Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411275 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 05:27:47 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignDesign Process - Make or Explore?
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Design Process - Make or Explore?  (Read 1374 times)
hmm
Level 2
**


View Profile WWW
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:48:26 AM »

Hi all,

My question for you today is about your typical design process when making a game:

Do you like to explore things thoroughly before making the actual game?
OR
Do you like to just start making the game and see where it takes you?

I've typically been in the latter camp as an independent developer, but working professionally I have been encouraged to explore all possibilities (which typically involves a lot of talking, and not much doing).

Anyway, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the subject, and your approach to design.

Thanks!
Logged

Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2014, 07:52:44 AM »

When I write code I used to be thoroughly the first one, but am slowly moving towards half-and-half.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 08:10:19 AM by Graham. » Logged
ThemsAllTook
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2014, 09:10:47 AM »

I need just enough inspiration and direction to get started, then I explore and see where it takes me. Very few things if anything can be fully designed up-front; you'll always miss a huge amount of detail that will come to light while you're implementing it. Seems to me like it's best to fully embrace it and let the game turn into what it wants to be, rather than trying to force it to be something it doesn't want to be.
Logged

Uykered
Guest
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2014, 04:08:17 PM »

Design (think through) the game as best you can before making it, create the prototype with basic square graphics where possible, find out what's dum and iterate forever until you feel the design is fun etc. Then polish it up with the best aesthetics you can manage so it feels nicer.

If you're making a turnbased game, see if its possible to do non-digital prototypes as iterating the game that way is so much quicker and more efficient in general than having to do massive amounts of code (that may be painful to change later). (Let's you be a designer with no coding abilities too.)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 04:15:44 PM by alastair » Logged
Muz
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2014, 02:10:42 AM »

The best designs are iterative.

Make something as absolutely simple as possible. Really dig into core mechanics and strip out optional 'cool stuff' (or put them aside).

Play it. Write down issues you get. Especially why you stop. And other optional cool stuff ideas you get.

Redesign. Repeat.

Once you're happy with your core, start working on level design, or on your optional cool stuff list you had previously. Sometimes level design is part of the core gameplay (like with adventure games and puzzles). You'll know when it happens.

I've done waterfall development model for most of my game designs and while I was spending years writing the perfect design, Derek Yu was out there swimming in internet fame and money.
Logged
hmm
Level 2
**


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2014, 05:03:05 AM »

Thanks for your feedback. Seems like getting something into a workable prototype as soon as possible is a common approach.

This definitely works for core mechanics, but how would you approach more complex, game wide systems? Design thoroughly, implement in-game, iterate? Some things also need art and audio feedback to provide a fair representation of how they'll feel in the final game, so prototype becomes a much greater task.

Making games by myself I've typically focused on core gameplay. Working on larger projects often involves these more complicated systems, so how would you deal with them?

Logged

Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2014, 05:58:54 AM »

Write a lot.

edit: discussion with other humans is even better
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 06:12:34 AM by Graham. » Logged
Muz
Level 10
*****


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2014, 09:57:04 AM »

Concept art is good for grabbing the feel of something. I kind of like Dwarf Fortress's approach to features - they write a story, describe the kind of feel they're trying to grasp with the mechanics.

What I do myself before starting any project these days is to write up an elevator pitch to brainstorm out what the game is all about and an example of play. It's to make sure that throughout the design process, I haven't lost the feel of what inspired the game.

Also things like visuals and audio work much better when you iterate. If you have no idea where you're going, you'll get your music out of tune with the tone of your games, your art palettes won't grasp the feel, and so on. If you plan too much and don't prototype, you might not realize that your well researched artwork doesn't even go well with the rest of the game. Iteration is the middle ground.

What do you mean by more complex systems? Dwarf Fortress is a great example of how to approach a mega epic project. It's kind of hard to follow at this stage of development, but you put up placeholders everywhere. They set up a simplistic attribute system before replacing it with a complex one. They put up simple body mechanics at first and have now replaced it with such fine details that someone's ribs can be broken in such a way that it penetrates into their heart.

This is a pretty damn epic list. But it's well organized and they know what to develop and what to placeholder for later.

For a more theoretical option, there are plenty of game design books. I'm out of date, so I can't really recommend, but I do like the Mission/Space approach to level design. Levels are split into mission (story/approach) and space (physics/moving around) and the different approaches are mapped.

But as you go more complex, you'd require more education to be able to pull it off convincingly.
Logged
hmm
Level 2
**


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2014, 11:37:28 AM »

Dwarf Fortress is an interesting example. I'd not heard of placeholder systems before, but makes sense!
Logged

Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2014, 11:17:35 AM »

Dwarf Fortress is an interesting example. I'd not heard of placeholder systems before, but makes sense!

God I wish every dev did placeholder systems, so they see design flaws not 3 years into development.
Logged
PeteDevlin
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2014, 10:10:34 PM »

Long before I ever put fingers to keyboard for coding I have a design appraisal system which starts out with the core gameplay mechanic.

I have a big spreadsheet which helps me to take the core idea through six levels trying to understand how it might perform, how much substance it might have, ultimately trying to pitch the amount of resources I should give it.

Time is the thing people never factor in - Not the whole underestimating how long things take - But deciding up front how much time that they want to give to an idea. The single decision has a huge impact on what you genuinely can create and if more people though about it, what a difference it would make!
Logged
sublinimal
Level 8
***



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2014, 01:47:04 AM »

Systems and rules I design on paper, but with the more empirical details (like entity physics and level designs), I go for improvisation/iteration.

What I've learned is that it takes both your gut feelings and your brain to make a good game, and the key is knowing which one to consult at a given moment. I feel like I often overthink things and end up with rigid sort of gameplay. Then again, I've played a good bunch of games that feel like they're made with no consistent vision or concept. Hopefully I'll find the middle way...
Logged
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 19, 2014, 03:49:45 AM »

Very Buddhist: "the middle way."
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic