Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411283 Posts in 69325 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 29, 2024, 01:33:53 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignYour Game Idea VS The Value of Game Experience
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Your Game Idea VS The Value of Game Experience  (Read 2096 times)
absolute8
Level 5
*****


WTF, some aggressive nerd... (•̀ω•́)و ̑̑


View Profile WWW
« on: October 28, 2017, 08:19:52 AM »

The value of game experience or, what I like to refer to as Experiential Value, is a quality that is more-so the product of intuition discovered through play than an idea concocted by intellect.

What this means is, we do not truly discover the essence of our games until we play them. It also means, that those who rely too entirely on their "brilliant" ideas and plans, may never discover the true essence of their game.

Perhaps never discovering the true essence of your game isn't a completely bad thing, but a game with a clearly defined essence tends to also translate into greater sense of experiential value. In other words, to KNOW the fun of your game, not guess it.

For instance, consider the first early demos of Minecraft released back in 2010. It is unclear to me whether or not there was a plan for what the strange, block-based game engine would eventually become, but it became a wide-spread,novel experience unlike any game created in the last 10 years.

Why? How? From an intellectual standpoint it appears as though they just got lucky.

I'm sure anyone who is more intricately informed of Notch's process in designing the game could argue the details, but that eludes the point I'm trying to make. Imagine if you were the one who created that boxy, barren, over-saturated, abomination that was the original Minecraft prototype. Would you have added zombies? What would have prompted you to do so? Perhaps playing the game a bit after implementing an obvious night/day cycle to match your endless expanse of grassland triggered a nagging sensation; an urge of imagination lead on by the budding experience. It is your drive to become a player in that experiences that causes you to program and create that zombie.

Iterative development is one of the best practices for would-be designers to discover their game the way an archeologist discovers hidden artifacts. But, it is the ability to step away from your ideas, plans, and preconceptions and simply BE in the experience of your game that may lend you another valuable piece of that elusive experiential value born from the essence of your game.

-------------------
Sorry if this is a bit shallow, but I'm kind of tired of proofreading and revising this for discussion.  Shrug

So I'm just going to cut off here for you guys to comment.

What is your personal understanding of game experience?

Have you ever discovered a facet of play so fun and revolutionary that it completely derailed your current project?
How did you manage your game afterward?


Have at it, peeps.  Gentleman









Logged

Peace Soft
Level 0
***


All magic is made from corn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2017, 02:57:56 PM »

You're definitely right, but this is well understood by everyone but first-timers, isn't it? Well, I disagree that Notch got lucky; he iterated, you could watch him do it. Maybe I misunderstood you? It reads like you're struggling to explain a strong example of your own argument. But yeah this is a huge lesson, congrats on learning and articulating it.

As for me, I started out trying to implement a simpler version of the Revengeance parry in my game's combat system. In part by playing it, and in part because I was trying to figure out how to animate it byy watching youtube videos of fencing, kendo, and HEMA, I realized that it didn't work how i'd imagined. But it pointed to something cool, something that is understood by everyone who's ever done any of those sports but largely passed over in game design.

It was tough to implement that in a big action-RPG that was already scope creeping out of control, but to build a smaller project around it seemed appealing and very possible. And that's what I'm doing and it's going real good.

Sorry i'm being vague, apparently i'm afraid of revealing the wu-tang secret, here
Logged
Peace Soft
Level 0
***


All magic is made from corn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2017, 05:32:58 PM »

You're definitely right, but this is well understood by everyone but first-timers, isn't it?

Hey sorry i just realized that this was a dickhead thing to say. I should probably not be snotty to someone because they learned something slightly after i did. Good going.
Logged
J-Snake
Level 10
*****


A fool with a tool is still a fool.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2017, 02:55:27 PM »

Would you have added zombies? What would have prompted you to do so?
Zombies is always a fun idea.
Logged

Independent game developer with an elaborate focus on interesting gameplay, rewarding depth of play and technical quality.<br /><br />Trap Them: http://store.steampowered.com/app/375930
LyricalReverie
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2017, 05:38:33 PM »

Not everything about game design centers around "fun". Horror games, for example, are entertaining, but not fun.

Just wanted to say that.
Logged
oahda
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2017, 12:08:32 AM »

'Entertaining' still has an undertone of 'fun' to me… I'd say something like 'engaging' instead.
Logged

pxvar
Level 0
*


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2017, 09:57:23 PM »

Game Design should I think revolve around the question. Is the game's design language or a design pattern able to stimulate a chemical response in the brain? And properly communicate with the player the essence of the game either be emotions or information or both.

Edit: Tried to communicate a bit more clearly.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2017, 10:13:03 PM by pxvar » Logged
tortuap
Level 0
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2017, 01:40:59 AM »

Hi
Value of game experience is what rational game design tries to explain with intellect.

I think there are good thing to look at in this field of game design. In my opinion, rationally thinking your controls and primary mechanics first, then after designing using iterations, based on emerging ideas that come from playing, is a robust way of building a game design.

While I believe the first step (controls & primary mechanics) should come from the designer of the game, emerging ideas that could extends the design could come from players, by sharing their experience.
Logged
Maximillian
Level 0
**


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2017, 11:10:21 AM »

Quote
What this means is, we do not truly discover the essence of our games until we play them. It also means, that those who rely too entirely on their "brilliant" ideas and plans, may never discover the true essence of their game.

You can play your game entirely in your head.

Here's a question: why do we think before we act? Why not simply act without thinking? What's the purpose of thinking?

Quote
For instance, consider the first early demos of Minecraft released back in 2010. It is unclear to me whether or not there was a plan for what the strange, block-based game engine would eventually become, but it became a wide-spread,novel experience unlike any game created in the last 10 years.

I don't think that Minecraft is really that good.

Quote
Iterative development is one of the best practices for would-be designers to discover their game the way an archeologist discovers hidden artifacts. But, it is the ability to step away from your ideas, plans, and preconceptions and simply BE in the experience of your game that may lend you another valuable piece of that elusive experiential value born from the essence of your game.

What kills designers is poor complexity management (Chris Crawford isn't a first-timer but he is guilty of that.) Also, Notch had ambitious goals. As far as I recall, he wanted to create a game where you could do anything. That's some serious megalomania. But he succeeded because he managed the complexity of his project very well. He broke it down into tiny, manageable, pieces. He didn't attempt everything all at once.

So I kind of agree with you. I just disagree with your disdain for thinking, imagination, etc.

Logged
adrix89
Level 0
**



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2017, 10:22:31 PM »

I completely disagree with the premise.

For every Minecraft game there are hundreds of games that just go nowhere.
Just look at Steam Early Access. There are plenty of games with potential that just of nowhere.
I do not put my faith in iteration at all.

Furthermore what you are describing is just imagination. Imagination is the product of the subconscious knowledge so doing the hard work and researching and analyzing all the bits and pieces can only help.
Imagination has no limits and you can rearrange elements instantly.

If you commit to code however your course is set. Every iteration is a degree of change in your navigation, but that only works if you have a destination in mind and you didn't screw up your direction completely.

There is a case to be made that constrains lead to creativity, but again that is a question of knowledge, you can impose limits and set requirements all you want.

Note that I am not saying you shouldn't test your assumptions or make prototypes. I am saying throw away your code and prototypes afterwards. Keep yourself flexible.

Knowledge is knowledge. Understand and analyze things and then commit.

It's fine if you just make some tech to get you started, like procedural terrain or deformable spaceships or constructable vehicles or destructible buildings.
That can be your constraints you chose to be bound by. But you have multiple paths to go on so keep your options open and acquire as much knowledge as you can and analyze as much other games relevant to you. Understand genres because in every genre there are examples of great games as well as bad games and hidden gems that teach lessons about that genre.
Logged
The Armorman
Level 2
**



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2017, 01:19:35 PM »

armorman's number 1 tip for game development: Do It Like Kenji Eno Did It put all the faith in your ideas, and fuck other people. maybe this will create a game with a single canned animation of a guy loudly eating sausage with a fork that never ends.

maybe you will make a D2 or Enemy Zero. those are all good games. great games. Kenji Eno had the best people....some of the best people working for him. Maybe that's what you need. take your wildest idea and make it only for yourself. any time you make a game for other people you're going to let yourself and them down.

all of the iteration in the world can't save you then...

do it the Tim Rogers way and just make a game with all of the feelings you like. or the miyamoto way, or the yoko taro way or maybe there's just no way to make a game at all. maybe there's no single universal theory that applies to making a good game and we all hope their is because it means we're the One True Game Developer who knows how to make a 100% game 100% of the time. that can never be true and no amount of theory will make it that way!
Logged

BELOW FOR GOGNIOS

ABOVE, FOR GOGNIOS
Peace Soft
Level 0
***


All magic is made from corn


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2018, 06:30:49 PM »

Furthermore what you are describing is just imagination. Imagination is the product of the subconscious knowledge so doing the hard work and researching and analyzing all the bits and pieces can only help.
Imagination has no limits and you can rearrange elements instantly.

I disagree, i think imagination has limits. People's ideas, and their creative output, bear the mark of their influences and interests, and don't exceed the limits of their understanding. In my example above, i could easily imagine some variation on the kind of video game swordfight i had played a million times, but i couldn't imagine a way to simulate the real dynamics of the thing until i had learned something about that. I see that your RPG is gonna have wind, fire, earth, water, strength, agility, accuracy, and defense. Nothing wrong with that.

But I think you're totally right that you need a guiding idea. It's just that when you imagine how the pieces fit together, it's based on this platonic ideal in your mind, not on the consistent & learnable internal logic that makes it a fun game for someone else. That's my experience anyway.

Also I don't know you or how much experience you have. The OP is offering some good advice to someone who's in the early, daydreamy stages of learning game design, but maybe you're so far beyond that that it seems constrictive.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic