Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Ideas are a dime a dozen...


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
88 replies to this topic

#21 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 17253

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 20 January 2013 - 02:29 PM

I go in-depth into my thoughts about a 'game designer' position here.

The entire post is important in my opinion (says the person who wrote it), but here is one snippet amidst many:

 

I'd love for someone to adequately explain in detail why changing the reload time of the sniper rifle in Halo 3 from 0.5 seconds to 0.7 seconds was beneficial. That is a game designer. Someone who constantly has in the back of his mind that it takes exactly 2.4 seconds for the player to do a complete 180 degree turn around in whatever specific FPS he's working on, and the effect it has on competitive play. This is the science of game design. It should be called "gameplay mechanic engineer", IMO.

Edited by Servant of the Lord, 20 January 2013 - 02:30 PM.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.                                                                                                                                                       [Need free cloud storage? I personally like DropBox]

Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal


Sponsor:

#22 SinisterPride   Members   -  Reputation: 210

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 20 January 2013 - 03:07 PM

@Servant of the Lord: Thank you for linking your article smile.png It was indeed important and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it as well as wholeheartedly believe it to be true as it is necessary.


This goes in line with what I had just posted on being grounded in my role. It would allow me to contribute to other disciplines either through my own or through understanding/knowledge of other said disciplines. Thank you for your input Sir smile.png


Edited by SinisterPride, 26 January 2013 - 06:49 AM.


#23 wodinoneeye   Members   -  Reputation: 679

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:26 AM

The nature of your  'idea' will significantly effect any answer you can get.

 

Is it a paradigm shift that noone in the industry will seriously consider (maybe even for 10 years)...

(I have BIG ideas that a whole generation of tools would need to be developed to make happen)

 

Is it some nifty game mechanic that any company would want demonstrated before they will understand it is doable...

(someone mentioned using mods of existing games to short circuit prototyping your idea)

 

Is it something that could be put on an APP (and thus rarely make a single buck of profit, thus cutting out all but hobbyist development).

 

DO you know it will work ?   Thats sometimes the hardest of all -- to realize an idea just wont work (or rather work in the right way  so players would actually want to play it).

 

---

 

Ideas ARE a dime a dozen, but demonstratable ideas cost alot more...


Edited by wodinoneeye, 21 January 2013 - 09:27 AM.

--------------------------------------------Ratings are Opinion, not Fact

#24 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3127

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:36 AM

Design is really not the same kind of activity as development.  There are many people who enjoy one activity and not the other, in both directions. 

I don't know... maybe... but still I find it suspicious, this whole divison to design and development. I think I could agree to some people liking only development without design (like coders who like to code, whatever it is), but someone who likes designing and not liking developing? That does not make sense to me...

 

Architects may not construct the final building, but they don't just have ideas of what they want

 

I think architecture is a very bad example. Builders precisely follow the given blueprints, they are not allowed to change almost anything (even materials used or thickness of the walls), it's required by law. On the other hand development process stray so far from the original design document that... What the designers envisioned and what was delivered is so different that if it was a building it would surely crumble :D

 

Game designers are not like architects. They are not even remotely similar.


Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (BETA)


#25 Tom Sloper   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8688

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 09:57 AM

Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas.

 

No, it's not!  http://sloperama.com/advice/lesson14.htm


Edited by Tom Sloper, 21 January 2013 - 09:58 AM.

-- Tom Sloper
Sloperama Productions
Making games fun and getting them done.
www.sloperama.com

Please do not PM me. My email address is easy to find, but note that I do not give private advice.

#26 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3329

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:23 AM

Architects may not construct the final building, but they don't just have ideas of what they want


I think architecture is a very bad example. Builders precisely follow the given blueprints, they are not allowed to change almost anything (even materials used or thickness of the walls), it's required by law. On the other hand development process stray so far from the original design document that... What the designers envisioned and what was delivered is so different that if it was a building it would surely crumble

Game designers are not like architects. They are not even remotely similar.

Hmm, I disagree. All you are really saying is that game designers have not learned how to be very good at their job yet. This is because we don't really understand games very well. If people truly understood games fully, it would be possible to produce a precise design that a programmer could turn into a completely functional and playable game.

It is rather beside the point though - the point was that anybody who is truly involved in the design process is also truly involved in the implementation process.


Edited by Kylotan, 21 January 2013 - 10:23 AM.


#27 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 9637

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:26 AM

If people truly understood games fully, it would be possible to produce a precise design that a programmer could turn into a completely functional and playable game.
What makes you think that game design is a fully deterministic process? All the evidence I see suggests that works best as an iterative process between designer, artist and developer.

We don't build a house with 12ft ceilings, make a beta tester live there for a month, and then rip the building apart to make 14ft ceilings. In game design, this sort of thing is a daily occurrence...

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#28 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3329

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

It's pretty much a tautological fact. The only reason you ever need to iterate is because you didn't have enough information originally, because the act of iteration X is done to get you information for iteration X+1. It stands to reason that if you already had that knowledge and the same resources, you wouldn't need previous iterations. You could always have written the final version first, had you known that's what was needed.

 

On a more practical and less idealistic level, better understanding of games and software could seriously reduce the amount of iterating, waste, and trial-and-error that currently takes place. We're learning to iterate faster because it's easier than learning to understand better.



#29 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 9637

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:15 PM

It's pretty much a tautological fact. The only reason you ever need to iterate is because you didn't have enough information originally
That once again assumes that the problem space is fully deterministic.

It's not clear to me that abstract concepts like "aesthetics" and "fun" adhere to determinism in the same way as does the ability of a bridge to withstand 10,000 newtons of lateral shear...

Edited by swiftcoder, 21 January 2013 - 12:15 PM.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#30 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3329

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:27 PM

If the problem space is deterministic, then iteration is not strictly necessary. And if the problem space is not deterministic, then iteration is not strictly sufficient. The fact that we embrace the iterative process shows that we presume there is important information to be found about our designs, and I agree - I just think that we shouldn't think iteration is the only way to find it.

 

(As an aside, it's not strictly an architect's job to ensure a bridge withstands 10000 newtons of lateral shear - that's what civil engineers are for. Information is passed up and down the chain to facilitate the optimal design. This is quite relevant because I gave the example of an architect just to show that even someone who works mostly on the aesthetic and functional side rather than the low level implementation details still has to draw up detailed artefacts to show what they want constructing. Any iteration is confined to the higher level parts of the process.)



#31 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 9637

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 12:35 PM

Iterative cycles won't necessarily converge in a non-deterministic space, sure - and that's kind of what I am getting at.

If two engineers set out independently to determine the acceleration due to gravity, they will eventually converge right around 9.8 m/s. If you and I both set out independently to create "fun", chances are that we won't ever converge on the same definition thereof.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#32 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 926

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:13 PM

That's a ridiculous comparison. A better one would be whether two teams of engineers architects electricians and plumbers would come to an identical conclusion about the optimal way to construct a cheap housing unit. Which they would not. The two results would never be the same.



#33 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 9637

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:21 PM

That's a ridiculous comparison
Intentionally. One is an emergent property of physics, and one is, well... something. We aren't really sure what, though.

To suggest that an abstract psychological/philosophical construct is amenable to the same sort of treatment as a physical property - that seems insane to me.

You can't universally quantify 'fun'. At best you might be able to build a probabilistic model across a limited segment of the population, but even that is going to be subject to local extremes.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#34 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 926

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:45 PM

Well one major problem is how little entertainment success has to do with the product itself. So much of it is tied up in name recognition, popularity, marketing, and other such nonsense.

 

You really only need a baseline quality in a product and then its all about perception and marketing.



#35 sunandshadow   Moderators   -  Reputation: 4583

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 03:14 PM

Design is really not the same kind of activity as development.  There are many people who enjoy one activity and not the other, in both directions. 

I don't know... maybe... but still I find it suspicious, this whole division to design and development. I think I could agree to some people liking only development without design (like coders who like to code, whatever it is), but someone who likes designing and not liking developing? That does not make sense to me...

There are lots of things that don't make sense to me (like how anyone could like sandbox games, lol) that evidently make sense to people who are different from me.  I think of design and development as different types of activities, but they're not wholly separate in that both are essential to artistic creation.  A successful creator is by definition able to do both, so perhaps the reason why you have difficulty picturing a designer who does not like developing is that they are set up to fail at actually creating anything.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist, and a few succeed by either forcing themselves to do the development like it's exercise or homework, or by using money as leverage to get others to do the development.  I don't know if you've ever glanced at my developer journal, but both my recent guide to designing a pet game and my old writings are all primarily about design; the only development I talk about is writing documentation and creating concept art.  It seemed quite natural to me to separate design and development when I wanted to write educational materials aimed at walking people through designing a game.  I don't hate development, and I've done some, but design interests me far more as a subject to theorize and teach about.  Probably the reason I gravitated toward writing fiction as my first vocation is that it's the art form with the highest ratio of design to development.  But even there, I find coming up with story ideas a lot of fun, while writing them down is not as fun.

 

Personally I think the process of creating a sculpture or painting is much more similar to game development than architecture.  They are more iterative, though that iteration usually only involves the artist.  Like game design they can start in multiple places, such as the artist envisioning an audience member's visceral reaction to the finished piece of art, or something less tangible like an artist deciding to make a piece representing an abstract theme (e.g. transcendence), or something more functional like an artist being commissioned to make a replacement carousel horse which will be durable and fit in visually with the existing horses.  Like game development the craftsman may create the work in layers or pieces, with experimentation necessary in either approach, and some of those layers or pieces may be redone when they don't pass a beta evaluation.

 

Notice the difference between design as art and development as craft, just like a painter or sculptor would talk about the difference between artistic goals and craftsmanship.  That's how I see design and development as different but working together.  It would be an oversimplification to say that they are separated chronologically, because even in an iterative process you don't have pure design phases and pure development phases.  Development inspires (re)design, and design doesn't exist in the world outside the artist's head unless you at least develop it with some documentation and/or sketches.  Architecture is actually an extreme example of chronological separation between design and development, and it only is that way because economics and safety concerns force it to be, somewhat against human nature.  In the realm of fiction writers there's actually a big 'political' divide between those who chronologically separate design from development (outliners) and those who try to integrate the two as much as possible (spontaneous writers or pantsers, meaning people who write by the seat of their pants).  Screenplay writers, like architects, are pretty much forced into a development process that separates design from development.  And I think this is where some people entering the field of game design get the erroneous idea that they can write a game design document or game script and sell it to a game studio; because that is how it would work if game studios were more like movie studios.


Phone game idea available free to someone who will develop it (Alphadoku game - the only existing phone game of this type is both for windows phone only and awful. PM for details.)


I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.


#36 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3329

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:54 PM

That's a ridiculous comparison. A better one would be whether two teams of engineers architects electricians and plumbers would come to an identical conclusion about the optimal way to construct a cheap housing unit. Which they would not. The two results would never be the same.

 

I don't think anybody is talking about an 'optimum' for a fairly broad concept such as 'a cheap housing unit'. It's more about one organisation's preference for a fairly specific product - in that case, it is certainly reasonable to expect that they would converge on pretty much exactly what they want, whichever way they approached it, given enough time/knowledge/resources.



#37 Kylotan   Moderators   -  Reputation: 3329

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:03 PM

To suggest that an abstract psychological/philosophical construct is amenable to the same sort of treatment as a physical property - that seems insane to me.

You can't universally quantify 'fun'. At best you might be able to build a probabilistic model across a limited segment of the population, but even that is going to be subject to local extremes.

 

That is sort of moving the goalposts to be something deliberately fluffy however. The fact is, people do try and understand fun (eg. Raph Koster's A Theory of Fun for Game Design), they classify fun (eg. Nicole Lazzaro's 4 types of fun), and consider the reasons why people enjoy games (eg. the Bartle player types). These are known, they have some empirical and theoretical support. And as a result you can deliberately design towards them. You don't need to try and find some universally fun mechanic - you just need to find a way to make your game enjoyable to the people you are aiming it at, and there are tools and research to facilitate that.

 

But even if you ignore all that, the fact that you think that iteration and testing can 'find' the fun shows that you're measuring it somehow, even if it's just a case of knowing it when you see it. And when you see it, you can usually understand why it is fun. And someone with that information can replicate that in future.



#38 SinisterPride   Members   -  Reputation: 210

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 06:47 PM

@Sir Sloper: First off, thank you for gracing my thread with your presence biggrin.png 
 
You've been a huge fountain of information, inspiration and have unknowingly shown me tough love. I can honestly and without question say that you are one of the main reasons I did not drop my long-term passion for game design and development. If it weren't for your input I would be content with being a gamer, focusing on my writing career, and would have long since discarded any notion of design even as a hobby. Although I don't consider myself above or much further than a Gamer/Fanboy I have to thank you for making your experience and knowledge so easily accessible.
 
I have to disagree with your post though (to some extent).
 
Yes, my choice of words could have been more accurate. However, it was taken out of context. I'd wholeheartedly agree if the quoted statement stood alone. As it was intended, the commentary was about comparing Design & Development. I meant to say that design (thoughts, organizational aspects, iteration) is more cerebral, artistic and creative than Legendre was painting it out to be. While development (programming, 3D modeling, and such) is more logical, adheres to more rigid constraints leaving little room for artistry and there is often no way around certain things. By nature, these disciplines in the development phase are unequivocal with indisputable aspects.
 
I have in fact read article (aka lesson) 14 multiple times at different points through out the years. I know exactly what it is you wish to enlightenment me on. Thanks again Sir smile.png 
 
←§•ɸ◦§→
 
@Archaris: Hello again Archaris, glad to have you back in the conversation  smile.png

You made some good points which made me conscious of the unbiased/varying nature of my perspective (if only by actively acknowledging it; I know its there lol) with this:
 

I could agree to some people liking only development without design (like coders who like to code, whatever it is), but someone who likes designing and not liking developing? That does not make sense to me...

 
To which I reply with - If one side of a pendulum/spectrum is plausible why is the other unacceptable/unthinkable?
 
Out of respect and appreciattion I was gonna quote/add some commentary to Lady SunAndShadows' posted re:re: reply. On my second and a half read through of her post however, it dawned on me that I rather not quote or comment. Not because I don't have anything to say. On the contrary, I have so much to say and feel so strongly about her post that I found it more fitting and respectful to NOT comment. It was beautifully, accurately, purposefully as well as distinctively worded so I couldn't possibly allow myself to skew any of it by disecting it in my mind.
 
Thank you for your input Lady SunAndShadow, it is thoroughly appreciated happy.png
 

The other part that which struck a chord was (paraphrasing here):

 

 

Builders precisely follow the blueprints made by architects. They are not allowed to change almost anything or else a building would surely crumble. On the other hand, the development process can stray so far from the original design document that what the designers envisioned and what is delivered can often be so different.

 
Game designers are not like architects. They are not even remotely similar.

Wonderfully thought out analogy in my opinion (even though Kylotan countered it pretty well) with a great explanation to your points/reasoning. Kudos wink.png 

 
←§•ɸ◦§→
 
@WodinOneEye: That has to be, by far, the closest comparison to the sentiment which has driven the majority of my reactions and behaviors pertaining to my ideas. Well said, I felt a very strong connection and adamantly agree with everything you've said.
 
These parts significantly resonated within me:
 

The nature of your  'idea' will significantly effect any answer you can get. It is a paradigm shift that noone in the industry will seriously consider

 
...or that many within the industry will commonly apply in practice. Even if the shift were to begin occuring, it won't be largely supported/practiced by many in the western culture (for atleast another decade as you said).
 
←§•ɸ◦§→
 
This is (in my opinion) because physical examples are collectively malleable and have assessable traits which can be agreed on across the board. That allows for things like realistic deadlines, budget constraints and tools/technological capabilities/ceilings to be calculated.
 
Our (as in you and I),proposed means of operation implore thoughts in place of physical examples. Ideas/thoughts have all the capabilities of physical examples and more due to being infinitely malleable/nebulous by nature. This poses infinite problems as well as infinite possibilities which is a playground few would dare tread on.
 
←§•ɸ◦§→
 
Two things have to occur for this to become plausible in a professional setting. Again, this is all opinion:
 
This ties into part of the point that Kylotan was making when he said:
 

All you are really saying is that game designers have not learned how to be very good at their job yet. This is because we don't really understand games very well. If people truly understood games fully, it would be possible to produce a precise design that a programmer could turn into a completely functional and playable game.

 

As a side note, Kylotan, I loved what you said here (mainly how you said it):

 

the point was that anybody who is truly involved in the design process is also truly involved in the implementation process.

 

One of these things that would have to occur would be advances in communication and iteration techniques/skills across the board for all disciplines. 
______
That means more diverse education within each member off a team. Everyone would need to have a decent grasp of everyone elses discipline while having a strong sense off their own, allowing them to realistically process as well as pass on ideas. If each member can atleast grasp a sense of what the ramifications of their own work can cause a coworker, things become more harmonious by principle. They can both minimize conflict as well as constructively contribute through suggestions or streamlining of the others work.
 

The second would be a stronger sense of poise and discipline to allow the "treading on an infinite playground" to be plausible.
______
If every single member of the group is equally dedicated to maintaining a certain level of poise and discipline, never letting it falter below that level,certain things become less of an issue. If this level of focus were carried out in all their actions,  priorities become simple to meet, giving more time to delve into extra content or focus on quality. There wouldn't be any restrictive time constraints or fear of not reaching deadlines. This fear and pressure alters behaviors and forces certain common results which tend to weaken the quality of projects. A deadline wouldn't need to be established/required in this sort of environment because the time frame will realistically present itself (and be accepted or dismissed) if everyone is working at peak performance.

 

As a side note, peak performance does NOT mean worked to point of high end negative (there are forms of positive) stress. Peak performance is when your resolve/poise is in harmony with your surroundings/environment.

 

The other thing that would be less of a worry is budget constraints. I'm not saying a budget isn't required, that's ludicrous. What I'm saying is that if money wasn't the primary focus, people wouldn't be as greedy. AltarOfScience commented/contributed handsomely to this point:

 

Well one major problem is how little entertainment success has to do with the product itself. So much of it is tied up in name recognition, popularity, marketing, and other such nonsense.
 
You really only need a baseline quality in a product and then its all about perception and marketing.

 

This means a budget can be managed more conservatively without the need to compromise quality or over indulge in salaries. In a sense you wouldn't feel the budget cap nor would you be stressing over the minimum required assets to see a project through if the product came first and potential gross/marketing/popularity came last (not second). <~~~ Ahh, if only people were that unanimously passionate, uninhibited, motivated, dedicated and inspired by their work. We would have such a rise in quality (of product, work ethics, happiness?) and progress within the industry.

 

←§•ɸ◦§→
 

They are obviously farfetched ideals/principles to implement in western culture, but not entirely unrealistic in my opinion. I know that my reason for having these standards as a person aren't normal or common. Alot of it is derived from about two decades of traditional martial arts training. Basically, I don't expect everyone to become Vulcans, able to mind meld in order to share ideas exactly as they envision them. I also don't expect everyone to adopt a monks sensibility and work ethics. Its a nice thought though lol

 

Adding these principles to practice would effectively cause a sense of infinite potential in my opinion. But I'm a pragmatic realist (for the most part tongue.png I like to dream too!) and the world isnt perfect. There will always be limitations. Allowing ideas to be more affluent within a proffesional environment and loosening the safe:risk ratio won't cause this fact to magically ceast to exist.

 
Another part which sparked something within me was:
 

DO you know it will work ?   Thats sometimes the hardest of all -- to realize an idea just wont work (or rather work in the right way  so players would actually want to play it). 
---
Ideas ARE a dime a dozen, but demonstratable ideas cost alot more...

 
..and as convenient as interactive/demonstrable ideas are, they can simply be unrealistic/implausible/unfeasible/impractical to develop JUST as a demonstration tool.
 
←§•ɸ◦§→
 
This is what I was trying to put into words when I was originally flamed and accused of "too much dreaming and not enough doing".
 
My stand was (and probably still is) mistaken for a lack of willingness to flesh out a prototype. The fact is that I an not willing to flesh out a prototype specifically for the sake of demonstration.
 
It can be argued that  a prototype specifically for demonstration, would be work done towards your project (as experience if nothing else) and can ultimately be used within the final product. But as you so elegantly put it, demonstration of the material kind are expensive and time consuming. So much so, that the scope/scale of something as I wish to develop, would not allow it and could quite possibly rendering it pointless. The amount of time and effort I'd spend even producing a prototype could easily cause an overlap of technology, cultural relevance, fall steeply under the trend curve as well as be out developed by up and coming concepts.
 
←§•ɸ◦§→
 
My reasoning behind this is well demonstrated by an event (may not be monumental but it had relevance to me later in life) in gaming history. The lesson came in form of a development team (Team Tachyon of Techmo if I remember right) who worked on the revival of a classic known as Rygar aka Argus no Senshi which was released between 1986-1987. The result, was Rygar: The Legendary Adventure, a title that was released in 2002 and did quite well in my opinion. The thing is, some digging into development journals and minor research will explain the 15 year gap in between releases had to do with something similar to what I'm mentioning. Trust me, the gap was not due to loss and subsequent rekindling of interest.
 
So for those who were wondering and partially challenged me on it:
Yes, I do have some reasoning, history, and research behind my choices/actions which falls back to when I said:

 

..as I have, to some extent, consciously kept things at a design phase.

 

Thank you for your input Sir WodinOneEye, althought you wrote so little the potency of your words meant a great deal to me. It was greatly appreciated ph34r.png (wish they had a bow/namaste smiley lol)
 

←§•ɸ◦§→

 

Lastly, I'm not gonna name names or point fingers but you guys are bickering about semantics and losing focus on the main topics at hand. Lets try to tone down the pretentiousness a bit, then take a step back. We're getting lost in disagreements on analogies and metaphors while agreeing on the same topics rolleyes.gif

 

←§•ɸ◦§→

 
Man... I'd really like to thank every single one of you for contributing to this thread. You guys have seriously turned it into quite a discussion whle keeping the negativity to a minimum. 
 
Heres to the productive sharing that sure to come throughout my prospective time spent on these forums laugh.png
 
Sin ←§•ɸ◦§→
 

Edited by SinisterPride, 26 January 2013 - 06:52 AM.


#39 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 926

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:24 PM

That's a ridiculous comparison. A better one would be whether two teams of engineers architects electricians and plumbers would come to an identical conclusion about the optimal way to construct a cheap housing unit. Which they would not. The two results would never be the same.

 

I don't think anybody is talking about an 'optimum' for a fairly broad concept such as 'a cheap housing unit'. It's more about one organisation's preference for a fairly specific product - in that case, it is certainly reasonable to expect that they would converge on pretty much exactly what they want, whichever way they approached it, given enough time/knowledge/resources.

Just the same as each game design team eventually converges on their preference for a fairly specific product. They will look at it and say: "This is what we wanted." But just like the game design there will be consequences they didn't anticipate and they won't be able to say with assurance that that is the proper way to do it.

 

Hence why its a good comparison.


Edited by AltarofScience, 21 January 2013 - 07:25 PM.


#40 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 22 January 2013 - 05:30 AM

I meant to say that design (thoughts, organizational aspects, iteration) is more cerebral, artistic and creative than Legendre was painting it out to be.

This is a common misconception that the "ideas guy" has. Design is far more cerebral, artistic and creative than mere daydreaming. However, daydreaming is far easier and "lazy" than design, which is why ideas are a dime a dozen. On the other hand, good design is very hard work, and is worth a lot more.

While development (programming, 3D modeling, and such) is more logical, adheres to more rigid constraints leaving little room for artistry and there is often no way around certain things.

On the contrary: creativity and artistry is about skillful, innovative use of the available tools, materials or techniques or the ability to invent/create new ones. Well designed games are those that are able to tell a compelling story or craft amazing gameplay within the given constraints.

Take for example, the combat in your "Project: Alter Ego". Given the constraints of the PS3/Xbox controller, you try to design a fun combat experience for your user. You also need to consider the constraint of how this combat control system fit in your overall game, and how feasible it is to implement vs a simpler system. You also should prototype, test and iterate. You might have to come up with creative ways to pull off certain features given the limitations of the controller. This is design.

What isn't design: ignore all the constraints and assume that you can motion capture all user actions in-game and somehow allow your users to perform difficult moves like somersaults and fencing moves. Then proceed to daydream a game where users participate in epic medieval battles in a virtual reality with life-like detail. Takes zero effort, zero creativity and is completely worthless.

Edited by Legendre, 22 January 2013 - 05:32 AM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS