next »

[Melly]

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010129/adams_pfv.htm

So, Dogma 2001. It's interesting at first, but soon you can see that, while having the heart in the right place, the author didn't seem to know much about what he was talking about, and many of his rules are either senseless or outdated. However I like the idea of setting a series of guidelines to promote originality and a focus on the heart of games instead of the fluff. So I decided to mess with it a bit. Everybody is free to hop in and make suggestions.

Also, be aware that I'm mostly doing this for fun, and for people to participate. We could probably have a compo based on these rules, but that seems a bit unlikely.

Just don't take it too seriously.

The Tiger Dogma, version 0.1:

1- You shall renounce any technology advancement that is not completely necessary to accomplish your vision.

The original rule's focus on the design document is a bit weird. But nevertheless, I feel it rings true when you attempt to do your best to stay away from fancy graphic/physics technologies, massive HD resolutions, or anything that would need the player's computers to be 100 times more powerful than necessary to get the same experience. Use only the technology that's necessary (which doesn't mean you have to use a crummy old computer as reference. Dwarf Fortress wouldn't be the same if it wasn't complex enough to grind most processors to a halt).

(the article's second rule is a bit crazy and I feel it falls into the first rule anyway.)

2- You shall not use over-complex control schemes or unusual control hardware that doesn't add anything to your game besides gimmicks.

The original's complete limitation was also a bit off. I feel that, as long as you make sure your control scheme isn't needlessly complicated to get into and doesn't use unusual hardware without adding anything to the experience, you should be fine. A swordfight Wii game that used realism on how the wiimote motions make the game react would certainly not be breaking this rule as it would be enhancing the experience in a way practically impossible with other controllers.

3- The elements your game covers shall esteer away from overused and saturated concepts already used in a large ammount of other games, including characters, settings, gameplay mechanics, ideals, plotlines, etc. If you do use similar concepts you shall do your best to make those elements work in a widely different way than it's usually seen.

Limiting specific types of characters that the author personally thinks are overdone doesn't really work. The focus should be on consciously avoiding that which is overdone, whatever it may be, for example, machofantasy first/third-person-shooters focused on extreme violence and gritty realism, fantasy jRPG's, etc, unless you have some kind of big twist to add to it.

(Fifth rule is also crazy and falls under my third)

4- You shall not make a game that tries to be anything other than a primarily interactive experience.

If the experience you build in your game could be built with a book, movie, or anything else, then you should stop. The focus of the game should be on its interactivity, which is the defining element of the medium. If your game, for example, focuses on story, but its story could be easily understood and appreciated in a similar way if it was simply a book or movie, then something's wrong.

(The porhibition of violence falls under my third rule, but it's also off because completely porhibiting violence doesn't work either. Violence CAN be used in expressive ways. You just have to know how to do it.)

(Eighth rule also doesn't ring very right for me, and falls under my third rule again.)

(No idea about nineth. While it's an interesting idea as far as making the game understandable and accessible to non-gamers, it also stays in the way of creativity.)

(Tenth is moronic. Period.)

Examining that article and taking from it what's most interesting I'm left with 4 rules. I think they're pretty good as they are.

Discuss?

[george]

4- You shall not make a game that tries to be anything other than a primarily interactive experience.

If the experience you build in your game could be built with a book, movie, or anything else, then you should stop. The focus of the game should be on its interactivity, which is the defining element of the medium. If your game, for example, focuses on story, but its story could be easily understood and appreciated in a similar way if it was simply a book or movie, then something's wrong.

I was reading some of the Tale of Tales interviews last night and something said there stuck out for me (bolded those parts):

ToT: Aren’t you worried that the people who would read between the lines, might not be attracted to a traditional game mechanic?

AM: Our areas of focus, in order, are: art, narrative, game play. We’re surrounding the player in a beautiful and evocative artistically rendered world. Narrative introduces and rewards every mission, in the form of in-game cinematics. Finally, the game play is being built to (hopefully) be accessible and entertaining to a wide audience. Alice was built in a similar fashion, and with the writing being done by the same guy who’s lead writer on Grimm [R.J. Berg]- and the result was pleasing to a broad audience. I think it’s safe to say Alice was true “hack and slash” whereas Grimm will only feature a little of that dynamic.

ToT: I’m very happy that you put art and narrative before game play. Too many game designers put too much focus on gameplay, in my opinion, while indeed, it is only one aspect of games, and as you point out, not necessarily the most important one. So would you say you design games as a means to an end, as a way for presenting beauty and telling a story?

AM: There is something appealing about all three aspects. I don’t think we can minimize the importance of good game design - but I also feel that modern games are often too complicated, difficult, and realistic. They go beyond “games” into what should probably be called “simulation”.

Given a choice between playing a “war game” (Risk for example) and a “graphic and realistic simulation of combat in Vietnam” - I’d have to say that on most days I’d rather play the “war game”. More than a few times when I’ve finished a long session of “Desert Combat” or “Medal of Honor” I walk away feeling like I have mild PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).

So, somebody who has a better grip on this than me -- if the experience is similar to a book or a movie, should we stop? What do you call these experiences that focus on art, narrative, and then game play? Or can the interactivity be tied into the art and narrative somehow as well?

[Melly]

So, somebody who has a better grip on this than me -- if the experience is similar to a book or a movie, should we stop? What do you call these experiences that focus on art, narrative, and then game play? Or can the interactivity be tied into the art and narrative somehow as well?

Personally, I definitely feel that art and narrative can be tied to interactivity. It's in fact one of those areas that most developers seem to not have explored. The example that I give everybody and their grandmother is Planescape: Torment, one of the feel games that intertwine gameplay and story in a way that made you really feel you were part of the tale and not just an expectator.

[mewse]

2- You shall not use over-complex control schemes or unusual control hardware that doesn't add anything to your game besides gimmicks.

Does this mean I wouldn't be allowed to have "Inspect" mode in MMORPG Tycoon, which lets you watch the activities of a single simulated user?  It doesn't actually contribute anything to gameplay and I only added it as a novelty in the last hours before the competition ended, but a lot of people seem to feel that it's their favourite part of the game.

3- The elements your game covers shall esteer away from overused and saturated concepts already used in a large ammount of other games, including characters, settings, gameplay mechanics, ideals, plotlines, etc.

Does this mean I wouldn't be allowed to do any of the rest of MMORPG Tycoon?  :D

[Xion]

MMORPG tycoon was not a done concept. There have been tycoons, and there have been MMORPGs, but I don't think yours really fell into either group. The only thing it really shared were the words in the title. The feel of the game was completely unique.

[Don Andy]

I totally felt the same about the whole Dogma crap. But your version does sound so much more sensible and right.

Tiger Dogma Go!

[ColossusEntertainment]

I quite liked Dogma 2001. Hits it right on the head for most of the points.

Working within those limitations would require one to really think outside the box... while with the things outlined here, it comes down to subjective judgement for most of it (not use over-complex control schemes. How do you know if it's overly-complex? renounce technology not necessary... who's to say what's necessary?)

If we want a TIG dogma that has any meaning, we need definitives, not fuzzy things, or there's no real point...

[Melly]

I quite liked Dogma 2001. Hits it right on the head for most of the points.

Working within those limitations would require one to really think outside the box... while with the things outlined here, it comes down to subjective judgement for most of it (not use over-complex control schemes. How do you know if it's overly-complex? renounce technology not necessary... who's to say what's necessary?)

If we want a TIG dogma that has any meaning, we need definitives, not fuzzy things, or there's no real point...

I'm open for suggestions, you know. Come on, tell me those definitives!

[dmoonfire]

2- You shall not use over-complex control schemes or unusual control hardware that doesn't add anything to your game besides gimmicks.

Does this mean I wouldn't be allowed to have "Inspect" mode in MMORPG Tycoon, which lets you watch the activities of a single simulated user?  It doesn't actually contribute anything to gameplay and I only added it as a novelty in the last hours before the competition ended, but a lot of people seem to feel that it's their favourite part of the game.

I read it as closer to not requiring the drum in Taiko Drumming (which is nearly impossible to play without), a plastic guitar for Rock Band, or a fishing rod controller. Just sticking with basic, standard inputs like keyboard, mouse, controller. And then not having "control-x, control-y, shift-s" being the command for upper-punch.

[ColossusEntertainment]

Ok, specifics then :-)

1- You shall renounce any technology advancement that is not completely necessary to accomplish your vision.

This should be something more like: No 3D hardware, a maximum resolution of 80x40 pixels, a maximum of 16 colors, things like that. Something measurable. Could be a bit more high-end than that of course, but still specific.

2- You shall not use over-complex control schemes or unusual control hardware that doesn't add anything to your game besides gimmicks.

Again, should be more specific, like: only use 4 directions and one button (like the good old joysticks...)

3- The elements your game covers shall esteer away from overused and saturated concepts already used in a large ammount of other games

So, we should list them :-) I know you said you didn't like that the author of the original article listed specifics, but it we don't do it, our TIG dogma won't be very useful, as we all have different opinions on what is overused or not...

4- You shall not make a game that tries to be anything other than a primarily interactive experience.

For this one, the "primarily" throws the thing off a bit. if we dropped that word though, it would be more concise. But that would of course entirely rule out any storytelling...


Just as the original Dogma 95 manifest locks the rules down very specifically, Dogma 2001 apply its own set of very specific rules.

It would be fun to see what us TIGers could come up with, but without specifics, it's not going to amount to much... We should of course discuss what the specifics should be, but there's no getting around that they need to be.. well, specific :D

[Corpus]

Make them that specific and it becomes more like a challenge or a competition than a conceptual movement kindathing.

[Xion]

but i thot it wuz a challenge.

[ColossusEntertainment]

I think working within limitations is a great aid for creativity.

The main thing is though: if we don't make them that specific, it will all just be a bit arbitrary, and we might as well just say "games should be more innovative and different".

The thing with the original Dogma95, was to present such a strict set of rules that it would be impossible to make a standard movie  while adhering to the rule. In the same way, a dogma set for games should make it impossible to make a standard game; that way, we are forced to work on improving the bits we can improve under the rules: the gameplay mechanics.

[dmoonfire]

I think working within limitations is a great aid for creativity.

The main thing is though: if we don't make them that specific, it will all just be a bit arbitrary, and we might as well just say "games should be more innovative and different".

The thing with the original Dogma95, was to present such a strict set of rules that it would be impossible to make a standard movie  while adhering to the rule. In the same way, a dogma set for games should make it impossible to make a standard game; that way, we are forced to work on improving the bits we can improve under the rules: the gameplay mechanics.

That is how I saw Dogma 2001. Nearly impossible and requiring you to look at things entirely different. And trying to wrap my mind around it is somewhat hard, hence it works.

[Don Andy]

The only two "rules" there should be with game development are "Have fun making your game" and "Make it fun to play".

It doesn't matter how overused a certain genre is, or how gimmicky the controls of a game are. If even just some people are having fun playing it, it's a good game. The Wiimote may be an unnecessary gimmick, but it still makes playing Bowling so much more fun than just wiggling around the analog sticks a bit.

The only way where I see Dogma 2001 really applying is when you're trying to make art with games, but in that case you keep to most of these rules automatically anyway (see Phyta).

[Melly]

This isn't really a "how to make a game" set of rules, just a "how to make a different kind of game" set of rules.

I'll be thinking about this, but I'm still not sure about using definitives, though I can see their value.

[Daniel Benmergui]

Funny... We're working on such a set of dogma rules together with a team of people .

We still have to work the rules, and we want to have prototypes before publishing.

This thread can be a nice place to grab ideas

[Mitchard]

The only two "rules" there should be with game development are "Have fun making your game" and "Make it fun to play".

It doesn't matter how overused a certain genre is, or how gimmicky the controls of a game are. If even just some people are having fun playing it, it's a good game. The Wiimote may be an unnecessary gimmick, but it still makes playing Bowling so much more fun than just wiggling around the analog sticks a bit.

The only way where I see Dogma 2001 really applying is when you're trying to make art with games, but in that case you keep to most of these rules automatically anyway (see Phyta).

These aren't 'rules' that everybody needs to follow. They're guidelines that forcibly remove the crutches and lazy design decisions that it's very easy for game designers to fall on.

As for the list, I think that the design should be built around the emotion the game is intended to convey to the user, rather than the genre.

So, for example, instead of starting with "I'm going to make a side scrolling metroidvania style platformer" you would start with "I'm going to make a game that conveys a sense of exhilaration/horror/accomplishment".

[Zaphos]

I thought half the problem with the Dogma 2001 article was a lack of focus -- there's a strong 'back to reality' theme to the Dogma 95 rules, but the Dogma 2001 rules just felt like a meandering list of unrelated complaints.  There was no philosophy guiding the piece as a whole.

Instead of starting from those 2001 rules, I think it's better to start by picking a philosophy you want your Dogma 2008 to inspire, and then to think of new rules that coherently support that.

[mewse]

So, for example, instead of starting with "I'm going to make a side scrolling metroidvania style platformer" you would start with "I'm going to make a game that conveys a sense of exhilaration/horror/accomplishment".

I wrote a fairly lengthy discussion on generating good core concepts back in April, over here.  Talks about my approach to trying to generate interesting and/or novel game concepts.  (And it's extremely lengthy, so I won't spam the forum by reposting it here)

These sorts of restrictions are good because they give your creativity a framework to work around, and force you to find new, different solutions to problems which have hackneyed solutions that everyone has already explored to death. 

I think that it's really good practice to try to design games within various sets of restrictions (including ones like Dogma), even if just to keep your creativity pumping.  But you certainly wouldn't want to swear to follow just one set of restrictions forever and ever.  These things are mostly useful as creative exercises, in my opinion.