So I'm a couple days away from the first "real" design - the one that has actual implementation details. I've said this before... much of the point of this game circles the process we take as devs from concept to implementation.
The game is simultaneously a regular game, with combat and exploration and juicy control, and also a tool for players to collaborate on extending the game. Think of Minecraft, with more monsters, a campaign, and elements of that campaign that teach players how to cooperate in order to build the most interesting structures possible.
Then through the game world players can "browse" structures made by other players, similar to how Minecraft players browse the web for interesting servers. Hopefully players can find interesting content this way, and not only that find interesting teams to join up with and contribute to, creating even more stuff.
What takes an idea to implementation? That's what this game seeks to answer, among some other things. So I will show you my process in detail, for at least a few cases, before it starts to become automated and you can just "see" it in action - that I admit would be much easier and I don't blame anyone who wants to wait for that time.
Also I write for my records and mental health. 3 new posts: Create part 1 Create part 2 Share
I am currently working on "divisions." Divisions are simple. Imagine that you wrote down 5 pages of ideas for your game. How should you start implementing? Which ideas should you scrap? How should you focus your attention? I have a system for this.
Take everything you have and try to divide it into two chunks, that are mutually exclusive, have their own "character," and are equally weighted. For example two chunks could be "action type mechanics" and "RPG type mechanics." Simple right?
The goal is to find an even balance. So if you have 5 equally sizable great ideas in 1 chunk and only 3 of the same size and value in the other, then you have an improper balance. First you create balance, then you create a design.
The reasons for this are very important and underlie the entire system. You cannot abstract and scale the collaborative creative process without being able to analyze your ideas in a context-free and clear way.
- Share the "divisions" (and balancing) of the "play, create, share" discussions with you when they are done and formatted.
- Show the process for creating a design based on these divisions.
- Implement the design and share the results - this is a playable prototype.
Then I can begin the process of including other people. I will be able to show how any person can reasonably include their insights into the design process without being stamped out or needing the ability to implement something.
Normally to include yourself in a creative process you must "meld" with the other creators so that you know how to blend your ideas in with their vision. This "melding" - i.e. seeing eye-to-eye - is the biggest barrier to collaborative game creation, and even implementing abstract ideas - what prevents game development from being purely expressive.
Obviously I hope to address these problems.
Thank you to everyone who has given me feedback so far. Even expressing what I have not made clear is immensely valuable. Thank you.