next »

[Christian Knudsen]

I disagree. Just because a lot of people have a lot of ideas doesn't mean that truly good and original ideas are a dime a dozen. Seriously, I've tried working on screenplays were we've had multiple meetings trying to figure out a single aspect that just wouldn't "click" into place. When that one idea finally came to us that solved everything, it's a big relief. That on idea doesn't come easily. It's takes a lot of brainstorming, discussion and viewing the problem from different angles. I don't see how game making and designing is different?

My bottom line is: The fact that many people have many ideas doesn't mean that good ideas are worthless and easy to come by.

EDIT: Or put more simply: quantity ≠ quality

[Tumetsu]

I agree completely though I also think that ut's usually pertty hard to distinguish a good idea from bad since even bad ones can seem good first or otherwise around. What I find a bit intriguing and controversial is also that people generally talk about something being a bad or good idea, when so many also say that execution only matters. And even same people saying both.

My personal opinion of the case is that ideas aren't worthless and good ideas are hard to come by. However, it's incredibly hard to estimate the value of the idea. And generally, something which can't be measured in money or other measurement is often judged to be either priceless or worthless.

[s0]

I think ideas themselves are worthless as long as they're not executed no matter how good they are. Also, it's often hard to tell whether a "good" idea is going to work in practice, especially in game development.

Also, I think how much you value ideas is directly related to how much of a perfectionist you are. I know quite a few creative people who are obsessed with perfectly translating their ideas to reality and, as a result, never really get anything done and end up being frustrated.


EDIT:

I agree completely though I also think that ut's usually pertty hard to distinguish a good idea from bad since even bad ones can seem good first or otherwise around.

Pretty much what I wanted to say but it looks like you finished your reply before me. I'm a slow poster. 

[Christian Knudsen]

I guess the ability to judge good ideas from bad ones is what we call experience?

[Perrin]

I guess the ability to judge good ideas from bad ones is what we call experience?

I don't think it takes a good idea to make a great game. Some of the best are formed on really cliched, rehashed or obvious ideas.

Besides people clinging to truly "original" and "unique" ideas usually just have something that has been explored before anyway, maybe not executed that well but I bet someone's had a go.

Doing games jams really illustrates to me how with a simple theme or restriction that everyone is working from you see a huge range of things made from the initial idea and a some work out much better than others.

I think placing such an emphasis on the initial thought process over the working processes, interations upon the design, developments skills, playtesting, polish etc... is what I would call lack of experience.

[Christian Knudsen]

I'm not personally placing more emphasis on ideas over execution. This thread has been about ideas being worthless and that I simply cannot agree with.



EDIT:

I don't think it takes a good idea to make a great game. Some of the best are formed on really cliched, rehashed or obvious ideas.

I'm on the flip side; I can't imagine a great game without at least one good idea in it.

[s0]

Thing is, if you borrow someone else's idea, it's still a good idea just not yours.

[Christian Knudsen]

Precisely. Because the idea in itself has some value.

[Taiko]

I think I'm with the "execution" camp.  I'm more likely to keep playing an incredibly polished game (i.e. clean UI, controls, physics multiplayer, bug-free, effective graphics and sound) than one with a good idea.  A good idea is intriguing for a while and might get me to download a game, but not keep playing it.  The ones I keep coming back to for more (TF2, Warcraft 3, Castle Crashers) are the ones that ooze style.

Effective execution (polish) requires lots of little good ideas and endurance to implement them instead of needing one great idea.

[Christian Knudsen]

Effective execution (polish) requires lots of little good ideas and endurance to implement them instead of needing one great idea.

You know what, I think this is the heart of the discussion. When we say "ideas" some people think of just the original idea that gets you making the game, while it's also all the little ideas that are needed during execution that are important. I think neoshaman's quote really sums it up nicely. I have this nagging feeling that we're really not disagreeing as much as we think we are...

[s0]

That's because when people talk about "ideas" they often talk about the "original vision", so that's what I assume by default. Of course, every little design decision is an "idea" on some level, even if it's subconscious.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Huh? That's a very narrow definiton of the word "idea". So if I have an idea for a game and tell it to someone, it's no longer an idea?

When Hollywood buys a movie pitch, they're not buying the movie pitch. They're buying the idea for a movie that was presented via a pitch. How can that idea then be worthless?

if you have an idea for a game, and tell it to someone, you create something of value (the plan for the game) which didn't exist before. even if that plan is limited. the idea still exists, it didn't change form, it's just that now there are two things: the idea and the plan. the plan is more valuable.

similarly, i actually do think that they are buying a movie outline, not the idea for a movie. they're buying his plan, in words, in writing, for a movie. they literally can't buy an idea, because ideas aren't copyrighted, expressions of ideas in tangible form are.

i agree that it's a narrow definition of idea, but that's how i usually use the word and have seen others use it, so that's how i've come to use it myself. the distinction between an outline/plan/design document and an idea is real though. i don't particularly have a problem with narrow definitions for things; it'd make little sense to me to call a screenplay or a design document just an idea for a movie or an idea for a game, it'd cause idea to be meaningless due to being overly broad.

but yes, idea in the broader sense has value, of course. design documents and screenplays have value. it's just idea in the more narrower sense of 'things just in your head' that has little value.

[Christian Knudsen]

I guess I just disagree that if you tell someone your idea, it suddenly becomes a plan. If I have an idea for a game where you play a schizophrenic rabbit and I say to someone: "How about a game where you play a schizophrenic rabbit?", that's not a plan, that's just sharing my idea. I guess I can see where you're coming from with the design document and screenplay examples. They're certainly steps on the path to executing your idea, but unless your idea is to create a design document or screenplay, I'm just having a hard time seeing this step on the path as an execution of the idea.

And I also think whether or not you think that ideas have value depend on what you consider the idea in the first place. To go back to the original article, Scott Adams mentions Titanic as a terrible idea for a film. However, the idea behind Titanic isn't "let's make a movie about the Titanic", the idea is "let's set a tragic romance on board this doomed ship". That to me is a good idea (I'm not a fan of the finished film, though) as most classic romance stories have tragic outcomes (Romeo and Juliet, for example) and choosing the Titanic as your setting casts the romance in a tragic and bittersweet light from the start (beyond just providing an interesting historical backdrop). To me, a good idea is one that opens the floodgates to a bunch of creativity that results in other good ideas. It's like, when you get a really good idea, it immediately blossoms into a this much larger thing simply because that original good idea provided an excellent starting seed. When I get a bad or not-so-great idea, it doesn't result in this flood of creativity, it just sits there, unable to grow into something more.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think saying titanic was a terrible idea for a movie was just illustrative rather than accurate, in some ways it's a good idea for a movie. it depends on what the idea was, though. if the idea was just 'let's make a movie based on a sinking ship' it wouldn't have worked, instead the idea was more like 'let's make a movie based on a doomed romance on a sinking ship', which is a more workable idea.

i actually kind of reject the idea that ideas *can* be good or bad. (so in that sense, i'd go further than he went). i don't think an idea can be good or bad, only the execution of an idea can be good or bad.

[Tumetsu]

i actually kind of reject the idea that ideas *can* be good or bad. (so in that sense, i'd go further than he went). i don't think an idea can be good or bad, only the execution of an idea can be good or bad.

This is interesting and I kind of agree with this one. However, is there ideas which inherently lead to bad outcome (ie. bad execution)? Or is it just that ideas have different difficulty of execution but would still have possible good execution? Philosophical 

Oh, and by the way, the idea about seed ideas is actually pretty good IMO. No pun intended I myself have found that too. There is these random ideas and then others which immediately start sprout around until you have to cut them here and there to keep it small "idea bush" enough to execute.

[Taiko]

i actually kind of reject the idea that ideas *can* be good or bad. (so in that sense, i'd go further than he went). i don't think an idea can be good or bad, only the execution of an idea can be good or bad.

This is interesting and I kind of agree with this one. However, is there ideas which inherently lead to bad outcome (ie. bad execution)? Or is it just that ideas have different difficulty of execution but would still have possible good execution? Philosophical  

There several games where my gut reaction to the concept would be to reject it, because the idea sounds bad...

- Roll a ball around (Katamari Damacy).
- Do household chores in a virtual environment (The Sims).

And these turned out to be immensely enjoyable and unique experiences.  I think this shows that none of the ideas were ever flawed - just the immediate mental model I conjured up from them was boring.  The genius of the developers was in how they creatively executed on these ideas.  You can make anything fun with enough skill.

[jpgray]

I think most of this thread is in search of a distinction, as others have said, between ideas.  Take Enemy Unknown--all Gollop brought to the table initially was Laser Squad 2: battlescape and nothing else.  Microprose suits, having a dim idea of Civilization's successful elements, demand an overarching strategic aspect with the game set on Earth.  Gollop goes for it and sets up the geoscape (which in my view is every bit as brilliant as the tactical mode, when you think about it).  

Now who had the good idea in this case?  You could argue it was the Microprose people, since absent their demand the strategic mode wouldn't exist.  You could also argue it was Gollop, who figured out a brilliant implementation of that general concept, tying it in beautifully with the tactical mode.  

Every tactical gamer knows that a tacked-on "strategic" mode isn't always nearly so satisfying, or even necessary for the main game.  The mission choices on the world map offered in RTS games are usually window dressing, and even better efforts like in Syndicate don't really match up to X-COM.

So having the idea for a good problem to solve that would improve the game if solved well, or actually having the ideas that solve that problem well--which is better?  It's hard to define which has more value, and one certainly can depend on the other.

[1982]

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_value_of_ideas/

Well although I kind of agree with execution over idea, that blog posting is a bit paradoxical because those ideas presented there actually are good ideas. That right, ideas. I'm not going into execution. A bad idea would be something like: 27-years old male hero struggling with obstacle, and finally winning it.

What comes to games, I do prefer execution over ideas. Heck, games that I like to play are almost only about technical execution of some sort (controls, graphics, atmosphere, music, etc), rather than presenting anything interesting or original idea/story/content wise. I think that generally too much thought goes into creating something new or interesting, rather than creating a GOOD GAME. Of course both together can make good game, but it happens rarely.

[Zaratustra]

Ideas are good when they are about important parts of the development process.

For example, for a game, an idea for the theme is nearly useless. "How about a game where you fight cavities with a toothbrush ship?" A thousand different games could be done about it, and they'd range from atrocious to wonderful.

On the other hand, ideas about mechanics are much more important - so important that the game design process often starts from the main mechanic (see: Portal). Mechanics are much more fundamentally tied to "fun" than the theme is, and unlike, say, plot which has had encyclopedias written about it, the concept of "fun" is remarkably complicated and difficult to pin down.

Similarly, it's hard to explain why a mechanic would be "fun" to an average person without demonstrating it. How do you explain why Street Fighter II's fluid move-chaining mechanics are more fun than the dozen crap fighters that appeared in the same time period?

A notable exception is Scribblenauts, which drags the game up through the power of its mechanic as a concept alone.

[eddieion]

I totally disagree that ideas are worthless.

When most people refer to 'ideas' they are actually referring only to story ideas. There is a difference between an idea for a story and a design idea (being an idea on how something should work, or implemented). A lot of people put emphasis on how it's actually the technical 'hands on' people that really make a game - and this is true to an extent. But a coder is only as good as the design ideas they are coding.

Titanic was mentioned in the article at the start of this thread. Whilst i agree that idea quality is entirely subjective - it is the directors ideas that really make the movie - not the technical staff (the camera crew, the sound technician, etc). At University we are repeatedly told that lots of people can learn to use software (with varying degrees of skill) but creativity and design taste is a lot rarer to find, and even harder to teach.

A lot of the time i see small development teams split into two, with the 'idea guys' and the technical crew. The idea guys think up a lot of ideas they think would be 'cool' to see in a game (a rather pointless task) and then the coders, artists, etc are left to decide how to design the game, and then to produce it. There is often a gaping hole where the designer should be.