Principles of Game design: Basics

[Captain Shrek]

Oh boy. Either this thread will be retardoed or assaulted by an army of idiots into oblivion, neither of which is highly satisfactory. But nonetheless, I must write this because I am boiling with ideas and FUCK YOU CODEX.

So. Let us establish what we are talking about.

Video games are a comparatively Nascent form of expression. I decline to use the word ART for a very clear reason: Art is something that we place above the mundane expression, though this is not where the term should be debated. If you do, you are a retard. Period. Unlike some forms of expression and like most other forms of expression, Video games have a function in their fundamental construction: Entertainment. To whom? To those who wish to be entertained. Of course it can be argued that Video games are used to train personnel. The counter is, that those are NOT video games; they are simulators! And that is so by definition I am making for the sake of this article. The discourse (albeit short) here is about Video games with the sole purpose of entertainment. This clearly implies the one necessary outcome of playing video games. They MUST be fun to SOMEONE. If they fail at that, then they are fundamentally flawed. But beyond doing only that, i.e. just being fun, there are things that make better games. The article is about those things...

Before we progress further into the topic, I would like to distinguish two facets of 'goodness' or 'quality' of expressions, particularly important for Video games: One is functionality and the other is creativity. Although these are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they form two distinct criteria of judging video games. Functionality decides the proper implementation of the expression to suit the design plans of the creator/s, creativity decides the yet unseen elements introduced by the creator/s into the design itself. Please understand that these two terms are synthetic,that is, they are presented here by the author to flourish his own views and need not be operated with semantic scalpels. I will soon come to points, where I will explain why they are important later in the article. It is however necessary to point out right here, that they are.

Now lets move on to the real issue at hand. Which is, what should be the design principles of a GREAT Video game.

A good video game is the one that succeeds in its basic function first and foremost: It is fun to play. Mario, Bomberman and Contra being some examples. These seem a bit basic in their design but still deliver quite a punch when indulged in. This is however not the criterion of a GREAT video game. This is not saying that the above mentioned are not GREAT video games, it is to contrast it with the idea of a good game. A GREAT game NOT ONLY succeeds at being a good game (being fun), but also has characteristics in its implementation that partake in QUALITY of its contents, namely having features that serve a design purpose and possibly create new paradigms for future games to follow.

Consider the first and to my opinion the more important part: The functionality.

Functional Design involves a LOT of aspects: It could be Quest design, Level design, Graphic design (details), Art design, Combat design, Encounter design, Character advancement design to name a few. The idea is to implement some or all of them immaculately enough to improve the experience of gaming itself. To instantiate that, consider Consider questline in Fallout 3 (without the expletives). New vegas improves upon the quest design by making subtle yet highly rewarding changes that are reflected in the ease of gameplay. The refinement of design leads to an experience that satisfies the fundamental criterion (being fun) and ON TOP OF THAT provides an overall deeper actualization of the same experience. The purpose of this facet is to provide a structured model to design the game, so that it can be fun without being annoying to use. The clever amongst you can already see that functionality is definable and can be cleanly described and 'easy' to implement once described. It is, simply put, the difference between' making you visit the other end of the map for the main quest only to be handed a piece of crap to be brought to the quest giver' (read fedex) and making the quest-line much more viable by placing such events in close vicinity so as to prevent you from unnecessarily roaming around.

The second aspect, as mentioned earlier is Creativity.

A new game that introduces revolutionary ideas in the game is called Creative in the article. The previously mentioned criterion of functionality is a restrictive (taken in the positive sense of the word) principle; as opposed to that creativity is an expansive concept. It allows entry of new ideas while placing an enhanced onus on the Functionality aspect to integrate them in the game. A good example is Half Life. Half Life improves the typical 'Enemies see you and rush you till dead', design to the 'Enemies hide and strategize' design of encounters. Now, I am not a gaming historian, so HL may not be the first to have done that. But I am hoping you are getting the point.

These two principles define the critical ideas behind a great game. Do not let the examples misguide you. I am sure you know the examples better than I do. The message here is to distinguish between them and see what a game really does to improve the experience of gaming.

There are people who play games for the story alone. That has little place in the discussion at hand, because Narrative belongs to another form of expression entirely; namely WHICH IS NOT GAMES. The narrative DOES add to the game, but only qualitatively (and quantitatively) contributes to games by integrating with the mechanics of the gameplay (Deus Ex) or Quest design (Open World games) etc.

So. Now kindly discuss.

 

[Undead Phoenix]

I'm pretty sure everyone on the Codex will agree that gameplay is the most important aspect of a game.

Story will never achieve parity, but the ones with the best story are always the ones who tie the story in together with the gameplay.

 

[Johnny the Mule]

Language critique aside:

Chris Crawford

Computer game designer Chris Crawford attempted to define the term game[1] using a series of dichotomies:
1 Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.
2 A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.
3 If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
4 If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)
5 Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

Everything else is subjective. Creativity does not exist. Contra is banal shit boring. Fun is not fun.

When we see something only in its "intended" aspect, we are "confusing the thing with itself." As Korzybski intoned, "whatever a thing is, it is not".

I dont see the point or summary or conclusion of your little text there.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Language critique aside:

Chris Crawford

Computer game designer Chris Crawford attempted to define the term game[1] using a series of dichotomies:
1 Creative expression is art if made for its own beauty, and entertainment if made for money.
2 A piece of entertainment is a plaything if it is interactive. Movies and books are cited as examples of non-interactive entertainment.
3 If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
4 If a challenge has no "active agent against whom you compete," it is a puzzle; if there is one, it is a conflict. (Crawford admits that this is a subjective test. Video games with noticeably algorithmic artificial intelligence can be played as puzzles; these include the patterns used to evade ghosts in Pac-Man.)
5 Finally, if the player can only outperform the opponent, but not attack them to interfere with their performance, the conflict is a competition. (Competitions include racing and figure skating.) However, if attacks are allowed, then the conflict qualifies as a game.

Everything else is subjective. Creativity does not exist. Contra is banal shit boring. Fun is not fun.

When we see something only in its "intended" aspect, we are "confusing the thing with itself." As Korzybski intoned, "whatever a thing is, it is not".

I dont see the point or summary or conclusion of your little text there.

Right. Thank you. I hate you.

P.S. You are wrong. But I am not going to debate that here.

 

[Johnny the Mule]

You used 'are' in your non debatable response. It is a form of 'to be' which is bad, mkay.

 

[mondblut]

tl;dr.

Design a published game, then return to the topic.

 

[Excidium]

I'm not reading that wall of text, can we talk about Skyrim instead?

 

[Kane]

 

[WhiteGamer]

I think one of the leading factors in creating a good game is a diversity of enemies and environments.

You can have a good game with great gameplay, but if you're killing the same 5 guys in the same 2 environments and there's only 4 bosses then the game wont be gripping.

Dark Souls nailed the environments incredibly well, and games like Final Fantasy X International nail the bad guy diversity pretty well.

Case and point, Darksiders [the apocalypse game] is a game with solid gameplay, but there's only about 8 or 9 different regular monsters and a few bosses. That game could've been a lot better because more enemies/bosses means more strategy required to take them down since they are different then their counterparts.


Also, a gripping story is at least required, because if you don't like the story or identify with any of the characters, you're not going to finish the game. I think the one game in all of video game history that had the best plot would probably be Final Fantasy Tactics.There were betrayals, inter family feuds, manipulation , extreme character development, I mean that game's story was absolutely fantastic. Also, it ended on a bad note and that made the story even better.

You can't really have just 1 and not the others, you need a combination of these things in order to create a good game that will be remembered.

 

[Captain Shrek]

You can't really have just 1 and not the others, you need a combination of these things in order to create a good game that will be remembered.

I should have probably made this clear. I did NOT want to discuss storytelling in the article, neither did I consider it useless. I wanted this article to be about gameplay. There are games where storytelling is necessary and games where its not. What is a constant is gameplay itself. Also, the quality of storytelling is not really something I am willing to debate.

 

[WhiteGamer]

You can't really have just 1 and not the others, you need a combination of these things in order to create a good game that will be remembered.

I should have probably made this clear. I did NOT want to discuss storytelling in the article, neither did I consider it useless. I wanted this article to be about gameplay. There are games where storytelling is necessary and games where its not. What is a constant is gameplay itself. Also, the quality of storytelling is not really something I am willing to debate.

Okay, well in that case, i'll just reiterate my point on how important it is to have awe inspiring environments, and have a diverse cast of enemies. But then again, i'd say story is a part of the gameplay because like I said before, you aren't going to finish a game filled with people you hate, but I concede since you don't want to talk about the story.


I'm trying to think of other non-Jap games that really nailed the whole unit diversity but can't really atm. Armored Core always had tons of bosses and that's what made that game great. There wasn't any real story to the game, but there were always big environments that differed from each other, and TONS of bosses. If you're looking for a game with the prettiest environments on top of diversity, i'd say Dark Souls is your game of choice.

Some games were longer than others, but I think if you're looking for a game with good gameplay/design, Armored Core really nails it. Not to say that FROMs other games are bad, but the Armored Core series always had the most stuff in it.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

I should have probably made this clear. I did NOT want to discuss storytelling in the article, neither did I consider it useless. I wanted this article to be about gameplay. There are games where storytelling is necessary and games where its not. What is a constant is gameplay itself. Also, the quality of storytelling is not really something I am willing to debate.

But if you're only talking about gameplay, then why limit it to only video games? Gameplay itself is the constant for all games, not simply the ones you can play on a computer, which tends to bring up the question of what actually is most important within video games? You bring up the idea of video games being a nascent technology, but the real nascent idea within video games is actually the merging of gameplay with other aspects. Playing a purely gameplay-based game like Asteroids really isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before: you're using certain equipment to play a game of skill, nothing more. In other words, something that has been done for thousands of years.

The revolutionary aspect of the video game is being able to mix the gameplay with the other aspects, most obviously story. With a traditional game, if the game has bad gameplay, it is necessarily bad. But with video games you can have a game like PS:T, in which even its greatest supporters admit its actual gameplay is rather shit, but where the story, characters, etc. is so good that many people who play it consider it a very good video game.

Now of course, the question of what makes good gameplay is still a good one, but I don't see, if we are only discussing gameplay and nothing else, why we should limit that discussion to video games.

 

[Captain Shrek]

You can't really have just 1 and not the others, you need a combination of these things in order to create a good game that will be remembered.

I should have probably made this clear. I did NOT want to discuss storytelling in the article, neither did I consider it useless. I wanted this article to be about gameplay. There are games where storytelling is necessary and games where its not. What is a constant is gameplay itself. Also, the quality of storytelling is not really something I am willing to debate.

Okay, well in that case, i'll just reiterate my point on how important it is to have awe inspiring environments, and have a diverse cast of enemies. But then again, i'd say story is a part of the gameplay because like I said before, you aren't going to finish a game filled with people you hate, but I concede since you don't want to talk about the story.


I'm trying to think of other non-Jap games that really nailed the whole unit diversity but can't really atm. Armored Core always had tons of bosses and that's what made that game great. There wasn't any real story to the game, but there were always big environments that differed from each other, and TONS of bosses. If you're looking for a game with the prettiest environments on top of diversity, i'd say Dark Souls is your game of choice.

Some games were longer than others, but I think if you're looking for a game with good gameplay/design, Armored Core really nails it. Not to say that FROMs other games are bad, but the Armored Core series always had the most stuff in it.

Undoubtedly, diversity is one of the principles by which Encounter design can be improved. It enhances challenge by introducing elements of adaptation. By successfully designing encounters where enemies of multiple type, must be faced, the PC will have to use tactical approach to succeed.

In fact, diversity helps in one more way. Ideally, if the computer is given free reign, you'd never win! It should shoot straight, find all your traps and never get surprised. So there is ALWAYS an artificial difficulty in challenges. One excellent way of making it exciting and still keeping it within the bounds of the PC is diversity.

But again, as I mentioned, its just ONE ASPECT of improving encounter design. There are things like placement, relevance (context), AI etc that must be considered.

 

[Captain Shrek]

But if you're only talking about gameplay, then why limit it to only video games?

Because we are talking about Video Games.

Playing a purely gameplay-based game like Asteroids really isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before: you're using certain equipment to play a game of skill, nothing more. In other words, something that has been done for thousands of years.

Novelty is hardly the sole reason why video games are made.

The revolutionary aspect of the video game is being able to mix the gameplay with the other aspects, most obviously story.

pnp

With a traditional game, if the game has bad gameplay, it is necessarily bad. But with video games you can have a game like PS:T, in which even its greatest supporters admit its actual gameplay is rather shit, but where the story, characters, etc. is so good that many people who play it consider it a very good video game.

Sure. Story can and does contribute. One of the reasons I am not talking about it because I consider myself unqualified to. Satisfied?

Now of course, the question of what makes good gameplay is still a good one, but I don't see, if we are only discussing gameplay and nothing else, why we should limit that discussion to video games.

Because we are in a video game forum. It does say general gaming, I know, and can deceive the naive, but if one looks closely and is clever enough, you can eventually realize that the forum-creators meant video games.

 

[Damned Registrations]

You might want to watch some of these if you haven't already: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits

Some are pretty derp regarding PC issues and crap, but theres a lot of good stuff in there regarding game design. Pick out the ones that seem most concrete, 'like narrative mechanics' or 'choice and conflict'.

Regarding story vs. gameplay: a good game does not seperate these two things. One of the most valuable things unique to video games is that we interact with the medium, and thus, can create the story ourselves. And while it's harder to engage a jaded/experienced player this way, the best games make you feel like the story is whatever you did, not that you're following a pre written story.

Regarding gameplay itself: This gets really complicated. Aspects of engagement, agency, conflicting desires, psychological tricks like skinnerbox stuff, and this is all just the guts of the actual 'play', without going into things like art style and atmosphere, or themes; or story arcs which can be mirrored in gameplay, with introduction, rising action, climax, etc. all within a single fight, or at higher levels regarding the game as a whole.

Something as simple as how battle damage is displayed on a character can change all sorts of things; making the player more cautious if it looks really busted up, or aggressive if it looks minor, even though the numberical damage is the same. It changes the tone of the game, whether it's a struggle or a conquest. It changes whether the focus of attention is on your character or the enemies he's fighting. All from the difference of having say, your knight be either slightly slouching and dented, or kneeling and gushing blood, what seems to be purely a cosmetic change really isn't. Likewise, this concept applies to other narrative elements, like how your character speaks, how other characters treat you, and even what events occur in the story line impact how a pure gameplay element like having an ogre swing a club at you feels and how you will likely react to it and play the game.

When you move on to something like how a character changes through the game progression (say by gaining levels) things are far far more complicated than that little graphical change was. Every potential stat, the ratios of the stats to eachother, to the time spent to increase them, the ratio of the increase to the existing stat, how much that impacts actual actions (is doubling your weapon skill going to double your damage ouput, quadruple it, or increase it by 10%?), what is available to you as opposed to enemies.

Mediocre games are generally mediocre because 90% of the things I'm mentioning here don't even get considered. Battle damage is decided by what looks cooler to a couple of people without regard for the tone of the game, ease of noticing in combat, or anything else. Great games are often flukes where these elements all fell into the right places even if people weren't thinking of them in the first place. We're a LONG LONG way from having truly masterful game designs, where all these things are considered beforehand. Such a designer (or more likely, design team, sicne the scope of interactions is beyond a single person's expertise) would be able to crank out top notch titles reliably without fail. Teams can still be better or worse than others before reaching that level of course, but it's frighteningly easy to misplace an element in a game and bring something great back down to average levels. When you throw in some marketing dickhead insisting the boobs and swords are bigger and the tutorial more obvious, it ruins the whole thing, like having someone add in a pepsi commercial to your favourite movie thinking it'll make some extra money without ruining the experience.

Going back to the narrative/gameplay thing: a perfect example of a horrid mismatch here is something like Gears of War or Halo. Your character is an epic conquering indestrucible badass hero. However, the plot implies you should be overhwelmed and struggling, and the gameplay mechanics (hide behind shit to recover and take out an enemy or two at a time carefully, constantly scavenge weapons to replenish dwindling ammo) support that as well. So you either have a big badass hero who shits his pants behind walls all day but talks shit and goes Rambo in the cutscenes, or (On easier difficulties) You're an invincible death machine that doesn't need the cover based gameplay, and the plot feels retarded since you can singlehandedly massacre anything without any caution at all. If you changed the characters to match the gameplay and story, acting cautious, desperate, and generally being scared shitless of the overwhelming odds, you'd have a much better game, even though these are 'mindless shooters that don't need story' as people generally think.

Part of the reason blank slates work better in this regard is that we fill them in ourselves with what is appropriate, and it even allows varied perceptions of the game. If you're playing Metroid, whether Samus is a badass hero or a desperate fighter depends on how well you're doing in the game. You never get that disconnect where you massacre a room full of enemies without taking a scratch and have someone bemoan how difficult it was, or the opposite of barely scraping by a level only to be treated to a cutscene of your character beheading in just a few seconds half a dozen enemies that can nearly kill you one on one. This is why it's fun to play Diablo 1 and feel oppressed by the game mechanics of lighting and stunlock and enemy resistances, or feel godlike by exploding a room full of skeletons with a single spell, but it isn't as fun to do those same things in Diablo 2, where your character makes some insipid comment upon entering every dungeon that is usually at odds with how you percieve the atmosphere and your attitude towards the enemies. Even though they have identical gameplay when you launch a fireball into a pack of zombies, the narrative makes it fun in one game and unsatisying in the other.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Let me try again. I think really the part of your post I was focusing on was this:

A good video game is the one that succeeds in its basic function first and foremost: It is fun to play. Mario, Bomberman and Contra being some examples. These seem a bit basic in their design but still deliver quite a punch when indulged in.

This seemed to be saying, to me, that a good video game = a video game with good gameplay (taking fun to play as focusing on gameplay). Basically I disagree that this has to be true, because PS:T doesn't have good gameplay, but plenty of people consider it a good game. Which would mean that your putting the focus of your question not on what makes a video game good, but instead what makes a game good, hence my question as to why you don't just explicitly state you mean all games. And if you still stuck with this definition, you'd have to justify why gameplay is the sole most important feature of video games when video games are one of the few types of games (yes, including pnp) to take other things into account.

Now of course that really wasn't a huge point of your overall point, but its the one I remembered the most while I was writing my post, so this is probably rather pointless.

PS. We have discussed board games and pnp in General Gaming before.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Wasn't the dialogue in PST the most important game mechanic? And since the dialogue was good, doesn't it make a good game?

 

[sea]

I like your article, but I think you need to define the differences between functionality and creativity more, especially because it seems like you could just swap out the same examples and get the end result. Doesn't the creative AI of Half-Life simply expand upon existing design elements for added gameplay function? Isn't the functional improvement to New Vegas' main storyline also the result of increased creativity in design? If you're trying to propose some kind of theoretical framework for interpreting design, you really need to hammer out those and explain, clearly, what makes them distinct and how they tie in with one another. I agree with much of what you say but I'm not sure I'm getting "the point" is all.

You also use a lot of fuzzy terms, like fun, and you allude to non-specific examples... exactly what about New Vegas' quest design makes it so good? How does this relate to the entertainment value of the game? In an open world game, why is a lack of free roaming and traveling a big improvement? That in itself suggests the problem isn't just the quest design itself, but the world design and even the entire gameplay focus not making much sense for the type of game it wants to be. In that case,what sorts of other mechanics and systems does this interact with? How? I know this sounds a little bitchy and nitpicky but this stuff is really important to talk about instead of using words like "deep" or "complex" to suggest things. Even if it means you write a big list, or flow chart, go ahead... because guess what, that's what game design really is anyway.

As for my own more general thoughts on game design... ideally, design is something that should be as rock solid as possible before a single line of code is written. Proper game design is a difficult craft and encompasses everything from raw mechanics, as well as art direction and writing. It also has to be sensitive to market trends, budget, technical concerns and constraints, etc. If you can test it out on paper or even simply by acting out with others, all the better. Obviously there are so many variables that complicate design, from the individuals who work on a project to all those little things that add up that you can't possibly anticipate (even something like the design of a particular controller can change the feel of gameplay), but the reason why see so many games that come out looking half-baked, or don't have interesting mechanics, or lack proper progression and pacing, etc. often comes down to that "throw stuff against a wall and see what sticks" approach. I'm all for brainstorming and just experimenting to discover new things, but that shouldn't make up 50% of development. More than anything else I think it's that lack of strong design going into games in the first place that causes problems; it's incredible how many resources are wasted on things that never see the light of day, or that are made irrelevant when someone changes his or her hind about some major game element.

On that sort of note, I'm also a huge fan of the "design before thinking about genre/story/theme/etc." school of thought. I love genres, don't get me wrong, and I love games that fit into those categories and play with my expectations, but on a broad level I think that game design should be about coming up with an idea for gameplay first, everything else later. For example, what is a game like Metroid really about? I can tell you it's not aliens, or Samus, or shooting things. It's about exploring an open-ended world by acquiring new abilities. The power-ups, the storyline and setting, the aesthetic, even the stuff like shooting, boss battles, etc. is all there in support of that central idea of exploration and progression - but they aren't themselves that idea. Nobody at Nintendo sat down and said "today we are going to make a game about a space chick who blows away aliens." As memorable as Metroid is for its distinct style, I can think of plenty other themes that would suit those core tenets just as well: archeology (Indiana Jones), swimming (Ecco the Dolphin), post-apocalyptic (Fallout), survival-horror (Resident Evil) just to name a few. I have the utmost respect for developers who are able to think about game design not just in terms of "it's a shooter, but with X!" or "well, game A did Y, and we improved upon it by doing Z!" but rather in terms of inventing a central idea and turning it into something, especially as I feel from a pure design perspective, those sorts of games are always better.

Wasn't the dialogue in PST the most important game mechanic? And since the dialogue was good, doesn't it make a good game?

This is something I'm glad someone pointed out, even though I'm sure it's been said before. Navigating the narrative of Planescape: Torment is the gameplay. Combat is there, sure, and there are quests and stuff in a more traditional sense, but by and large the game is all about defining yourself within a world. It's by no means a perfect game either. But if anything I think Planescape is proof against the school of thought that posits binary separation between gameplay and story... because ideally, there would be none.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I agree with much of what you say but I'm not sure I'm getting "the point" is all.

That's simply because I am bad at giving examples. DO NOT BE MISLED BY THEM!

You also use a lot of fuzzy terms, like fun, and you allude to non-specific examples...

That is because fun means different things to different people. The accurate term would be entertainment although it can be claimed that its fuzzy too.

exactly what about New Vegas' quest design makes it so good? How does this relate to the entertainment value of the game? In an open world game, why is a lack of free roaming and traveling a big improvement? That in itself suggests the problem isn't just the quest design itself, but the world design and even the entire gameplay focus not making much sense for the type of game it wants to be. In that case,what sorts of other mechanics and systems does this interact with? How? I know this sounds a little bitchy and nitpicky but this stuff is really important to talk about instead of using words like "deep" or "complex" to suggest things. Even if it means you write a big list, or flow chart, go ahead... because guess what, that's what game design really is anyway.

A simple explanation is: Quest design. Your subsequent quests are meaningfully guided in NV. Moving from town to town through routes you'd expect Benny to take. This is not to say that free roaming is to be discouraged. If I want to do that, it should always be an option. The point is about QUESTS and main quest at that. The idea is that following a quest should be interesting not annoying. You need not wander off in two opposite directions just to finish a quest.

As for my own more general thoughts on game design... ideally, design is something that should be as rock solid as possible before a single line of code is written. Proper game design is a difficult craft and encompasses everything from raw mechanics, as well as art direction and writing. It also has to be sensitive to market trends, budget, technical concerns and constraints, etc. If you can test it out on paper or even simply by acting out with others, all the better. Obviously there are so many variables that complicate design, from the individuals who work on a project to all those little things that add up that you can't possibly anticipate (even something like the design of a particular controller can change the feel of gameplay), but the reason why see so many games that come out looking half-baked, or don't have interesting mechanics, or lack proper progression and pacing, etc. often comes down to that "throw stuff against a wall and see what sticks" approach. I'm all for brainstorming and just experimenting to discover new things, but that shouldn't make up 50% of development. More than anything else I think it's that lack of strong design going into games in the first place that causes problems; it's incredible how many resources are wasted on things that never see the light of day, or that are made irrelevant when someone changes his or her hind about some major game element.

Sounds really good to me. Tell you what: Lets extend this thread by talking about each design aspect independently. Like Encounter design or quest design. Write down what would make them really effective. This would be a worthy goal by itself.

On that sort of note, I'm also a huge fan of the "design before thinking about genre/story/theme/etc." school of thought. I love genres, don't get me wrong, and I love games that fit into those categories and play with my expectations, but on a broad level I think that game design should be about coming up with an idea for gameplay first, everything else later. For example, what is a game like Metroid really about? I can tell you it's not aliens, or Samus, or shooting things. It's about exploring an open-ended world by acquiring new abilities. The power-ups, the storyline and setting, the aesthetic, even the stuff like shooting, boss battles, etc. is all there in support of that central idea of exploration and progression - but they aren't themselves that idea. Nobody at Nintendo sat down and said "today we are going to make a game about a space chick who blows away aliens." As memorable as Metroid is for its distinct style, I can think of plenty other themes that would suit those core tenets just as well: archeology (Indiana Jones), swimming (Ecco the Dolphin), post-apocalyptic (Fallout), survival-horror (Resident Evil) just to name a few. I have the utmost respect for developers who are able to think about game design not just in terms of "it's a shooter, but with X!" or "well, game A did Y, and we improved upon it by doing Z!" but rather in terms of inventing a central idea and turning it into something, especially as I feel from a pure design perspective, those sorts of games are always better.

If you read the article carefully, you will realize that I FULLY SYMPATHIZE with genre classification. In fact I understand that all genres, as long as designed well, can and should exist.

Wasn't the dialogue in PST the most important game mechanic? And since the dialogue was good, doesn't it make a good game?

This is something I'm glad someone pointed out, even though I'm sure it's been said before. Navigating the narrative of Planescape: Torment is the gameplay. Combat is there, sure, and there are quests and stuff in a more traditional sense, but by and large the game is all about defining yourself within a world. It's by no means a perfect game either. But if anything I think Planescape is proof against the school of thought that posits binary separation between gameplay and story... because ideally, there would be none.

I have never said that narrative does not contribute. I am saying that I don't want to talk about it. Criticism of texts is a highly specialized pursuit. It is not easy and should be left to experts.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I decline to use the word ART for a very clear reason: Art is something that

no

 

[zeitgeist]

On that sort of note, I'm also a huge fan of the "design before thinking about genre/story/theme/etc." school of thought. I love genres, don't get me wrong, and I love games that fit into those categories and play with my expectations, but on a broad level I think that game design should be about coming up with an idea for gameplay first, everything else later. For example, what is a game like Metroid really about? I can tell you it's not aliens, or Samus, or shooting things. It's about exploring an open-ended world by acquiring new abilities. The power-ups, the storyline and setting, the aesthetic, even the stuff like shooting, boss battles, etc. is all there in support of that central idea of exploration and progression - but they aren't themselves that idea. Nobody at Nintendo sat down and said "today we are going to make a game about a space chick who blows away aliens."* As memorable as Metroid is for its distinct style, I can think of plenty other themes that would suit those core tenets just as well: archeology (Indiana Jones), swimming (Ecco the Dolphin), post-apocalyptic (Fallout), survival-horror (Resident Evil) just to name a few. I have the utmost respect for developers who are able to think about game design not just in terms of "it's a shooter, but with X!" or "well, game A did Y, and we improved upon it by doing Z!" but rather in terms of inventing a central idea and turning it into something, especially as I feel from a pure design perspective, those sorts of games are always better.

Could you please elaborate on this a bit? How would starting from an "idea for gameplay" make the game better? Exploration and progression are among the most basic game concepts ever, and this "idea for gameplay" doesn't seem to say much about the actual game (as shown by your application of the same basic concept to wildly different games), unless you expand on it until it becomes very similar to, you know, "genre".

* - How do you know?

 

[Wyrmlord]

I'm pretty sure everyone on the Codex will agree that gameplay is the most important aspect of a game.

It's a circular statement. Gameplay is defined as the most important (or the core) aspect, hence everyone agrees that the most important aspect of a game is gameplay. Really, the word is ill-defined.

I'm not reading that wall of text, can we talk about Skyrim instead?

Skyrim is such a fun game that I'd rather play it than talk about it. Really, the only purpose of seeing all these Skyrim topics on the forum is that they make me close Codex and go back to playing the game.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I have never said that narrative does not contribute. I am saying that I don't want to talk about it. Criticism of texts is a highly specialized pursuit. It is not easy and should be left to experts.

I'm not talking about text. I'm talking about the game mechanics tied to dialogues - character creation and development, choices in dialogues and their influence on the further course of actions, modifying character stats in dialogues, etc.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I'm not talking about text. I'm talking about the game mechanics tied to dialogues - character creation and development, choices in dialogues and their influence on the further course of actions, modifying character stats in dialogues, etc.

In that case I misunderstood you. Without a doubt a non-linear gameplay (choice) is welcome. In RPGs particularly stat-driven dialogue success is good.

For the first option though, there are limitations. It is impossible to actually create a game that will offer you widely different outcomes for all major choices you will make. It puts too much stress on the resources.

 

[Captain Shrek]

I'm pretty sure everyone on the Codex will agree that gameplay is the most important aspect of a game.

It's a circular statement. Gameplay is defined as the most important (or the core) aspect, hence everyone agrees that the most important aspect of a game is gameplay. Really, the word is ill-defined.

Although this comment does not really help the topic, you are mistaken. It is one thing to have a factual data and another to have people to agree about it. In fact. it entirely depends on WHO defined it; if it were the codex collectively then only would you be right,