Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

#ActualSinisterPride

Posted 26 January 2013 - 06:44 AM

I have a feeling that what I've said has lead to inaccurate assumptions. I've never expected my concepts, designs and theories to fast track me into a finished product or allow me to skip parts of the development process. I'm well aware of what a design is, in reference to the many facets of developing a game. A design is simply that, the blueprint and starting point to a much greater prospect. I've known where my work stands in relation to any project that may spring from it.

To put it in metaphorical terms, I've only created the seeds, I know this much. Planting, growing, maintaining and eventually harvesting the fruits of my labor are all different facets which I am conscious of. The role I'd play as well as what else I'd contribute during the other development phases are also within my realm of thought. I haven't spent my time ideologically fantasizing. I have, to some extent, consciously kept things at a design phase. This does not mean I am ignorant to what Game Design & Development is all about.

@JTippettes: I understand the technical aspects within the development process and am in fact quite fond of delving into them. You can't build a rocket if you have no concept of aerodynamics. However, you don't need to retrace ALL the fundamentals of rocket science (and experiment with EVERYTHING that has been done before to reach some where close to current practice) to gain some concrete understanding and advance in the field.

I'm glad you brought up the topics of "Game Design: Art or a Science?". I'm strongly against the common, somewhat naive/misguided, notion that the technical aspects of development are a hindrance and of no consequence to the artistic and creative aspects of the design process. If you don't know what can and can't realistically be achieved with the tools and technology available, you can't effectively design anything. This applies to every form of design, not just games.

@ Legendre: Although I strongly agree with the point you were making as far as the difference between dreamers and doers, I wholeheartedly disagree with your differentiation/definition of what is and isn't Game Design.

 

Game Design = Taking an idea (existing or brand new) and making it work in an actual product under resource/time constraints.

 


What you defined is functional game development. Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas. Where they meet, tying into what you're saying, lies within the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility.


#4SinisterPride

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:27 AM

I have a feeling that what I've said has lead to inaccurate assumptions. I've never expected my concepts, designs and theories to fast track me into a finished product or allow me to skip parts of the development process. I'm well aware of what a design is, in reference to the many facets of developing a game. A design is simply that, the blueprint and starting point to a much greater prospect. I've known where my work stands in relation to any project that may spring from it.

To put it in metaphorical terms, I've only created the seeds, I know this much. Planting, growing, maintaining and eventually harvesting the fruits of my labor are all different facets which I am conscious of. The role I'd play as well as what else I'd contribute during the other development phases are also within my realm of thought. I haven't spent my time ideologically fantasizing. I have, to some extent, consciously kept things at a design phase. This does not mean I am ignorant to what Game Design & Development is all about.

@JTippettes: I understand the technical aspects within the development process and am in fact quite fond of delving into them. You can't build a rocket if you have no concept of aerodynamics. However, you don't need to retrace ALL
 the fundamentals of rocket science (and experiment with EVERYTHING that has been done before to reach some where close to current practice) to gain some concrete understanding and advance in the field.

I'm glad you brought up the topics of "Game Design: Art or a Science?". I'm strongly against the common, somewhat naive/misguided, notion that the technical aspects of development are a hindrance and of no consequence to the artistic and creative aspects of the design process. If you don't know what can and can't realistically be achieved with the tools and technology available, you can't effectively design anything. This applies to every form of design, not just games.

@ Legendre: Although I strongly agree with the point you were making as far as the difference between dreamers and doers, I wholeheartedly disagree with your differentiation/definition of what is and isn't Game Design.

 

Game Design = Taking an idea (existing or brand new) and making it work in an actual product under resource/time constraints.

 


What you defined is functional game development. Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas. Where they meet, tying into what you're saying, lies within the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility.


#3SinisterPride

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:27 AM

I have a feeling that what I've said has lead to inaccurate assumptions. I've never expected my concepts, designs and theories to fast track me into a finished product or allow me to skip parts of the development process. I'm well aware of what a design is, in reference to the many facets of developing a game. A design is simply that, the blueprint and starting point to a much greater prospect. I've known where my work stands in relation to any project that may spring from it.

To put it in metaphorical terms, I've only created the seeds, I know this much. Planting, growing, maintaining and eventually harvesting the fruits of my labor are all different facets which I am conscious of. The role I'd play as well as what else I'd contribute during the other development phases are also within my realm of thought. I haven't spent my time ideologically fantasizing. I have, to some extent, consciously kept things at a design phase. This does not mean I am ignorant to what Game Design & Development is all about.

@JTippettes: I understand the technical aspects within the development process and am in fact quite fond of delving into them. You can't build a rocket if you have no concept of aerodynamics. However, you don't need to retrace ALL
 the fundamentals of rocket science (and experiment with EVERYTHING that has been done before to reach some where close to current practice) to gain some concrete understanding and advance in the field.

I'm glad you brought up the topics of "Game Design: Art or a Science?". I'm strongly against the common, somewhat naive/misguided, notion that the technical aspects of development are a hindrance and of no consequence to the artistic and creative aspects of the design process. If you don't know what can and can't realistically be achieved with the tools and technology available, you can't effectively design anything. This applies to every form of design, not just games.

@ Legendre: Although I strongly agree with the point you were making as far as the difference between dreamers and doers, I wholeheartedly disagree with your differentiation/definition of what is and isn't Game Design.


Game Design = Taking an idea (existing or brand new) and making it work in an actual product under resource/time constraints.



What you defined is functional game development. Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas. Where they meet, tying into what you're saying, lies within the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility.


#2SinisterPride

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:25 AM

I have a feeling that what I've said has lead to inaccurate assumptions. I've never expected my concepts, designs and theories to fast track me into a finished product or allow me to skip parts of the development process. I'm well aware of what a design is, in reference to the many facets of developing a game. A design is simply that, the blueprint and starting point to a much greater prospect. I've known where my work stands in relation to any project that may spring from it.

To put it in metaphorical terms, I've only created the seeds, I know this much. Planting, growing, maintaining and eventually harvesting the fruits of my labor are all different facets which I am conscious of. The role I'd play as well as what else I'd contribute during the other development phases are also within my realm of thought. I haven't spent my time ideologically fantasizing. I have, to some extent, consciously kept things at a design phase. This does not mean I am ignorant to what Game Design & Development is all about.

@JTippettes: I understand the technical aspects within the development process and am in fact quite fond of delving into them. You can't build a rocket if you have no concept of aerodynamics. However, you don't need to retrace ALL
 the fundamentals of rocket science (and experiment with EVERYTHING that has been done before to reach some where close to current practice) to gain some concrete understanding and advance in the field.

I'm glad you brought up the topics of "Game Design: Art or a Science?". I'm strongly against the common, somewhat naive/misguided, notion that the technical aspects of development are a hindrance and of no consequence to the artistic and creative aspects of the design process. If you don't know what can and can't realistically be achieved with the tools and technology available, you can't effectively design anything. This applies to every form of design, not just games.

@ Legendre: Although I strongly agree with the point you were making as far as the difference between dreamers and doers, I wholeheartedly disagree with your differentiation/definition of what is and isn't Game Design.

"Taking an idea (existing or brand new) and making it work in an actual product under resource/time constraints."

What you defined is functional game development. Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas. Where they meet, tying into what you're saying, lies within the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility.


#1SinisterPride

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:59 PM

I have a feeling that what I've said has lead to inaccurate assumptions. I've never expected my concepts, designs and theories to fast track me into a finished product or allow me to skip parts of the development process. I'm well aware of what a design is, in reference to the many facets of developing a game. A design is simply that, the blueprint and starting point to a much greater prospect. I've known where my work stands in relation to any project that may spring from it.

To put it in metaphorical terms, I've only created the seeds, I know this much. Planting, growing, maintaining and eventually harvesting the fruits of my labor are all different facets which I am conscious of. The role I'd play as well as what else I'd contribute during the other development phases are also within my realm of thought. I haven't spent my time ideologically fantasizing. I have, to some extent, consciously kept things at a design phase. This does not mean I am ignorant to what Game Design & Development is all about.

@JTippettes: I understand the technical aspects within the development process and am in fact quite fond of delving into them. You can't build a rocket if you have no concept of aerodynamics. However, you don't need to retrace all the fundamentals of rocket science (and experiment with what has been done before) to advance in the field.

I'm glad you brought up the topics of "Game Design: Art or a Science?". I'm strongly against the common, somewhat naive/misguided, notion that the technical aspects of development are a hindrance and of no consequence to the artistic and creative aspects of the design process. If you don't know what can and can't realistically be achieved with the tools and technology available, you can't effectively design anything. This applies to every form of design, not just games.

@ Legendre: Although I strongly agree with the point you were making as far as the difference between dreamers and doers, I wholeheartedly disagree with your differentiation/definition of what is and isn't Game Design.

"Taking an idea (existing or brand new) and making it work in an actual product under resource/time constraints."

What you defined is functional game development. Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas. Where they meet, tying into what you're saying, lies within the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility.

PARTNERS