next »

[JoGribbs]

Ok, so I have a problem.

You see, I struggle with finishing games. Though I've completed a few small projects, I haven't finished anything that I'm proud of or I believe to be of any significant worth. I understand this is a common problem, so I wouldn't bring it up if I didn't have a more specific topic to consider.

I recently thought about why exactly I never seem to finish anything. The conclusion I came to was that while I enjoyed building the mechanics of how a game worked, I stumbled when it came to actually structuring the game itself. I've got a number of 'games' that all work, but I have no idea how to shape them on a larger scale into a proper experience. For instance, here's a screenshot of a 'game' I'm making at the moment (and a mockup for a point of reference):



It all works, and I'm proud that I can accomplish a state of working after a few days, which I would have considered an impossibility just a short while ago. But right now I'm scared that I'll reach a point where I have no idea what to do with the work I've done; will it have levels or will it be in a large, open space? Will it be linear, or will I try and shepard the player down a certain path? Will I try to tell my own story, or will I encourage emergent forms of play? On second thoughts, I don't want to start that argument again : )

I'm looking over what I've said so far, and I'm starting to realise it sounds a bit specific and personal. I don't really want you to adress me, just my problem: How do you structure a game in a way that is appealing and makes the most of it's mechanics?

[s0]

It's a lot easier if you design the mechanics with a certain structure in mind, or design both at the same time (this is the way I work). I think even deciding on the structure first can be a valid approach (i.e. "I want to make an open world game").

If you have a set of mechanics but no structure, you could try studying games with similar mechanics and how they're structured and maybe take some inspiration from that. I don't mean you should rip off other games, but often knowing what's been done, how it's been done and what's been "proven to work" can help your creativity.

Or you could just experiment. 

[gimymblert]

What was the last game you liked? Now use a random number generator (int 0-1) and if it's 1, do the opposite of this game structure.

[Alec S.]

I would say look at your favorite games.  There's probably patterns of structure in them that draw you to those games.  The structure you're most familiar with will probably be the easiest to work with.  If you play a lot of puzzle platformers, you'd probably get on a roll if you start designing a series of challenges surrounding different uses of your mechanics.  If you play a lot of metroidvanias, then creating a more explorable world with your mechanics being used as a way to access different areas might be more your style.  Same for other structures.

[Chris Whitman]

Less talk, more rock! Just start producing content and see if it feels right. Often it's things taking shape that give an indication of what the game ought to look like, just like a piece of art or music. The best part about being a small (or one person) team is that you don't have to produce a big document ahead of time committing to everything you want to do. Remember that nothing is set in stone, and you can always go back and produce revisions later.

I mean, ideally you balance this with some general idea of what you want to do. Presumably you had an idea you were excited about implementing originally, right? But when it comes to actually laying out game areas or whatever, just start going nuts and you will slowly converge on a design that works.

[gimymblert]

I've got a number of 'games' that all work, but I have no idea how to shape them on a larger scale into a proper experience.

The rock is there, that's why we talk

[PANPOMMA]

I'm just dropping in to say the tiles for your platformer are coming along nicely.

If you have several games that all "work", have you considered sticking them all togethor like some NES multi-game? Five good levels of this + five good levels of that might be better than no games at all. You could give them all the same main character and even link them togethor somehow, like completing one unlocks something for another.

[Chris Whitman]

The rock is there, that's why we talk

Emily Short basically answered the same question on her blog, when people asked how she organizes her IF. When she felt like she didn't know what to do, she said, she'd basically just start putting something, anything down, and seeing where that took her. The alternative is this kind of very recognizable writer's block. Often it's riffing on work in progress that lets you make an accurate judgement on what you ought to be doing.

I'm not saying it's never a good idea to talk, like if you have a problem you can't solve or just because you think of something interesting to talk about, but I feel like if your problem is that you don't know what to do or how to start, that's a problem you solve just by doing something. I mean, don't make an enormous game without ever thinking about it, but if you put down a few areas or whatever, you can then say, "Okay, this feels right," or, "Okay, this doesn't feel right."

I think industry practices designed around coordinating a large team have kind of leaked into indie development in the idea that you always need to have a very clear plan of what you're doing and what your end product is going to be. I wouldn't say you should be dogmatic about not thinking (that's crazy), but it's totally okay to not know, to some extent, what you're aiming for, and it's okay to spend some time just experimenting with different ideas to see what actually resonates with you.

[s0]

I think industry practices designed around coordinating a large team have kind of leaked into indie development in the idea that you always need to have a very clear plan of what you're doing and what your end product is going to be. I wouldn't say you should be dogmatic about not thinking (that's crazy), but it's totally okay to not know, to some extent, what you're aiming for, and it's okay to spend some time just experimenting with different ideas to see what actually resonates with you.
[/quote]
This a thousand times. In the indie world you don't have the same pressure to "deliver a product", might as well take advantage of it.

[gimymblert]

Clear plan? in the video game industry? you must be kidding, never saw that! They just pretend so money owner think they know what they do :O
Unless sequels or derivative (and even that it's derivative). Most corridor game I have gain process insight was more like no clue, hack, and revision.

But the writer block occurs in two ways, too many options or no option. Always a lack of direction. He says that he used to build game but that lack of direction is what kills the game. So far, since it's something that repeat itself just doing thing don't work in his case.

The solution is option choosing methodologies. My advice was to go the arbitrary route, use whatever you have that is a clear direction, random, memories, etc... and stick to it. Copy and stealing is the last trick when you are going nowhere.

[mirosurabu]

Two years ago I used to focus my attention on designing rule-sets and making prototypes. Unfortunately, due to lack of my interest in other areas of game design (such as level design, storytelling, balance, pace etc) I've never seen playable game come out of these prototypes.

I had similar experiences later when I moved my focus to gimmicks. I was able to come up with a gimmicky idea, get hyped about it but I'd soon realize that I don't have enough "meat for the bones".

As a result I started focusing on level design and reward systems. I also started playing a lot more games than before.

Despite all of that, I was still struggling with direction. I wasn't sure where I was supposed to take ideas I come up with.

But only before I took a totally opposite route - working backwards. Instead of coming up with lots of pieces of puzzle and then trying to make a nice picture out of them, I started thinking about what that picture should look like and coming up with pieces of puzzle that support it. This assured me that my work is directed and not abstract, lost and totally worthless to end consumer.

Example:

 - Idea: make a puzzle game that teaches algorithms. Instead of exploring endless possibilities, I would think about the way the game should end and then work backwards to support that ending. I can think of a video game where you solve algorithms in order to build a relatively complex project at the very end, such as arena shooter. So, in order to make such game, I have to design levels backwards. I would try to look for all sorts of smaller algorithms that are solved during the development of simple arena shooters and use these for my levels. And only then I would think about the "algorithm-solving" mechanic.

[Chris Whitman]

But the writer block occurs in two ways, too many options or no option. Always a lack of direction. He says that he used to build game but that lack of direction is what kills the game. So far, since it's something that repeat itself just doing thing don't work in his case.

Yeah, I guess I'm largely just pulling from my own experience and what I've heard from other people. If diving in doesn't get you anywhere, then obviously it's time to start looking at alternate approaches.

[s0]

Experimentation is what works best for me. I usually start out with a very vague concept and then just sort of play around with things until everything falls into place. My games are in a constant state of flux for at least 70% of their development time.

Also, I think you shouldn't get too "emotionally attached" to your core gameplay and be willing to adapt it if the structure demands for it. For instance, my game 444 initially had Asteroids-style 360° movement, but because it's a dungeon crawler, navigating the corridors turned out to be extremely tedious, so I removed it in favor of a simpler 4-direction movement system.

[dkoontz]

Also, I think you shouldn't get too "emotionally attached" to your core gameplay and be willing to adapt it if the structure demands for it. For instance, my game 444 initially had Asteroids-style 360° movement, but because it's a dungeon crawler, navigating the corridors turned out to be extremely tedious, so I removed it in favor of a simpler 4-direction movement system.

Very good advice.  I had a similar experience where the original prototype I had built had a very specific control scheme and when I handed it around to other people it became clear that wasn't working so out it all went. I really resisted the initial feedback telling me to throw out the control scheme the whole dang game was based on, but it was really the right thing to do. Changing that control scheme changed the feel of the game (for the better) so that also impacted the level design so it was good to get that taken care of early.

Speaking more directly to what JWG posted, have you tried just doodling out some levels on paper?  Maybe take a setting or look that you like and try to do a really crude pencil drawing of that sort of environment.  Think about what kind of obstacles are in it, and what kinds of goals make sense?  If you have anything, no matter how different it ends up being from your final version, you will have *something* to base the next step on, even if it's just figuring out how to turn a cluster of squiggly lines in your drawing into an interesting jumping puzzle.  Having a "big picture" document should also help you establish how long your level sections are going to be (really short like Meat Boy or long like Mario Bros).

[darthlupi]

So plan it out - beginning, middle, end... List all the things you need to do to make this game complete, and then do them one after another. Take this a step (or two) further and you probably have a development schedule. "I am going to do these things, and nothing more." is a good rule..or you might never finish. Then you can just focus on completing that! Hooray!

I think that's pretty damn solid advice as long you don't mind breaking out of the mold if you find what sounded good on paper is unfun. 

Something lovely and terrible that comes out the process of breathing life into your design is that what you do can inspire you to make something even more beautiful.

When that happens I gauge the amount of work it will take to repurpose the design, and if that doesn't seem feasible I start chopping it down to something I can handle on my own.