next »

[deadeye]

I don't think there's much point in discussing the analogies between functional product design and game design. I think the relation between the two is pretty tenuous.

Exactly.  This list has nothing to do with game design, or even graphic design.  It's got to do with industrial design.  The three have very little in common.

What gets me is that if you were to apply this person's list to graphic design, you would have a disaster on your hands.  Especially "good design is innovative" and "good design is honest."

[skaldicpoet9]

Well, when I posted this I was mainly thinking about how it applies to hardware design rather then games themselves. I agree with that this list doesn't really have much to do in the way of games (aside from one or two points). I think that this does apply to console design and peripherals though in that it lays down a simple criteria in the development of products that embody both a pleasing aesthetic as well as solid
practical application.

[Eden]

I've had a piece of paper with those "rules" attached to my wall for a couple of years ago.
I'm also influenced by Naoto Fukasawa.

Anyway, as people have said, those rules don't really apply much to game design. However, I think Fukasawa's main ideas do; they apply to the way we design the interactions between game and player.
To quote from his site:
 

It means neither plus nor minus;
it is necessity and sufficiency;
it is something you have never seen but somehow feel at home with;
it is a shape that is very normal yet fascinating;
It is the moment you realize, for the first time, that this is exactly what you have wanted.

That's really the relationship between the interactions in game and player I want to craft. "Things that seem to have already existed but didn't". That's how I think they should look and feel.

I wouldn't call that a rule, though. It's just something I personally do.

[Robotacon]

Exactly.  This list has nothing to do with game design, or even graphic design.  It's got to do with industrial design.  The three have very little in common.

Which reminds me of the good-old-days when what is now considered "bad controls" where part of the game design. Games where harder back then and less forgiving. A game doesn't have to be "easy to use". There should be an element of skill needed to master a game.

[team_q]

Has anyone here played Crackdown? I've heard of it as being completely non-linear and having no real direction (but not like I remembered before blabbing on).

Crackdown becomes a sandbox after you complete the missions once.
You start off as a weakling you have to build up your skills taking out a weak gang, then a middle strength gang, then a tough gang, every gang has a boss, 4 sub bosses, and 2 minibosses, you can call any of the seven in any order, but its harder to kill the stronger bosses unless you weaken their dudes by killing the lesser bosses.
By the time you KO the last gang, and your dude is --**** in everything, then it gets to sandbox pretty much,after respawning the bosses you could take anyone down, at anytime, its pretty fun in coop just fucking around doing whatever you feel like, I played for a couple hours with my roommate, on systemlink, you get the whole city. All we did is sit in the middle of a freeway and shoot car's tires out so they went flying off the bridge, then we threw the cars that didn't make it off the bridge onto the road sign because it was funny, we also made ramps with the carhauler truck and tried to get the AI to drive over them, with hilarious results.   This was way more fun then dominating the bosses' guards.

[PHeMoX]

• Good design is as little design as possible.

This is actually a pretty interesting point, but I wonder how that would translate to actual games (or game designs)? I guess I do not really understand what's meant with it.

[skaldicpoet9]

I think it means to remove excess.

But as I said before I think it applies more to the development of hardware versus the development of software.

There are a few interesting ideas in these so called "principles", however, I think that they need to obviously be taken with a grain of salt whenever you try to apply them anywhere outside of manufacturing hardware. I think it is much more acceptable and feasible to make a complex software design work then it is to have a complex hardware design work. This goes back to having a design that is "unobtrusive" and attractive to the eye. When it comes down to design for say, a game, level designs can and usually are somewhat complex which works (in my opinion) much better for games then it does applying it to a particular product design. Not to say that a good game cannot have a simple design, some of the best games of all time I would say are pretty basic in their delivery.

In the end I think that is why I prefer to interpret this phrase as meaning to cut out all unnecessary parts or to remove excess.

[Corpus]

I don't think that you can dismiss those rules as only applying to selling products. The laws of design apply to everything, with the exception of things that don't involve design.

How many things don't involve design, though? HUH?

I'll lay it out for y'all, in the context of viderno games.

• Good design is innovative.
I... think you've got this one.

• Good design makes a product useful.
What's the purpose of your game? To educate people? To make them think? To challenge them? To acheive any objective, your design must be effective and suited to its purpose.

• Good design is aesthetic.
No-one wants to play a fugly game. That doesn't mean that it has to involve ultra-high-poly models with Extended Ripple Mapping; it means that it has to be visually pleasing in a way that makes sense in the context of the game. Some games might be intentionally ugly in order to make some sort of statement, but that's straying from the realm of design into the world of art.

• Good design helps us to understand a product.
The best games are those in which the game's purpose and control method, as well as the players objectives, are intuitive and unambigious as a result of masterful design.

• Good design is unobtrusive.
Continuing the above point, it isn't good when a game explicitly tells you the controls and objective in an uninspired tutorial sequence occupying a similar position on the Fun Scale to dropping your danglies in a blender to which someone has taped a picture of Britney Spears' hairy monster. This is an example of breakdown of design. The game's design should be intuitive to the point that the player can be told, "Z jumps, X picks up and throws, D-pad moves. Go."

• Good design is honest.
This means that, uh... *cough*

• Good design is durable.
The best game designs are still enjoyable today, despite the fact that the industry and the world has moved on a great deal. Take Super Mario Bros., Ocarina of Time, EarthBound and Metal Gear Solid, for example. They're getting on, but they're all still highly playable. Even better examples are Pac-Man, Robotron, Space Invaders et al.

• Good design is consequent to the last detail.
The most successful and consistently high-quality games are produced by studios in which everyone in the dev team is closely involved and in regular contact, such as Valve, Suda 51 and Grasshopper Manufacture (okay, the latter two were examples more of high quality than of success, but you catch my drift). This is because, unlike those working together in massive studios or even across several different studios, the developers are able to coordinate their activities to produce a cohesive design in which every tiny piece is as important as the whole.

• Good design is concerned with the environment.
The most accomplished game designs are fun to play, but double as delivery mechanisms for some message or moral from the developers. In this way, they are relevant to their cultural environment and to the events surrounding them. Actually supporting (or just not damaging) the environment in terms of hugging trees (they need emotional support) and building cars out of recycled tin cans is, of course, not an issue in game design, but rather in the design of the method of the game's content delivery (i.e. packaging, if any).

• Good design is as little design as possible.
Ico

[skaldicpoet9]

• Good design is as little design as possible.
Ico

Nice.

[Chris Whitman]

Let's see what the Book of Five Rings has to say about game design. (Thanks, Wikipedia!)

Know the smallest things and the biggest things, the shallowest things and the deepest things. As if it were a straight road mapped out on the ground ... These things cannot be explained in detail. From one thing, know ten thousand things. When you attain the Way of strategy there will not be one thing you cannot see. You must study hard.

You see, it isn't enough to simply focus on the storyline at the expense of gameplay or the other way around. Each individual aspect of a game must be studied and understood both individually and synergistically. When you develop a strong methodology for understanding how these things work, and a strong testing cycle for verifying their functionality, nothing will be missed in the final development. Of course, this can take a lot of work, so don't be afraid to put time into it.

As one man can defeat ten men, so can one thousand men defeat ten thousand. However, you can become a master of strategy by training alone with a sword, so that you can understand the enemy's stratagems, his strength and resources, and come to appreciate how to apply strategy to beat ten thousand enemies.

Testing is vital. By playing through individual areas yourself and subjecting the game to a small, core group of usage testers, you will uncover and fix bugs which could cause problems for thousands of potential users after the game ships.

"By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist."

Sometimes it's difficult to see what may be missing from an early design or even a finished product. By understanding other, similar products very well, you should gain the ability to find where there is room for improvement in your own work.



All right, obviously I'm just being silly now, but the point is that your explanations say more about your ability to create an analogy than they do about how industrial design concepts apply to video games. If they pertained directly, they wouldn't require explanation; they would be self-evidently useful. Your elaboration is simply an interpretation of the original statements which changes their meaning to pertain to something else. You can do that with just about anything.

[Alec]

All right, obviously I'm just being silly now, but the point is that your explanations say more about your ability to create an analogy than they do about how industrial design concepts apply to video games.

This means that you should try testing your game with a focus group, to make sure others agree with the design decisions chosen.

If they pertained directly, they wouldn't require explanation; they would be self-evidently useful.

Make sure your game doesn't over-explain itself, but yet still makes sense to people. Be intuitive.

Your elaboration is simply an interpretation of the original statements which changes their meaning to pertain to something else.

Stick true to your original game concept

You can do that with just about anything.

[Corpus]

Well, yeah -- the principles are so ambiguous that they can apply to all facets of design, including game design. You can't dismiss them as being irrelevant, which was my point.

They might be a bit pointless, in the same way that horoscopes are completely pointless because the predictions they make are so vague that it's unlikely that they won't apply to you, but they are relevant.

[Chris Whitman]

They might be a bit pointless, in the same way that horoscopes are completely pointless because the predictions they make are so vague that it's unlikely that they won't apply to you, but they are relevant.

I... what?

If by 'relevant' you mean 'congruent,' then yes, I guess so, but it isn't like horoscopes give you any new, useful information you didn't already have.

Drawing analogies between a set of guidelines for something else (like swordsmanship to business) is mostly a way of borrowing authority. Why not just make your own guidelines?

[Chris Whitman]

This means that you should try testing your game with a focus group, to make sure others agree with the design decisions chosen.

The focus group represents your multifaceted personality. This indicates that, in each decision you make, your entire being must exist in harmony.

Make sure your game doesn't over-explain itself, but yet still makes sense to people. Be intuitive.

Intuition is effortlessness. As your game does not over-explain itself, so to must you seek to align yourself with your true nature, where no rationalization or explanation is necessary.

Stick true to your original game concept

The original idea of your life was formed indeterminable aeons ago. By remaining true to this concept, you become like the river which takes the path of least resistance through hilly terrain. By expending less effort, you nourish your core being and obtain spiritual strength.

You can do that with just about anything.

The lack of commentary on this section indicates that, when something is already ideal, it should not be altered. A violent wind will stir the sand on a beach, but it cannot be sustained forever. A soft breeze can last indefinitely, although it has no visible effects. Strive for perfection, but rest when perfection is reached.

[Corpus]

Righto. First up, a definition of the word 'relevant.' Looking good? Okay.

I said nothing in support of horoscopes. I did criticise horoscopes. I criticised them for being so vague that they are basically inconsequential, and suggested that the same was true of Braun Man's design principles. I also argued that, while being pretty pointless, they were relevant, or, if you will, had a connection to the subject at issue.

I don't think that you can dismiss those rules as only applying to selling products.

That was my initial point. The rules can be applied to games design. If they can be applied to game design, you can't dismiss them as "only applying to selling products." My comment about the laws of design applying to everything that involves design, and the scarcity of, er, things that don't involve design, was tangential.

My original post ended there. I then edited it to include my List - the list you know and love - in order to illustrate my point as described in the last paragraph, because I knew that someone would pick holes in it. Holes have been picked, but they've been the wrong holes because, it seems, I didn't make myself clear.

Oh, and I didn't comment on your statement that "You can do that with just about anything" because I agree. There would be no point in arguing otherwise.

[Bennett]

• Good design is honest.
This means that, uh... *cough*

I think it means that your design shouldn't be cynical. Don't put in features because you think idiots will be attracted by them. Don't add a flower vase to your new automobile design just because the female/hippie niche is underexploited. Don't add empty space to your laptop designs because Americans have been shown to pay more for larger devices. Don't rip off other designs which have been commercially successful. etc.

[Alec]

This means that you should try testing your game with a focus group, to make sure others agree with the design decisions chosen.

The focus group represents your multifaceted personality. This indicates that, in each decision you make, your entire being must exist in harmony.

This represents the misconception that people have a 'soul'.

In reality there is no 'soul', only Games, Ltd.

Make sure your game doesn't over-explain itself, but yet still makes sense to people. Be intuitive.

Intuition is effortlessness. As your game does not over-explain itself, so to must you seek to align yourself with your true nature, where no rationalization or explanation is necessary.

However, this too is an explanation. Therefore it is not intuitive.

Also, putting cheese in your sock and walking around with it for a few days is not generally recommended.

Stick true to your original game concept

The original idea of your life was formed indeterminable aeons ago. By remaining true to this concept, you become like the river which takes the path of least resistance through hilly terrain. By expending less effort, you nourish your core being and obtain spiritual strength.

As this river flOws, so must the titles of your game flOwer into wondrous creations of art. *waves hands in magnificent fashion*

You can do that with just about anything.

The lack of commentary on this section indicates that, when something is already ideal, it should not be altered. A violent wind will stir the sand on a beach, but it cannot be sustained forever. A soft breeze can last indefinitely, although it has no visible effects. Strive for perfection, but rest when perfection is reached.

Someone just farted.

[Bennett]

• Good game design is innovative or at least renovative.
• Good game design vitiates the need for a tutorial or manual.
• Good game design reacts to every possible player input.
• Good game design completely eliminates waiting.
• Good game design is Pavlovian.
• Good game design looks, to the untrained eye, like a much more complicated design.
• Good game design is impossible to do with a pen and paper.
• Good game design is reusable.
• Good game design can surprise the designer.
• Good game design aims to evoke an emotion. The emotion most often used is 'stress'.

[Chris Whitman]

Righto. First up, a definition of the word 'relevant.' Looking good? Okay.

Thanks for questioning my English skills. As you are probably aware, I have no idea what words mean!

Relevant is usually employed to mean having a bearing on the subject at hand. If I tell you that "You have been feeling tired on occasion recently. Look forward to interesting personal developments." It's probably congruent with events which are happening and will happen in your life, but since its generality gives you no real information, we can say its irrelevant. It has no real impact or bearing on circumstances. Most people would actually find the words 'inconsequential' and 'relevant' to be at odds (irrelevant is listed under inconsequential in my thesaurus).

I'm not saying you're misusing the word, but we are both discussing significantly different things in our usage. Don't patronize me just because there's some elasticity in English.

I said nothing in support of horoscopes. I did criticise horoscopes. I criticised them for being so vague that they are basically inconsequential, and suggested that the same was true of Braun Man's design principles. I also argued that, while being pretty pointless, they were relevant, or, if you will, had a connection to the subject at issue.

But then, if I understand correctly, it seems like you're equivocating on the meaning of 'relevant.' Clearly, the initial set of rules applies very well to the design of consumer products: utility is first and foremost. However, you can't necessarily apply that to art objects, even though those may be 'designed,' except by some tenuous reinterpretation.

If all you're saying is that you can twist those initial rules to reapply to them 'relevantly' to anything (in a very general sense of the world relevant), then obviously I agree, and there's no argument, but if you're saying they are just as useful applied to anything as applied to the original intended field, I would have to disagree.

[Chris Whitman]

This represents the misconception that people have a 'soul'.

In reality there is no 'soul', only Games, Ltd.

This represents the idea that, within each and every one of us, there is a 'game' taking place, which many cultures in the past have called the soul. Like the mathematical definition of a game, this implies multiple participants all vying for different goals. Only by using my patented system, Self-Acutology, can you learn to find stable game solutions to your inner conflicts.

However, this too is an explanation. Therefore it is not intuitive.

Also, putting cheese in your sock and walking around with it for a few days is not generally recommended.

This represents the 'Critic' player: the most difficult to manage of all the game participants. In Self-Actuology, the Critic is only satisfied when all other players lose. To reconcile this apparently contradictory intention, you must convince yourself that personal wins are losses and vice-versa. We call this principle Counter-Actuologization.

As this river flOws, so must the titles of your game flOwer into wondrous creations of art. *waves hands in magnificent fashion*

This represents the "Artist" player. The Artist makes vague claims and predictions that don't mean anything. The only way to keep your Artist in check and in harmony with the other players is to insult his sexual orientation, pull his shirt over his head, and metaphorically pummel him in the kidneys. This employs a technique we call Neo-Violent Self-Pummelactuologizationonomy.

Someone just farted.

Finally, there is the "Joker" player. The Joker thinks he's really funny, but he mostly just gets in the way. The best way to deal with the joker is to kick him in the knee and then, when he bends down to clutch his knee in pain, punch him in the neck. This process is referred to as Pummelactualologizationary-Reactualarity.

In conclusion, buy my book.