next »

[mirosurabu]

There's a common theme running through all the replies. What exactly is a 'game mechanic'? It's made to sound like a tangible thing.  (I know I said mechanics in 2. but I wasn't referring to anything particular)

Is it like, jumping on goombas? Or is it just jumping in general? What kind of mechanics are there, is there a list of them?

There is a popular design approach among indie developers which is based on the idea of unique central mechanic. It usually applies to games which involve spatial navigation, such as platformers. In this context, mechanics are things like gravity flipping (VVVVVV), rotating the map (And Yet it Moves), time manipulation (Braid), drawing physical objects (Crayon Physics Deluxe), creating towers by connecting physical objects (World of Goo) and so on. As you can see, mechanics have a form of simple spatial actions that players can use to change the world according to specific rules.

The game is usually centered around single mechanic, placing that mechanic in a role of a "hook". The rest of the content is usually made of challenges designed around rules that directly derive from this central mechanic.

It's definitively not the only, nor the ultimate design approach, but it's been quite popular around these places. That said, it's totally fine if you rely on existing design elements.

[s0]

I'm probably going to make myself a bit unpopular now, but I don't really like the style of game design that's about exploiting a single "innovative" mechanic to the absolute max. I'm not saying no good games can or have come from it, but I'm more of a fan of combining multiple mechanics and having them work together in interesting ways.

[jwk5]

When in doubt make shit up.

[Retrogames]

Since I've only ever made three games and only been solely responsible for the design of one, take this with a grain of salt;

My approach is to establish the rules of the game, which don't need to be anything special or unique at all. To use an example everyone knows, a rule for Mario would be "Defeat enemies by jumping on them."

I then design 'rule-breakers'; taking the basic laws of the game and making exceptions to that rule that challenge the player to utilize the rule in a different way. For example, introducing Spiny-shelled enemies to Mario breaks the rule about jumping on enemies. Koopa Troopas are beaten after a single jump, but leave behind a shell that, if jumped on again, becomes a weapon. Dry Bones is defeated in a single jump, but will get back up in a few moments.

I like to start with the most simple approach possible and add depth by allowing players to slowly chip away at the established rules.

[Kurai]

I then design 'rule-breakers'; taking the basic laws of the game and making exceptions to that rule that challenge the player to utilize the rule in a different way. For example, introducing Spiny-shelled enemies to Mario breaks the rule about jumping on enemies. Koopa Troopas are beaten after a single jump, but leave behind a shell that, if jumped on again, becomes a weapon. Dry Bones is defeated in a single jump, but will get back up in a few moments.

I like to start with the most simple approach possible and add depth by allowing players to slowly chip away at the established rules.

Definitely this.

[mirosurabu]

I'm probably going to make myself a bit unpopular now, but I don't really like the style of game design that's about exploiting a single "innovative" mechanic to the absolute max. I'm not saying no good games can or have come from it, but I'm more of a fan of combining multiple mechanics and having them work together in interesting ways.

This. I was about to post this on the controversial thread.

[s0]

I'm probably going to make myself a bit unpopular now, but I don't really like the style of game design that's about exploiting a single "innovative" mechanic to the absolute max. I'm not saying no good games can or have come from it, but I'm more of a fan of combining multiple mechanics and having them work together in interesting ways.

This. I was about to post this on the controversial thread.

I already did a few weeks back. I think I even used the exact same wording. 

[shig]

I don't see what the OP expects to come out of this thread. It's so vague that I don't think there's anyway you can get any really useful advice.

"learn from other games"
"don't learn from other games! use other sources of inspiration!"
"follow this and this design principle!"
"try to be innovative! fight the power! think outside the box!"

Game design is pretty extense so all these advices are valid in different contexts -- but you didn't give any context.

Try asking a more specific question, maybe? dunno

[dmizzle]

To me it seems like the original poster has tried to systematize the process of Game Design in general, although I could be wrong.

I don't really know what the right or wrong way to design a game is but I'll share my process if you want to call it that.

I typically just keep an open mind and try to experience a lot of different things. I try to make it a point to do things that I wouldn't normally do like go to clubs (I'm sooooo not a club guy! I'm usually the awkward looking guy standing in the corner or something stupid). I find that good game ideas are usually a few deep so I make sure to keep a journal and write things down.

When I get an idea I try to prototype ASAP. I keep it very rough and I let some people try it to see if they're having fun or if they get the idea, etc.

I don't really sit down and think too much about rules and gameplay mechanics in the beginning since I just want to get the idea out of my mind and on the screen and I don't want anything to get in the way.

If I feel like it's a fun game and some early feedback expresses that as well, then I'll sit down and plan things out a little more eg; will it have levels or just an ever-increasing difficulty, single-screen vs. scrolling or whatever. I should note that I keep my designs very simple.

From there I'll move on to graphics, sound and polish.

I find this works for me because I work on games alone and I don't really have the money to contract anyone for art or music or anything like that. And I only work on games part time so both time and money are constraints for me. So I like to make games that take no longer than a month or two to complete. This works out nicely because of the platforms I work with (iPhone and Flash).

I hope this helps. I'll reiterate that I don't have a magic formula or the "Right Way" to make a game. I just do what works for me and the limits that I have.

[The Monster King]

I get an inspiration. An Idea, usually more character-wise than purely gameplay. What is this game about? How can I make this jawesome? But yeah, like someone said I think making a game you'd like to play is a good start. Give your game life. Make it uhm
Give it personality.

[Richard Kain]

Game development is such a varied discipline, that there can never be one systematic approach to it. Everyone comes up with their own personal style of designing a game. This is what helps to give each game its own unique personality. The quirks of the designer SHOULD come through in the final product.

For my part, I like to follow these steps in "designing" a game.

1. Come up with an experience that I want to impart to the player
2. Figure out how to structure the game mechanics to achieve the desired experience
3. Figure out how to program the desired game mechanics
4. Figure out what artistic styles and motifs would best serve the desired experience
5. Create the art based on the desired styles
6. Figure out what music and sound effects would best sere the desired experience
7. Produce and compose music and sound effects
8. Stick a fork in it, its done.

Ultimately, I feel that everything should boil down to the player's experience, and all elements should serve that goal.

[Neight]

For strict "design," and maybe not the process, I've found these very helpful:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6267/lifting_the_designers_curse.php
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Game-Design-book-lenses/dp/0123694965/

Sorry for more reading, but its good. I promise.

[mirosurabu]

The Book of Lenses is pretty good one!

Which reminded me of this: as a beginner designer it's best to strive to replicate experience you've had rather than to come up with or convey a new one. The easiest way to do this is to try to think of a game that you had great time with, replay it and use introspection to figure out what makes that experience so good.

It's important to note that replicating existing experience isn't ripping-off, since ripping-off and cloning are associated with uninspired, soulless, surface imitation of the original. When you use introspection, you'll often have to deal with things you hate about the original which would lead you to make your game better than it.

Make sure you do fucking love the thing you're trying to replicate or else you'll only end up replicating its surface. It had happened to me quite a lot in the past. I'd think "I can do this, it's just this and this" but would not realize I'm not really getting into players' shoes i.e. not having real fun players have with that game. One needs to think the game is brilliant in order to do proper introspection. Otherwise, you'd be just cloning it, perhaps making a dull version or it might look like a parody and you won't know it.

[Philtron]

I think the best advice you've gotten here is "Make games you want to play". Anything you make creatively should be something you yourself would enjoy if someone else had made it.

That being said I think your initial process of "ripping off a game" is absolutely valid. You need to engrave the physical/mechanical aspect of creation into your muscles before you can get to the creative facet of creation.

The problem in your first post seemed to focus on how you're disappointed or bored with your games and then give up and you don't know what to do ("um, a moving platform here?"), but you don't mention actually thinking about why they're boring. You need to think about things; introspection is another piece of good advice people have given you.

However, I believe you shouldn't think about mechanics. Focusing on mechanics and design is nonsense. Mechanics are just tools for achieving a certain goal. You need to focus on your goal.

My suggestion would be to focus  on 'feel'. What do you want the game to feel like? Follow gut instinct. Think about why you had fun playing that game you ripped off. If you didn't enjoy playing it then don't rip it off. As you rip off the game make sure to include the parts you enjoyed (like jumping on guys, jumping over gaps, finding treasure in blocks) and experiment with taking out some parts you don't enjoy (gathering coins, stairs). Now look at what has happen. Is your game fun? Does it feel like the game you want? (If I remade Mario I'd make it really fast, get rid of most of the platforming which slows things down, make it so as long as you have coins you can't die, and I would call it Sonic.)

This is the point you should start thinking about design and mechanics. Why did you achieve that particular feel? What makes your game fun or not fun and how does that compare to the original? What parts of your game work or don't work; why do you think that is? Change that part and see what happens.

As for inspiration, there is no way to go out and find inspiration, it finds you. Some people have certain things that tend to inspire them (music, concept art, other games, books, conversing with people, walking in the park, exercising, looking for things to fix) but no one can force inspiration to come. At some point that Greek muse will descend and light you on fire so that ideas are  flying through your head faster than you can get them on paper and you never know when that'll happen. So, as people have advised, keep a notebook handy.

But FIRST, just learn that physical act of creating until it is second nature. You're just starting at this and it's okay to copy the people that came before you even if it's an exact replica (nearly all great painters, writers, and game designers started this way) and eventually the inspiration will come, the creativity will come, and the understanding of what you're doing will come as well.

[Jay Margalus]

I'm going to focus in on one thing here:

But it seems you either got it or you don't.

No! I would disagree completely with this, and I would disregard anybody who tells you that you've either "got it" or you "don't got it".  With hard work and repeated, concentrated effort, you can do anything you put your mind to.

Practice.  Every day work at getting better at creating games, and you'll do well.  Natural ability may make you better, but it's about 5% of what makes you good.  The other 95% is hard work and execution.  There are plenty of people with talent who amount to nothing because they can't execute.

So, keep it up!  If this is something you enjoy, there's no reason to stop.  Good luck.

[Triplefox]

I've been trying different design strategies almost every time I make a new game. The one I focus on currently is to build interlocking feedback loops or cycles; when doing this a game dynamic automatically emerges, although the initial version can feel rough. Cyclical design strategies scale up and down amazingly well and also suggest non-game elements: marketing hooks, monetization, etc. The danger, which I ran into with my most recent game(put on hold for a while), is that it opens up so many possibilities to work primarily at the cyclical level, that it can take a while to narrow things down again.

At this point, I don't see design as different from the process of making other works of art - just bigger. And I do see a definite process and stages of development:

1. Initial concepts and themes(e.g. finding a way to play with a technology, or reworking or combining elements of existing games) - defining certain parts of the vision. You can usually figure out if there's no vision - either you have an idea but have no idea where to start with the details(not even a few things to try iterating on), or you have a prototype that isn't interesting and suggests no opportunities for extension.

2. Conceptual iteration. This part is confusing, because you're trying to lay out all the ideas in a prototype form, but you won't be sure if they work or not until you study player feedback. If the game is small it's easy to iterate on it, which I think is why we end up with mostly small, one-mechanic indie games -- it's survivor bias.

3. Content iteration. These are the "surface" elements. If the game design involves mostly conventional mechanics you naturally end up gravitating to content as the way to differentiate it. But just like the core, it all has to be iterated until the content works, and sometimes content development exposes flaws in a promising concept.

[fatso]

Try getting inspiration for a game from real life. Just look around every day and start messing with the mechanics of everyday life in your head, eventually something will click. 

[Greg Game Man]

- sit down and work on the game
- worry that it wont be any good
- play mortal kombat
- go to step 1