than games that accommodated players of all skill levels. I think it would be better for games to have (optional) tutorials for total beginners or an extensive array of difficulty levels.

*That settles it. My next game's going to be Catpoop Eater 2.

[Chris Koźmik]

I will join the bandwagon of "make a game you would love to play yourself". When I analyse all games I made and their popularity, the relation is surprisingly strightforward. The games I love the most were loved by others the most. The games I hated, no one loved them either. Same goes for income
Surprising, I thought it would not be that obvious coleration, but it is in my case so far...


I would also not put it "me vs them". The key is to make a game YOU would like to play, but keep in mind others (by making a great tutorial, convenient interface, cutting down on overly complex features only you would understand, etc). The core idea should be ONLY appealing to me, the execution should be appealing strongly to others.

• Do you think that the constraints of designing for another audience would push you to be a better designer by forcing you outside of your comfort zone?

Yes, maybe. But is your goal becoming a better designer or making better games? The only way to make a good game is if it appeals to you (assuming you work alone or in a tiny team), so is getting more skills from outside your comfort zone (and game genre/theme) useful to makeing games of your favourite genre? Maybe in some rare cases... But otherweise it seems a waste of time, it would hone only your design skills without making your games better.

There is also another problem with stepping outside your comfort zone. I did it recently (brainwashed by all this "leave your comfort zone, you will be rewarded!") and I got stuck I have a half finished game with which I don't know where to proceed. The players are not able to give me further feedback (since I stumbled on higher diffuculty stuff) and I can't really invent it further myself because it's not my taste :D So what I'm supposed to do now!? I started refactoring the game to my tastes now, which is far from being an optimal choice in the middle.
Really, you can step outside your confort zone when you are doing some daring stuff (like hunting aligators), but for creative work it is not working too well...

In the end it all boils down to transferring love. You love your game and you make a transition, so others could understand why your game is lovely and could fall in love with it too. If there is no love in the first place, there is nothing to transfer no matter your design skills...

[s0]

Types of games that you like and types games that you are uncomfortable or inexperienced making are not necessarily exclusive from each other. For example, a totally new game developer who likes FPS games would still be challenging himself by making an FPS game for the first time.

yes. also if you've been playing videogames for a long time, your tastes are probably going to be relatively wide-ranging to begin with. i try to do something i haven't done before with every game i make and i'm not even close to "running out" of genres i like.

also you could take a genre you don't like, analyze WHAT you don't like about it and then try to make a game that avoids those things.

you don't have to make a game you don't like to challenge yourself at all imo.

[Chris Koźmik]

also you could take a genre you don't like, analyze WHAT you don't like about it and then try to make a game that avoids those things.

Hmmm, have you managed to make a succesful game this way?
I mean, I noticed that focusing on "what I don't like" first, leads to removing/ignoring/not realizing the key fun thing in that game type. For example I don't like jumping in platformers (I always fall down :D), so if I were to fix it I would remove the whole jumping thing. But... If I did that would you, a platformet lover, want to still play it? Would it even be a platformer anymore? Wouldn't I destroy it?

[Alex Higgins]

also you could take a genre you don't like, analyze WHAT you don't like about it and then try to make a game that avoids those things.

Hmmm, have you managed to make a succesful game this way?
I mean, I noticed that focusing on "what I don't like" first, leads to removing/ignoring/not realizing the key fun thing in that game type. For example I don't like jumping in platformers (I always fall down :D), so if I were to fix it I would remove the whole jumping thing. But... If I did that would you, a platformet lover, want to still play it? Would it even be a platformer anymore? Wouldn't I destroy it?

You wouldn't be destroying anything, you'd just be making something new. When I read your response I instantly thought of Red Rogue, which has platforms and a side-view perspective but no jumping. Seems like a legit approach to design to me.

(I always fall down in platformers too, btw. Probably one of my least proficient genres as a player.)

[Wilson Saunders]

Since I usually make games for Ludum Dare or TIG Source Compo's I design for my fellow developers. I try and make the game easy to grasp in a short period of time (at the expense of depth) so as not to bog down the judges trying to understand my entry. I try and put one or two very good art assets in the game to make it look pretty, then creatively reuse that asset to impress fellow developers with the mileage I can get out of one asset. I also try and do some thing unique the game tool wasn't originally designed to do, thus showing off my versatility to other developers.

I can't say these techniques are winning strategies for Ludum Dare or Tig compos since I don't place very highly on either. But this is who I design games for so

[Reyold]

I design for myself. If I'm going to invest myself in a long and time-consuming project, I want to enjoy it, after all. On the other hand, I realize I need to take the player into account as well. I make games I would enjoy, but I want others to enjoy them as well.

I agree with the sentiment that a compromise between your tastes and the tastes of your target audience is a bad approach that would result in a game that neither audience enjoys, and that the intersection of your tastes is the more fruitful area to explore. But...

• Is there always going to be an intersection of tastes? Things that both you and your audience enjoy?

Most likely, yes, especially since I'm still learning the ropes. If I ever get burned out on a project, and I never cared too much for the game in the first place, I'm really not going to want to pick it back up again.

[Graham-]

I design a game that I believe in. The question of whether it is for me or someone else is secondary.

[tnr]

I design for myself as well (even though none of them have seen the light of day...) because I invest myself in whatever I'm making, which takes forever to do. If I don't like it, I'd hate working on it. And if I hate working on it, I'll never finish it. And what I'm interested in is unique games. The genre doesn't matter, as long as the game is distinctive with a unique base concept, or takes a past concept and changes it towards its own end.

And besides, I figure other people will end up liking games I design, because there are horrible games in existence with a massive following. Well, that and I like to design games that take a past title that I enjoyed and twist it to my own ends. So they generally have multiple things in common that worked very well in previous games. I don't really worry about it because of that.

[thersus]

I design for myself just because I think of the things I do more of art works than products. Everything I do is just like an expression of my feelings, I am not that concerned about how well it will be accepted by the others.

[Muz]

You'd need to connect to something deeply to appreciate it. If you don't connect to it, it will end up a clone of a masterpiece, but often leaving out elements that make it a masterpiece.

I doubt anyone could actually build a masterwork game that they can't relate with, unless it's an exact clone with better graphics. You see all the failed "Counter-Strike killers" because they couldn't catch the same feel as the original CS, even if they seemed technically superior in some ways.

Thing is that many people will have the same emotional connection to certain kinds of games; there's always someone with your taste out there.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i design games for the human spirit, for the greatness that lurks inside every man woman and child, although the particular audience depends on the game. different games have different demographic audiences and different types of people would enjoy them more than others, no game is for everyone

but specifically, for my last few games:

alphasix's audience was mainly the gmc community; i was learning game maker at the time and wanted to create a game to learn the engine, so i did things i thought the community would like or find impressive. it's also intended to be played with two people on one computer (although it has a single player mode that isn't really the point of it)

fedora spade's audience was mainly people who enjoy detective adventure games like phoenix wright, people who like solving mysterious, etc. -- also for people who miss games like princess tomato in the salad kingdom and want to see that type of game revived a bit

immortal defense's audience was people who were attracted to strange or weird things, to games that gave them strange or weird feelings, to things which surprise them, people with good imaginations who want something different, people who find normal games too boring or all the same. it was also intended for people who like tower defense games, because i felt they had a lot of potential which wasn't being developed

saturated dreamer's audience is intended to be people who like well-developed imaginary worlds and speculative science fiction, people who like novels like dune. it belongs to an underdeveloped and particular subgenre of sci-fi: imaginary ecologies. besides dune and SD, the only work that i can think of that tries the same thing is the novel 'a door into ocean'. it's also for people who miss games like guardian legend and the original legend of zelda, where they have big non-linear worlds to explore, which aren't really made anymore (even indie games which tried to be like those games tend to be either too linear or not be very big, or else they're procedural and lose the hand-crafted touch)

so basically "who do i design for" depends strongly on the game; i design different games for different audiences

[Graham-]

My current game is for people who want deeper games, who want to share their experiences more fully (solid co-op), and want to feel like they are in a place that respects them when they play - no loading, no annoyances, mature content, no padding.

I want to attract the "hardcore" and introduce the not hardcore to the idea of hardcore. And I want any given player to feel like he/she can bring in any important person and have a substantial shared experience with him/her.

My game is my ideal game.

[hmm]

Hey, thanks for all the replies. Very interesting to see how people approach this.

Again, the overwhelming majority make games that they would love to play themselves. As I said in the OP, I'm the same. As an indie, this really is the only way to do what we do and stay sane. You need to be working on something you are passionate about if you are to make such a personal investment in the project. This is not to say that other players are not taken into consideration. Of course, its crucial that other people are able to learn the game, and this requires the designer to think outside of themselves.

However, I think of a game designer's skill as the ability to craft fun and meaningful experiences for others. Which leads me to suggest that the greatest designers can make games for anyone, and that in order to develop as designers we may have to look at other communities. After all, there's a lot of interesting experiences we can share with other people, especially the gaming illiterate.

I also believe that you can enjoy designing a game even if its not for you. I have always enjoyed designing as much as (possible more than) playing the final game.

[Graham-]

I have a better understanding of how I'd like to see games change than I do of how others would like to see them change, so that's what I focus on. It's just what I know.

That being said I try to focus on making my ideal game accessible. I think, how can the people who already love games X, Y, Z - or no games at all - love my game the way I expect to love it too.