next »

[Fallsburg]

Paul, I'm not quite understanding your vitriol about this.
I understand that taking these or any writing on game design as the one true way is a bad idea, particularly if the author isn't a game designer, but that doesn't mean that these and other writings are necessarily bad.
In fact, I don't think one needs to necessarily be a game designer to think and write about game design in an interesting or meaningful way.  Most art historians are not artists themselves, but that doesn't mean that they can't analyze art in an interesting way.  I feel that one can be a connoisseur of game design without necessarily being a game designer. 
I think the works listed in the original post are a net positive for the game design community even if they shouldn't be taken as scripture.  There needs to be more thoughtful, cogent analysis of game design out there, in my opinion, and anyone who wants to contribute to the dialogue is welcome.

I'm not saying that when it comes down to brass tacks it isn't just 'there are no clear-cut rules, what works works, for any rule you can find dozens of exceptions', but I feel that anything that gets people thinking about game design is going to be good for all of us in the end.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting you though.  If you don't like writings that are strictly along the lines of "Here is a 100 step process to make the perfect game," then I definitely agree with you.  But to be fair none of the works listed in the original post are of that sort.

P.S. By 'game design chemistry' did you mean 'The Chemistry of Game Design' by Daniel Cook?  Because to me it is a well written, if not exactly ground-breaking, look at how games teach player skills that wouldn't seem to evoke such a negative reaction.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't have or intend to convey any vitriol, my emotion is more like sadness: sadness that these people who are basically scam artists convince so many people of made-up ideas, and mislead so many young game designers (including me, in earlier years). i just think it's a shame; it's the equivalent of people, who aren't published fiction writers, writing books about how you should write fiction. or the equivalent of people who never had a painting in a gallery teaching others how to paint.

it's inexperienced people who are pretending to know what they are talking about preying on inexperienced people who are honest enough to realize they are inexperienced. this basically categorizes 90% of books and articles on game design, but this isn't unique to games; it happens in writing and painting and probably a bunch of other media and industries as well.

and sure, the effects aren't entirely bad and there's some good that comes out of it, but the good has to be taken along with all the bad, and i do think it's a net negative.

as i mentioned, i disagree almost entirely with the original post, i just chose three examples of that disagreement earlier; i definitely do not agree that the ideas in the original post are innocuous or harmless. i attempted to show that in my responses to them; some people agreed, some didn't, so i didn't do a good enough job at it (but i didn't really expect to convince anyone either).

i also disagree with this statement: "There needs to be more thoughtful, cogent analysis of game design out there, in my opinion, and anyone who wants to contribute to the dialogue is welcome." -- i do not feel we need any more of this, i think theorizing about what game design is is almost innately a bad idea and very hard to do in a way that isn't harmful. creating games shouldn't be done based on theory, it's an unconscious, organic process, not a science.

thus the main reason i disagree with the chemistry of game design for instance isn't because it's badly written (as you mentioned, it's not), it's because it attempts to turn game design into a science, something that can be measured, with laws and principles. that just isn't how game design works, and anything like that is eventually bound to become a self-reinforcing dogma, like all the various schools of thought in psychology (psycho-analysis, behaviorism, cognitive psychology, humanistic psychology, and all the rest) where all data can be interpreted in its own complex theoretical system, but which are essentially still big made-up rationalization systems far removed from reality.

so no, i don't think we need more people writing articles and books about game design, i think we need more people making games. i've probably read over 100 books on game design over the last 20 years, most by people who never made a game, and can easily say that i don't think i've gotten anything good out of them at all, just a bunch of contradicting theories and a lot of time wasted. i've even written one myself, which to be fair to myself is more practical and hands-on than most writings on game design, but still suffers from their major flaw of overly abstract theorization and misleading rules and principles.

when you try to make a game (or for that matter, a novel or whatever) based on theory it's not going to turn out very well, mainly because it disconnects you with (and is antagonistic towards) the process of creation. you're thinking of the theory, not of the game. the better thing to do is to let your thought process relax and work on the game through a largely subconscious or at least discursive process.

tl;dr summary: game design is a skill or an art, not a science, and almost all writings on game design treat it as if it were a discoverable science (often they say stuff like "if only we could figure out game design! our knowledge of it is just beginning!"), when in reality it's not something that can be taught (much like writing can't be taught), only something that can be self-taught, through the dedicated practice of spending many years making many games.

note: there are many things which can be taught about games: the history of games, how to program games, studies on why particular games worked or didn't work, and so on, so i'm not saying all writing about games is bad at all, just game design theory or overarching theories about what games are or how they should be made. pragmatic books on game design are great. interviews with game designers are especially great.

[s0]

I think the problem with writing on "how to design games" is more that most of it is oriented towards mainstream industry-based development, where creative expression and subconscious, organic design processes are often not part of the deal. When you're developing a game to market it to certain target audiences, the "scientific" approach to design is more than viable, whatever your views on that may be.

[Fallsburg]

Well, I think we might be talking past each other, or at least I might be talking past you, but by and large I think we agree.  
Perhaps we interpret these works in a different way.  I don't see the "Chemistry of Game Design" as an attempt to turn game design into a science. Well, ok, he does state that as his goal, but the actual content is pretty basic in terms of "teach a player a skill; if player doesn't use skill, skill atrophies; etc."  which, you are right if one goes into game design juggling "well I need to do thing A that Schell talked about and thing B that Lostgarden talked about" then it is bad, but if instead it is incorporated into the person and used holistically then I don't think it is such a bad thing.
I agree that the science of game design when presented as "this is how you create a game" is a net negative, but the science of game design along the lines of http://www.auntiepixelante.com/?p=465 is a good thing.  I think it's good to analyze these things, because when one turns a critical eye to something there is the chance that they will learn something and learning something is never (rarely?) bad.  If you disagree with me on this, then I guess we disagree and the discussion can move on to other things.

[Muz]

Yeah, I'd echo what everyone is saying about this not sounding right. A good theory should be like an epiphany, shouldn't give you a "Huh? What?" feeling. Unless it's sufficiently complicated or poorly explained. A Theory of Fun doesn't sound like my kind of book, though I'll check out the other two.

My favorite book so far is Chris Crawford's On Game Design. There's a lot inside which I disagree with, but overall, it's been quite insightful.

I do believe there are some things you could learn about game design, but so far formal game design's been counter-productive. I'm not fond of any of the games since the game design revolution. I've stopped having up to date computers because modern games are too shallow. I'm mostly just playing old games and indie games. Modern games have too much of this focus on "don't have stuff that's not important". Well, I like a lot of that stuff. I play games for the same experience that people try to get from books.

One thing I noticed is that there's a lot of theory for casual or competitive games, but very little for things like roleplaying and simulation. There's a reason that people who love Fallout 3 hate Fallout 2 and vice versa, it's because the things that make either one great fails horribly for the other. All the unnecessary, unbalanced stuff makes a roleplaying or simulation game feel a lot more fun and challenging.

[s0]

One thing I noticed is that there's a lot of theory for casual or competitive games, but very little for things like roleplaying and simulation. There's a reason that people who love Fallout 3 hate Fallout 2 and vice versa, it's because the things that make either one great fails horribly for the other. All the unnecessary, unbalanced stuff makes a roleplaying or simulation game feel a lot more fun and challenging.

This * 1000.

I also hate the recent trend in JRPGs of abolishing traditional towns and world maps and replacing them with menus. For me, an RPG or sim game isn't about being "smooth" or "balanced" to play, it's about getting immersed in and interacting with  a world (and possibly story). I don't like all those new age RPGs like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 that are designed like action games. They lose a lot of that "RPG magic" I think.

[eclectocrat]

Hmmmm...

I hate game design books for reasons I have not fully explored. More of a gut thing.

Lets remove the game design aspect entirely. For the sake of argument, game design is purely creative. Who are we designing games FOR? That's the basis of successful human interaction, knowing the players. Since most players are relatively sane human beings we should design games with them in mind, even if your intended target is just yourself, you'll want to know what you like and don't like. So rather than rules about how to design a game you should pay attention to GUIDELINES about how to please/not piss off homo sapiens sapiens (or rather the specific subset you are targeting).

One thing I noticed is that there's a lot of theory for casual or competitive games, but very little for things like roleplaying and simulation. There's a reason that people who love Fallout 3 hate Fallout 2 and vice versa, it's because the things that make either one great fails horribly for the other. All the unnecessary, unbalanced stuff makes a roleplaying or simulation game feel a lot more fun and challenging.

Double true. BUUUUUUUUT....

From a interface cognetics point of view there are things which do suck about most RPG's, and they should be eliminated. There are some tasks that must be done often, and I hate when those things are buried under piles of menu's, while the "trophy system" or some other rarely accessed subsystem has it's own hotkey.

Think of your fav RPG... good... now think of three ways to improve the interface... If you haven't found them, spend some more time and you'll realize that even the BEST interfaces have room for improvement.

Sorry, game UI is kind of an obsession. I'll stop hijacking this thread now

[s0]

I think accessibility is overrated...

[simono]

i also disagree with this statement: "There needs to be more thoughtful, cogent analysis of game design out there, in my opinion, and anyone who wants to contribute to the dialogue is welcome." -- i do not feel we need any more of this, i think theorizing about what game design is is almost innately a bad idea and very hard to do in a way that isn't harmful. creating games shouldn't be done based on theory, it's an unconscious, organic process, not a science.

And I disagree with *this* statement Maybe what annoys you is the way they prescribe how game design should be. What I would wish for is more describing, less prescribing. A theory about what makes games fun and how to create them would certainly be interesting and helpful.

Similarly to visual arts or music. It is helpful to derive rules from the history of works. Not to prescribe how you should do it, but to describe how it can be done.

various schools of thought in psychology

They are all valid if you read them as describing what happened to people. They are meant to be interpreted. But you can't derive a general "psychology of the human" from it. In that sense they are all wrong.

And now I'm sitting here, wondering why you think Danc and Schell are removed from the art of maknig games. Don't you think they make good games?

[Tumetsu]

I'm interested in game design, both theory and practical side of things. Reading few of the comments here, like Paul's and some other who seem to dislike theoretical articles/books about game design, I have to say I partially agree.

To me game design isn't science but more like art. And like art has lots of theory, so should game design IMO. Some of the best artists I have seen have said to both practice and read theory as a way to hone your skills to max. Lines just don't happen to go as they should, even if you blindly practice and practice over and over again. As a way to great artist requires (or at least helps greatly) the knowledge of various art theories and skills to be able to apply them creatively. I think same about game design.

Like in visual arts, if you strictly follow theories and guidelines, you may end up with boring, though "correct" piece of art. I don't think it is good idea to in creative fields to take theories as they are but I also think it isn't good idea to dismiss them as crap and useless. I myself used to be like that and it really restrained my skills until I learned what value theory can have. I think it is good to know about other people's thoughs about the subject in hand, and take their thoughs as grain of salt depending how sceptically you think about their text.

tl; dr; version: In creative fields I think it is bad to follow strict guidelines. Still, reading and thinking about theories can give you thoughs, tools and skills to hone your creations and think out of the box.

[eclectocrat]

I think accessibility is overrated...

Seriously? ... uuumm ... wow.

[s0]

I think accessibility is overrated...

Seriously? ... uuumm ... wow.

I'm glad that you are amazed by my unique insights on the fine art of game design.

But no, think about it. All accessibility does is make the game easier to pick up. Once you've familiarized yourself with the mechanics and controls it all but stops mattering. How accessible a game is does not factor into my enjoyment of it as a player in the long run (hint: I play Dwarf Fortress).  

I do think that from a design standpoint it's a good idea to make your game as accessible as possible, but what annoys me is the recent trend towards "accessibility at all costs", where it's become commonplace to compromise a game's depth to make it more accessible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[eclectocrat]

I think accessibility is overrated...

Seriously? ... uuumm ... wow.

I'm glad that you are amazed by my unique insights on the fine art of game design.

But no, think about it. All accessibility does is make the game easier to pick up. Once you've familiarized yourself with the mechanics and controls it all but stops mattering. How accessible a game is does not factor into my enjoyment of it as a player in the long run (hint: I play Dwarf Fortress).  

I do think that from a design standpoint it's a good idea to make your game as accessible as possible, but what annoys me is the recent trend towards "accessibility at all costs", where it's become commonplace to compromise a game's depth to make it more accessible and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Ok, I totally agree with that. But I really was surprised with your viewpoint, which is natural considering accessibility/interface has been an obsession of mine for many years! I really need others opinions on it, cus being insulated in your own viewpoint too long isn't healthy.

I think you may disagree with this, and many other people too, but I start with an interface and build gameplay up. I don't think it's any less valid than working from gameplay down, as at some point they have to meet and agree anyways. I think Nintendo does this well, but recently I find it going a bit too far and they "compromise a games" TOO MUCH "depth to make it more accessible". There is always SOME compromise (conscious or not), but it needs to be done methodically (IMHO).

Going back to the thread topic: while we can agree to disagree about GAME design as a science, INTERFACE design and accessibility definitely have rules, and interfaces are measurable, and hence amenable to scientific investigation.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

just want to add that chris crawford's book on game design is also my favorite of this type; not only because he knows what hes talking about (he's made a lot of games) but also because he doesn't do much of 'this is how to make games', it's descriptive rather than prescriptive.

i think it's a good point that books like this are more useful for AAA game designers than indies, because they teach you basically how to make AAA games (games as composed of mechanical parts and fitting a standard formula) but i think that's all the more reason to avoid these books (except the exceptions like crawford's).

this thread sort of makes me consider writing another book on game design, but one for indies, and one that does it right. but it'd be more like a workbook than a textbook (a collection of exercises) since i do think that self-training is the way to go, and that you learn a thousand times more from making and releasing even a simple game than you'd learn from an academic game design theory book.

i also agree that accessibility is overrated; a lot of my favorite games are utterly inaccessible (alpha centauri for instance has an abysmal interface design). i think accessibility is important for popularity and sales (although not always; see: minecraft. less accessible than most indie games, and far more popular), but not really that important for how much fun the people who are playing it have. sort of how a mac being more accessible than a windows pc is great, but meaningless when it comes to the actual performance of the computer or how you use it after you've learned their respective interfaces.

chris crawford as an aside wrote a very good book on interface design as well (it's less known than his game design book, but still excellent)

[simono]

'game design chemistry' and such is probably the worst of them i've seen.

Yes, that is one of the few things danc wrote which i think should be read different from how he intented them but he does explain very well the mechanics of jump&runs.

[Draknek]

this thread sort of makes me consider writing another book on game design, but one for indies, and one that does it right. but it'd be more like a workbook than a textbook (a collection of exercises) since i do think that self-training is the way to go, and that you learn a thousand times more from making and releasing even a simple game than you'd learn from an academic game design theory book.

Why make it a book? If you think you could do a good job with a workshop-style teaching method why not start up a thread here with exercises and suchlike?

There was a similar thing started for level design a few months back, it's not still going but I found it useful at the time and would be very interested in other similar projects.

[Destral]

this thread sort of makes me consider writing another book on game design, but one for indies, and one that does it right. but it'd be more like a workbook than a textbook (a collection of exercises) since i do think that self-training is the way to go, and that you learn a thousand times more from making and releasing even a simple game than you'd learn from an academic game design theory book.

Why make it a book? If you think you could do a good job with a workshop-style teaching method why not start up a thread here with exercises and suchlike?

There was a similar thing started for level design a few months back, it's not still going but I found it useful at the time and would be very interested in other similar projects.

I'm sure a lot of people on this forum would appreciate a resource like this.

[Danc]

As a small note, Jesse runs Schell Games on the side in addition to his teaching job.  You can see some of the games they've worked on here: http://www.schellgames.com/projects/

I second the appreciation for Chris Crawford's early writings.  The PDF of The Art of Computer Game Design is available for free here: http://library.vancouver.wsu.edu/sites/library.vancouver.wsu.edu/files/ACGD.pdf

All the best,
Danc.

[Muz]

I'd agree with what people in the thread say about game design being an art rather than a science. I've worked with hardcore engineering, artistic engineering (emotions in voice), and just plain art.

To me, a science is something simple enough that can be accurately explained by laws. Even the most advanced sciences are still simple enough to be broken down into parts.

Art is something that's so complicated that you can't explain them with rules. You can only explain patterns, which patterns work and which don't. Creativity is simply having so much experience with the patterns that you can spot on sight what a good pattern is.


Trying to turn game design into an art would give it similar success to other entertainment medium. Fully analyzed game design would produce something like classical music. You can synthesize a work of beauty from it, but highly theoretical. And the results would be the same too - it would appeal to a group of people, but not everyone. A classical musician may shun garage rock bands, pop, and auto-tuners, but the fact is that the ones played by instinct have larger audiences.

However, theory is not all useless. The indie guitarists who were trained classically can create some amazing metal, since he knows some musical patterns that work. Same goes for an indie game designer with theoretical knowledge.

On the other hand, the movie industry has a formula, sticks to it, and churns out good movies often enough that there's little risk. It's not impossible to get a good formula for art.

I'm not sure where game design lies compared to other entertainment mediums but it's somewhere around there.

[s0]

I don't really know a lot about individual indie devs' knowledge of game design theory. It'd be interesting to do some "research" on some of my faves in that respect and find out what percentage of them has formally studied game design.