 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| Evolving Game Design from Alchemy to Science |
|
 |
Anonymous Poster |
|||
 Posted - 3/20/2003 3:34:22 AM |
||||
| The interesting thing about this article is that it might give (even if very limited) some background on how to check if your ideas would work. But as normal with people from Microsoft they try make everything into a science. Everything can be meassured and tested and validated. That is far from true. Microsofts process has obvious problems with finding the edge in games. They are just to scientific in their work. The process they work after is to check. What genre are we looking at. Take the best game from that and saying we have to implement these features (that are perceived as the best). Then we need to improve a number of the features in the above list of game. Then we need to add two or three new ones. This derivate way of making games really takes the edge out of the games. Let's go back to the Sims and Everquest discussion. Sure they use the psychology of people. But there are no successful games that doesn't do that in one way or another. The reason for this not helping you at all in designing games is that you first have to come up with a valid idea and then validate it. The reasoning in the article is let's make a cool game that satisfies these basic human need and we have a fun game. That is not at all true. Take GTA3 as an example how does that fit into this description of psychology? Are everyone playing that game psychotic people that goes out and drives over whoever he sees ? |
||||
|
||||
|
Nairb Member since: 10/10/2000 From: Morgantown, WV, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 3/20/2003 10:59:18 PM |
||||
| Hello, I agree with the Anonymous Poster in the way that this article does try to over-roboticize the design process. While a lot can be gained from reading introductory psychology material, not every design solution can be found in reference material. I also disagree with the author in the respect that Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs is such an important factor in games. Many successful games, for instance, never go past the "Safety" aspect - the player is constantly bombarded with threats and obstacles. Gordon Freeman never became self-actualized like Ghandi or Eleanor Roosevelt did. However, I do believe that Operant Conditioning is VERY important in games. I'm very glad the author touched on this subject, because I believe that this is one - if not THE - most important aspect in videogames. Anyhow, overall I enjoyed the article. Good luck at MS. --Nairb |
||||
|
||||
 |
Oluseyi Staff Member since: 5/14/2001 From: New York, NY, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 3/21/2003 4:07:49 AM |
||||
| Well, DmGoober says he disagrees with his own article. Wonder why? |
||||
|
||||
|
DmGoober Member since: 11/20/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 3/21/2003 2:33:29 PM |
||||
| This is a copy of the post that Oluseyi kindly linked to: In the year and a half between when I wrote "Evolving Game Design from Alchemy into Science" to when it was published in www.gamedev.net my opinions have changed drastically. While I still strongly agree that well defined theories are needed to help guide game design, I disagree with the premise that these theories should be borrowed from psychology, and strongly disagree with using base psychological principals to make a game addictive. While using psychological principles can be helpful (the psychological explanation of seeing three dimensions is still valid) it most definitely should not relied upon in order to make games compelling. Doing so lowers games to the level of slot machines and rats pushing levers. Rather games, if games must rely on existing theories, should rely on artistic theories such as those that explain why novels, movies, or even paintings are compelling. These theories deepen and expand games to art, rather lowering them to slot machines. We must also create our own design theories. No exsiting artistic theory can fully analyze games as no other artistic theory accounts for interactivity. In a nutshell, theories are important to help us truly understand game design. Unfortunately, borrowing these theories from psychology will only debase games, while borrowing from other arts will limit games. We need our own theories. P.S. The article was written well before I joined Microsoft and the opinions expressed there are my own and in no represent Microsoft. Besides, we're not all a bunch of like minded drones here at MS (there are many design arguments and different opinions at Microsoft.) [edited by - DmGoober on March 21, 2003 2:40:29 PM] |
||||
|
||||
|
Argus Member since: 12/26/2001 |
|||
|
Posted - 3/21/2003 3:27:40 PM |
||||
| I agree with your re-assessment. However, I believe that books and art also rely on psychological principles to succeed, and that artistic theories are only a subset of these. Solving a problem, completing a difficult task, and the thrill that (assisted) make-believe can provide are all examples of positive feedback obtainable from a good game. I don't think games require much further explanation. |
||||
|
||||
|
irbrian Member since: 7/31/2002 From: Hyde Park, UT, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 3/22/2003 12:07:50 AM |
||||
| A simple case of Many Different Methods to Arrive at the Same Result I think. There is nothing inherently wrong with the article in question, nor with the views expressed in it (even if the author now personally disagrees with them). The fact is, Game Design IS an art. Quite bluntly, it is the art behind the science of game development (as a whole -- I know that artists and even programmers to a degree have their own artistic influence on the project). But as with any other art, there is a degree of science behind it. Its just not really science that can be proved with concrete or mathematical evidence, and as such it still leaves a lot open to the interpretation of the artist. The science behind a painting, for instance, is in the proper use of color theory, perspective, proportion, lighting, texture, and so on. I'm not artist, but as I understand it this is collectively called Art Theory. Game Design Theory "Game Design Theory" (abbreviated from here on as GDT) is an important term that I believe describes the delicate balance between art and science with regard to game design. As I define it, GDT would be the collection of tried-and-true principles that lead a designer to the best possible outcome of design. So in answer to this article, I propose that it is not the science of game design that we ought to pursue as practicers and observers of the game design profession, but rather a solid definition of Game Design Theory . I welcome and in fact encourage discussion on that point. I'd like to briefly add a few of my own views to this end, though: 1) Several experienced designers have already made attempts at defining Game Design Theory, whether or not they acknowledged their attempts as such. It is important to take these attempts into account; in any field of research, it is foolish to not take into account the conclusions of prior research and experience. 2) In my humble opinion, the science of psychology actually IS a good basis for some aspects of GDT. There are several discussions in the Game Design forum on this site about what actually makes games fun -- but what about the more direct question of WHY those elements are fun? Forming a solid foundation, based in psychology, describing the reasons that people experience "fun" in games, may even give current and future designers a basis for developing truly innovative game features, mechanics, and designs while limiting the risk of straying from the ultimate goal of making a game fun. In other words, such a foundation could be expanded upon in efforts to explore new ways to motivate players, capture their attention, and make them want to play. (A solid definition of the term "fun" when applied to games may also be in order.) Comments? Brian Lacy ForeverDream Studios Comments? Questions? Curious? brian@foreverdreamstudios.com "I create. Therefore I am." [edited by - irbrian on March 21, 2003 12:08:08 AM] |
||||
|
||||
|
GBGames Member since: 1/25/2001 From: Chicago, IL, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 3/26/2003 5:04:16 PM |
||||
| This explains why when I tried to email you about the article it bounced back. Here is a copy of the email. quote: Clearly this is a bit more formal that it might be in a web forum, but in any case, my opinion about the issue originally discussed: It is an art. Science simply helps form that art. |
||||
|
||||
|
DmGoober Member since: 11/20/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 3/27/2003 6:00:20 PM |
||||
| Gianfranco -- My opinions have changed since I've written the article. Here's my current train of thought: 1) "Addiction" does have a negative connotation. "Addiction" is a bad thing. 2) Games should not be called "addictive." 3) For this to happen, games should stop being "addictive." 4) Instead, they should be compelling for artistic, intelligent reasons. My Point: It's not so much avoiding the word "addiction" as making games so that the word "addictive" is no longer applicable. Make games so that reviewers choose words like, "Epic" or "Really captures the human spirit" or "a truly depressing bleak outlook on human existence." "Addictive" game play is just a crutch that relies on very easy, basic psychological principles to be compelling. It's much harder to try and be compelling through presenting interesting deep ideas. Avoid addictions, not just as a cosmetic PR act, but rather as a true genuine action. |
||||
|
||||
|
GBGames Member since: 1/25/2001 From: Chicago, IL, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 3/28/2003 12:26:31 PM |
||||
| You know, I never really thought about it as two different things. I just thought that it was a matter of using a different word for the same thing. I guess my question is: How do you make something considered compelling yet not considered addicting? Obviously you can make a compelling book. Someone just wants to keep reading it to the end. I guess you can make a video game the same way, except games are sometimes meant to be 30-80 hours of play. But how do you say that it is compelling as opposed to addicting gameplay? Is it just a matter of different terminology as I think, or are you saying that there is a difference between how the two are implemented? |
||||
|
||||
|
DmGoober Member since: 11/20/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 3/28/2003 7:09:01 PM |
||||
| Gianfranco -- You've hit the nail on the head. The solution is to make games shorter. In order to make a game have 30 hours of play, or even 10 in the case of a short game, there must be "filler." This filler is usually not super compelling on its own, so it usually ends up being addictive in order to be compelling (though there are exceptions.) Movie makers sometimes have problems making a 2 hour movie compelling -- making a 10 hour long game compelling is very hard. So make them shorter! Of course, short games changes the economic model drastically. Short games are better distributed online (cheaper than boxing and shipping.) As short games are shorter, they'd have to be cheaper. If they're cheaper, publishers can't invest as much per title. So publishers will have to start reusing engines in order to amoritize technology costs over many titles. This has advantages for both developers and publishers. If a publisher is making many small games that share the same technology their risk is spread over many titles -- if any one of the games tanks, they don't have to worry about losing a ton of money. For the developer, the advantage is that they get to push out many small titles -- which helps with cash flow problems (cash drying up before a title is finished.) Short games also attract more casual gamers -- if you tell an average person, "Here play FF! You'll get a great story and it will only take 30 hours if you speed through the game!" They'll laugh at you. Tell them 2 hours and they might play. Another trick is to forget about replayability. Your game may have a really deep message, but by the 123123908 time the player plays it, the message becomes lost. Take counter strike for example. The first time you play, you totally imagine you are a counter terrorist hunting terrorists. It feels cool. The 15th time you've played it, that feeling is gone. Replayability often dilutes compelling ideas... (of course, if the purpose of your game is to be a multiplayer game like CS, the problem is not so pronounced. But imagine playing the D-Day level of MOH over and over again... it loses its magic. More than likely, if a player is replaying your game over and over again they are addicted in some way [or your stuff is really really compelling... but this is unlikely.]) Have you ever heard of people who only download demos and play through them? There are actually a lot of these people who feel that they get all they need to out of a game by just playing the demo through once. The short games idea appeals to this audience... [edited by - DmGoober on March 28, 2003 7:12:03 PM] |
||||
|
||||
|
Anonymous Poster |
|||
Posted - 3/28/2003 7:27:20 PM |
||||
| So you're now saying "create art for the audience"? That's the saddest thing I've heard in a long time. There are two extremes of desperate artist: one that thinks they will only succeed at art if they achieve singular greatness and one that thinks they will only succeed at art if they achieve total acceptance. Both of these forget that the real reason to create art is to CREATE ART. The audience is not only not important, but detracts from the art itself. If you have a message, it does not matter how (or IF) it will be interpretted. Your responsibility is to the art. And it's statements like... [qoute]Of course, short games changes the economic model drastically. Short games are better distributed online (cheaper than boxing and shipping.) As short games are shorter, they'd have to be cheaper. If they're cheaper, publishers can't invest as much per title. So publishers will have to start reusing engines in order to amoritize technology costs over many titles. ...that lead to McDonalds and homogenized culture, even in the micro-subculture that is games. So, while your solution works for you, your publisher, and everyone's "bottom line", I will continue to invest MY time and MY energy in creating games that I will enjoy, I will replay, and I will appreciate - and who knows, maybe someone else will, too. |
||||
|
||||
|
DmGoober Member since: 11/20/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 3/31/2003 1:18:48 AM |
||||
quote: Most artists create art for BOTH the audience and for themselves. Why do writer's write in complete sentences? Most writers could certainly write their novels in short hand that only they could understand. But no, writers create their art with the understanding that there is an audience. So, they write in complete sentences so that the audience understands. Another example is Michelangelo's David. The sculpture was purposefully created with a distortedly large head so that the audience, who would be viewing it from below, would perceive the statue as being proportional. If this isn't pandering the art for the audience, I don't know what is. If the only "valuable" art is created for the individual that created it, then why do artists tend to seek an audience to view their works? Most art historians view the main purpose of art as a means of communicating between the artist and others. “When you boil it all down, that is the social purpose of art: the creation of mutuality, the passage from feeling into shared meaning.” [Robert Hughes (Australian-American) art critic, in an address at Skowhegen School of Art in 1996 (New Yorker).] quote: Do you create video games for people to play them, or do you create them just for the sake of creating them? I can see creating art, say a painting, for the self satisfaction of creating the painting, but games are meant to be played! The interactive elements of gaming, by definition, require a user. Thus, by choosing an interactive art one naturally assumes that there is an audience that is interacting with the art. Do you print instruction manuals with your games? Why? Because you need them for the audience to understand (you certainly don't need the manual, because you know how to play your own games.) The audience IS important. quote: Reusing technology is not the same as homogenizing culture. Are you saying that you program your games by hooking up transistors to each other, to avoid reusing compiler and computer technology? Obviously not. Do artists make their own paintbrushes to avoid having "homogenized" paintings? No. quote: Oh no! You better not start thinking about someone else appreciating your game, or else you may accidentally start "creating art for an audience!" Banish the thought! Banish the thought! Screw the audience! [edited by - DmGoober on March 31, 2003 1:27:04 AM] |
||||
|
||||
|
DmGoober Member since: 11/20/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 3/31/2003 10:49:53 AM |
||||
| Ok I thought about this overnight. I think what the last anonymous poster was trying to say, is not that the audience is unimportant but rather that the artist should not compromise her message for the sake of the audience, which I agree with, somewhat. However, I think that artists should bend over backwards to make sure their message is accessible to the audience. Thus, artists cannot completely forget about or ignore the audience. I don't think it's a crime for artists to try and make their message as clear as possible to the audience without compromising the message. And even this is "ideal world" speculation. Face it -- games are a business and games are expensive to make. If the game designer chooses a message that only she is interested in she will have maintained her artistic integrity, but she will also be flat broke, in debt, and unable to make the capital investments necessary to make another game. So the trick is for the designer to MAKE the message interesting without compromising the message. And hey, if the designer decided to use middleware and/or share technology with other games, the cost savings could make it more economically viable for her to take a risk at making a game with a more inaccessible message. (That is, if the anonymous poster can get over his fear of reusing technology.) |
||||
|
||||
|
SoaringTortoise Member since: 2/3/2003 From: Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) |
|||
|
Posted - 4/2/2003 8:22:37 AM |
||||
| I can agree very slightly with the idea of using science to improve the likely success of a gaming project. However it does really depend on whether you see games as art or simply as product. If you see them as product, then using scientific principles to continuously create hit games is quite fine. It may lead to repetition and a consequent need for increased marketing but that is a good business model (hollywood is a prime example of method-spawned art product... there is rarely anything new, but that doesn't matter because the marketing still tricks enough of us to go and buy a ticket that the ROI is acceptable). For people who approach it from this angle, the operative question is, "How can I make a game that will make me XXXX profit?" You can also choose to see games as an art form, in which case you are attempting to express a creative idea through a very interesting medium and your question is more likely to be, "How do I create a game that allows players to explore this idea?" However, like all good art, it is important to know what works and what doesn't otherwise you end up with something that may be incredibly artistic, but utterly unenjoyable on any level. So, yes, I agree that science has a place in game design, but it should be in an enabling role as a opposed to a guiding one. Console and arcade games are the possible exceptions to this, where marketing and shallow gameplay are, generally, acceptable methods of profit. Learning to fly is easy, but as a tortoise, the landings are really rough. |
||||
|
||||
|
meathelix Member since: 2/12/2003 From: Hattiesburg, MS |
|||
|
Posted - 4/4/2003 10:56:35 PM |
||||
| I found this article to be a complete load of nonsense. First of all, the author makes a bunch of very misguided statements about the field of art. Art is NOT about trying really hard for millenia to make 3d illusion on a 2d canvas. Art is about making a visually appealing series of marks on a 2D surface, according to aesthetic principles such as balance and contrast. The illusion of depth takes away from this, diminishing the power of the design by distracting the viewer with an extra dimension. Since this isn't about art theory I won't go into principles used to negate those depth cues and create a graphic work, but I'd just like to make it clear that you should do more than "15 minutes of research" before trying to wield knowledge of a subject with some authority. There are principles in art, just as there are principles already existing in game design, but none of these are viewed as a formula for creating the perfect drawing or painting. As for the concept of using scientific method to produce a winning game design, I think it's a soulless methodology. It's akin to the neural network algorithm certain producers in the music industry are using to see what makes a successful pop song; it's completely missing the point and focusing only on the bottom line. If you have the reigns of a game design in your hands, and have to sit and think about what made I Love Lucy so popular or why people dig Brittney Spears, then you should be in another industry, perhaps advertising or some other soul sucking medium. I'm all for game design theory, but this article is just another example of misguided theory, and an over-intellectual preaching from the mountain mentality. It's a sterilizing dogma typical of ivy leaguers taking things too methodically, and I have to say I'll happily stick with alchemy. Rich Wilson Starving artist, graphics programmer, aspiring game developer http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Rich_wilson |
||||
|
||||
|
DmGoober Member since: 11/20/2000 |
|||
|
Posted - 4/5/2003 1:38:44 PM |
||||
| Meathelix -- I encourage you to read the rest of this forum thread, whereby I state that this article was written 1.5 years ago and that my opinions have changed drastically since then. You will find that I agree with you. (Except for the bit about "It's a sterilizing dogma typical of ivy leaguers" which is about as stereotypical as the other poster who claimed: "But as normal with people from Microsoft they try make everything into a science." Next thing you know it, people will be claiming that my article is "typical of the skewed view of Asians.") Alexander [edited by - DmGoober on April 5, 2003 1:50:38 PM] |
||||
|
||||
|
runemaster Member since: 7/11/2000 From: the brink of insanity |
|||
|
Posted - 4/5/2003 4:48:31 PM |
||||
| Wow. I disagree with many aspects of the article, but the discussion in this thread is fascinating. I also find it fascinating how your thoughts on game design changed in a very similar way to mine. I've written a post about how I myself changed as a game designer here. You can also find many articles about my thoughts on game design on my site (or at gamedeveloper.net). ----- Jonas Kyratzes - progressive game design & development Press ALT + F4 to see the special admin page. [edited by - runemaster on April 5, 2003 4:51:10 PM] |
||||
|
||||
|
meathelix Member since: 2/12/2003 From: Hattiesburg, MS |
|||
|
Posted - 4/6/2003 6:06:39 AM |
||||
| Touche' DMGoober. Perhaps I was venting a bit too much. I wasn't aiming to sound like a jackass, just one of those days where I was probably taking everything personally. I do appreciate the application of theory to game development, and apologize for the stereotyping. After all, if people are going to be throwing around stereotypes, I'd get lumped in with people who are from Mississippi  Rich Wilson Starving artist, graphics programmer, aspiring game developer http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Rich_wilson |
||||
|
||||
|
tillot Member since: 4/25/2003 From: USA |
|||
|
Posted - 4/25/2003 3:33:26 PM |
||||
| Good article with a good discussion. What amazes me most is how people try to seperate art and science. Yet both are ways we use to communicate with and understand the cosmos. Science is usually though as those things which we can describe, catalog, and repeat, i.e. the scientific method. Art is usually thought of as those things which we can only understand through experience. The greatest artists, like Michelangelo and Da Vinci, are also highly scientific. The greatest scientists, like Einstein, are also highly artistic in how they approach the world. Science forms a great foundation from which we can create more powerful and immersive art, but it in no way can supplant the creativity of the artist, nor should it create barriers the artist cannot cross. On the other hand, art is driving science forward. Where would CG be without great animators and artists? I agree that addiction is damaging to both the addicted and the producer of the addictive substance (including games). The relationship tends to reduce both science and art to a basic stimulus and response. I believe addiction should be avoided both on the moral and sociological effects it has on those involved. Making money from games should allow us to make more great games, rather then prompt us to make cheap trash to imbezzle our naive audience. This should be a symbiotic rather then a parasitic relationship. When our games cause our audience to laugh, think about the world in a different way, to lighten from the stress of living, to become something more, to dream of things they never dreamt of, or best of all, when the games inspire them to produce more art and science, we truly have done something wonderful. Okay, so I'm waxing a little philosophical, but isn't that what games should be about? Tim Tillotson |
||||
|
||||
|
crazemanx Member since: 10/18/2001 From: UK |
|||
|
Posted - 4/25/2003 4:56:06 PM |
||||
| A thought on compulsion/addiction: Something addictive is compelling, something compelling is not necessarily addictive. Addiction implies repetition but compulsion does not. [edited by - Crazemanx on April 25, 2003 4:57:46 PM] |
||||
|
||||
| All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
