Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


What's the true worth of an initial game idea?


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
107 replies to this topic

#61 Sandman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2136

Posted 13 May 2013 - 04:43 AM

I have read numerous times about how ideas are a dime a dozen and just about worthless, but is there ever a point when an idea gains value? What if that idea has been refined over the course of months, or even years, to the point where just about every detail of the game can be explained in words precisely, down to each minute aspect? What if the design document is so comprehensive that it can be followed to a T, with little need for interpretation? Say, for instance, this "idea guy" was making an RPG, and in his GDD he has descriptions of every combat mechanic, formulas for every kind of calculation, tables of every item in the game (along with stats, descriptions, etc.), drop tables, blueprints of every map, the storyline progression, detail of each quest, and so on...

Even after all that, would that idea still be just about worthless, or would it have gained some value by then?

 

There is a point when an idea gains value: When it starts generating money.

 

As I said before, a thing is worth what someone will pay for it. When we say ideas are worthless, it's not because there is some giant price list somewhere that says "Idea: $0", it's because we know from experience that they're unsaleable. Can you ever imagine buying an idea off someone else?

 

As you embellish that idea, flesh it out and begin to turn it into an implementation, then the probability of being able to sell it to someone, and the amount they might pay for it - increases. You need to focus on aspects that reduce the buyer's risk and increase their potential reward, in order to make it an attractive investment.

 

FWIW, a giant monolithic GDD is far riskier and therefore much less attractive than a simple, buggy, but playable and fun prototype with no GDD whatsoever. Getting something implemented is therefore a far better use of your time than refining your GDD to the microscopic levels of detail.


Edited by Sandman, 13 May 2013 - 05:05 AM.


Sponsor:

#62 overactor   Members   -  Reputation: 198

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:59 AM

I've read through all of the replies on this topic since my last post and, for obvious reasons, won't bother with quoting them all. In stead I will tell you where I stand on the issue now, after your input and some reflection on my part.

 

I have concluded that the points raised in my initial post might have been a bit miguided, if not wrong.

It's obvious that I don't have much real experience in game development and I don't think I ever tried to claim otherwise.

I will try to rephrase some of my views to better fit how I feel now.

 

One thing the gaming business seems to rely on very heavily is iterative processes. This is of course very understandable given the complexity of an average, let alone a large, game. It also seems that these iterative processes mostly come into play during the implementation. And that's where I have a bit of a problem. Of course it is unavoidable that there will be a significant amount of iteration during implementation, but I am of the opinion that starting from an idea that has been thought out to great extent and will thus require less iteration will result in a product with more integrity. Furthermore I feel like the need for iterative processes are a shame. In a way, it reduces people to components of a machine, each with their own specific functions. This is good for implementation, but not ideal for refining ideas. In stead of working as one creative person, you work more like a computer program.

 

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design. Even stating that you can't be a game designer without other relevant skills. All I can really say is that I disagree. I think it is sad that it is froyned upon that some people want t get into the gaming business without art or programming skills. Game design is a very real skill set and good game designers are just as rare (if not rarer) and intergral to a game as good programmers and artist. (and writers and composers and animators etc.)

 

So here's what I now think the value of an initial idea is: I think the value of an initial idea lies in how it can make a game designer passionate about it. If a good game designer thinks of or gets a hold of a game idea and falls in love with it. I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing. He can do that alone or with some friends or with a hundred man team. And I personally believe that at this stage, sticking to your idea can sometimes be more important than listening to everyone who has a way of optimizing it. Of course you can consider every suggestion, but weigh the possible benefit against how it fits with the integrity of your game.

 

Thanks for all the replies on this thread, I really appreciate them. If I offended anyone with one of my posts here, please know that I purposely took a bit of an extreme stance and didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm not done thinking about this subject yet but I think this thread has helped a lot.


"You can't just turn on creativity like a faucet. You have to be in the right mood."

"What mood is that?"

"Last-minute panic."


#63 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 934

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:19 AM

i didnt bother reading the whole stuff until i raged down to write a reply and here it is:

 

I personaly think that what makes any film, book or game-idea be "worhty", have "dignity" and a right to be made is if the idea/story is original and anti-cliche. I think for amateurs today, the key to breaking into the industry isnt to make superb visuals (movies) and good gameplay (games), but good STORY!

Thats your way in. Because THAT, the STORY, is what critics today are so unhappy about today:

bad stories

 

my opinions are mine alone

You people with all your analogies have never written a book or painted a painting have you? You better not take this shit to a writers' forum and expect to impress people.

 

Do you know what editors are? Do you know what drafts are? What you wrote a 10 page paper in college and got an A and expect people to give a shit? Look, go to a writers' forum and make a post like this about books and when everyone agrees with you get back to me.



#64 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 10242

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:24 AM

If a good game designer thinks of or gets a hold of a game idea and falls in love with it. I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing.

What advantage is there to refining an idea in the abstract, rather than in a concrete series of prototypes (also know as "implementation")? Game development isn't Socratic philosophy, you know...

 

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design. Even stating that you can't be a game designer without other relevant skills.

Collaboration is a relevant skill, I'd settle for that. No one likes a diva, which appears to be what you are describing.


Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]


#65 Sandman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2136

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:50 AM

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design.

 

i+am+an+artist.JPG

 

biggrin.png



#66 PosthasteGames   Members   -  Reputation: 123

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:02 AM

i didnt bother reading the whole stuff until i raged down to write a reply and here it is:

 

I personaly think that what makes any film, book or game-idea be "worhty", have "dignity" and a right to be made is if the idea/story is original and anti-cliche. I think for amateurs today, the key to breaking into the industry isnt to make superb visuals (movies) and good gameplay (games), but good STORY!

Thats your way in. Because THAT, the STORY, is what critics today are so unhappy about today:

bad stories

 

my opinions are mine alone

You people with all your analogies have never written a book or painted a painting have you? You better not take this shit to a writers' forum and expect to impress people.

 

Do you know what editors are? Do you know what drafts are? What you wrote a 10 page paper in college and got an A and expect people to give a shit? Look, go to a writers' forum and make a post like this about books and when everyone agrees with you get back to me.

 

watch your mouth and be diplomatic


"Woud you rather make a game with a preliminary originality, or a game that shocks the people and maybe even politicians?" - Posthaste Games


#67 overactor   Members   -  Reputation: 198

Posted 13 May 2013 - 09:11 AM

If a good game designer thinks of or gets a hold of a game idea and falls in love with it. I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing.

What advantage is there to refining an idea in the abstract, rather than in a concrete series of prototypes (also know as "implementation")? Game development isn't Socratic philosophy, you know...

 

 

>Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design. Even stating that you can't be a game designer without other relevant skills.

Collaboration is a relevant skill, I'd settle for that. No one likes a diva, which appears to be what you are describing.

 

 

I feel like implementation will take you away from what you want to achieve with your game and drag you into teh question of what you can achieve. I'm not saying tehre is something wrong in principle with doing it that way, I just don't get why refining it in abstract seems to be frowned upon. Is knowing your game and what you want to achieve with it through and through by the time you have to deal with practical problems really such a horrible thing that's not only not worth the time you'd spend on it but just a plain bad idea?

 

As for a game designer having to eb able to collaborate, of course that's an important skill. But if you as a programmer suggest a game mechanic and he doesn't see howm it fits in his design, why would it be a bad thing if he doesn't want to change it? There's a difference between being a diva and knowing what you want your game to be.

 

 

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design.

 

-picture-

 

biggrin.png

 

Note that I never said I see myself as an artist, I don't think I have it in me.

You have a really cynical view of artists though.


"You can't just turn on creativity like a faucet. You have to be in the right mood."

"What mood is that?"

"Last-minute panic."


#68 Sandman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2136

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:07 AM

You have a really cynical view of artists though.

 

In case it wasn't obvious, I posted the image as a comment on your 'ideas guy as an artist' stance, rather than a comment on artists in general.

 

As for the 'real meaning' of the image, (which was created by an artist, presumably) that, like all art, is open to interpretation. 

 

On the subject of artists, have you ever watched an artist at work? Because they don't always get things right first time. They prototype, iterate etc. just like developers.


Edited by Sandman, 13 May 2013 - 10:08 AM.


#69 rip-off   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8532

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:10 AM

Wouldn't the ideal scenario be for the game designer to work on his idea alone for months, figure out as many details as possible, weed out the flaws, refine it, create a working prototype, test play it (with other people of course) and get feedback - all of this before even starting the actual production of the final game with the entire development team?

To what end? If we're looking for an "auteur" style game, we could force it that way, but even then I don't believe such a severe approach is strictly necessary. An experienced lead game designer with a strong vision and a willing team should be equally capable, I think.

 

Coming from an artistic background, the process of refining and revamping ideas during the production process seems a little like putting the cart before the horse. Since the painter analogy has been made several times on this thread, I'll use it again as an example. A painter does not begin the process of making a painting by applying the paint to a blank canvas. He begins it by thinking of an idea, then by creating pencil sketches of it and even a few colour studies. After much refining, he will then create a final, pencil draft that he will copy onto the blank canvas to paint over.

 

So when does he begin creating the final painting? After every detail about the painting has been finalized. The painter does not decide halfway through the painting process to add something. All of that has been decided upon in the drafting phase.

While I am not a professional painter, I certainly add or remove elements of a painting as I work through the process. That said, I think a better analogy would instead be that each sketch/study would map to a particular iteration in a iterative game design project.

 

In any case, the pencil sketches and colour studies, or game prototypes, are all tools only available to someone who has the skills to implement the task. An "idea" artist cannot create these sketches or studies without having developed practical skills. Likewise, to prototype a game one needs to have at least some ability to actually make, rather than describe, a game.

 

My original point was that the mechanics of a game such as this could be worked out and refined on paper rather than creating a digital prototype to get feedback. In other words - it's something the game designer could do alone (with some feedback by play testers, of course) before even presenting the idea to a game studio.

To refine the mechanics of a game such as chess, you can either build a game prototype or prototypes until it gets to the point where you can sufficiently test the mechanics to the point of having confidence in them (and, incidentally,  prove yourself to be more than an "idea person" ), or not make a playable game and essentially invest a lot of time and resources into a very specific design without being able to understand how it plays.

 

I think this is the core argument in the thread. It is not that an up front design is worthless, but that an unproven design is incredibly risky relative to a design that has been prototyped. To prototype a design we need people with the skills to execute the idea.

 

The combination of supply and demand (we have no idea shortage) with this risk , results in the valuation of such ideas without implementation as worthless. A pure "idea person", lacking the skills to prove their ideas, is facing an uphill battle to convince those who have the skills (and their own ideas) to work with them to prove their design.



#70 rip-off   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8532

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:18 AM

As for a game designer having to eb able to collaborate, of course that's an important skill. But if you as a programmer suggest a game mechanic and he doesn't see howm it fits in his design, why would it be a bad thing if he doesn't want to change it? There's a difference between being a diva and knowing what you want your game to be.

Nobody is suggesting this. A critical skill for a lead game designer is knowing which ideas and changes to incorporate and which to leave out, and when to remove ideas that sounded good but that aren't working out.

 

The main thing we are suggesting is that the lead game designer must be willing and able to apply the same process equally to their own ideas and those of others.

 

Game design doesn't have to be a democracy, and it probably shouldn't be. A benevolent dictator will work fine.



#71 overactor   Members   -  Reputation: 198

Posted 13 May 2013 - 10:49 AM

You have a really cynical view of artists though.

 

In case it wasn't obvious, I posted the image as a comment on your 'ideas guy as an artist' stance, rather than a comment on artists in general.

 

As for the 'real meaning' of the image, (which was created by an artist, presumably) that, like all art, is open to interpretation. 

 

On the subject of artists, have you ever watched an artist at work? Because they don't always get things right first time. They prototype, iterate etc. just like developers.

 

I did mean an ideas guy who is also the lead game designer, I don't see why he shouldn't be considered an artist.

Yes, artist don't always get it right on the first try, but they try to get it right without getting too distracted from what they were originally trying to convey.

 

As for a game designer having to eb able to collaborate, of course that's an important skill. But if you as a programmer suggest a game mechanic and he doesn't see howm it fits in his design, why would it be a bad thing if he doesn't want to change it? There's a difference between being a diva and knowing what you want your game to be.

Nobody is suggesting this. A critical skill for a lead game designer is knowing which ideas and changes to incorporate and which to leave out, and when to remove ideas that sounded good but that aren't working out.

 

The main thing we are suggesting is that the lead game designer must be willing and able to apply the same process equally to their own ideas and those of others.

 

Game design doesn't have to be a democracy, and it probably shouldn't be. A benevolent dictator will work fine.

 

I fully agree with you there, the only thing we have slightly different opinions on is to which extent a game designer should deviate from his original idea to optimize it.

And to which degree his original idea is worth anything. (I do think it's only worth anything in the hands of a capable and passionate designer with the possibility of actually making it.)


"You can't just turn on creativity like a faucet. You have to be in the right mood."

"What mood is that?"

"Last-minute panic."


#72 Anthony Serrano   Members   -  Reputation: 1223

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:25 PM

Buster2000, on 13 May 2013 - 01:01, said:
It would probably be a good guess that chess was actually an iterative process and the rules were not created first but evolved over several years and in several different directions in different countries.

pretty much correct. Chess started out in 6th-century India as a game called Chaturanga, which is the ultimate ancestor of all chess-like games (such as Shogi in Japan). Various changes occured over the years (the movement patterns of the queen and bishops, the addition of castling and en passant capture, the ability of pawns to move two spaces on their first movement), and the modern chess ruleset appears around the 15th century. (Modern chess tactics, on the other hand, don't appear until the late 19th century.)

Of course, modern chess is probably the least-changed descendant of Chaturanga, along with Makruk - although it's worth noting that the queen in chess is the single strongest piece in any Chaturanga descendant - as others change the starting layout, add more pieces, or change the board size.

#73 SuperG   Members   -  Reputation: 544

Posted 13 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

It depends. It is good to hold on to your vision dispote feedback from the team. Only if it is about choices. Espacily conflicting ones.
Example. Aktion horror vs survival horror. If you initial vision was one or the other. Team member put there preference in.
So some time its good to be more dictator.
But wenn team members see a flaw instead a choice. And you stick to it like dictator then it hurt your game.

Because a idea guy with a realy super godlike idea is so rare. But lots of idea guy think they have gold. But they realy have not.
So there is this problem of arogance vs openness for positive critism. And on top of it people who want to bent your game vision to there preference.

Next example CoD. To Quick scope or not to quickscope is preference.

Some comment on bad UI design. Like X series. That no choice but a flaw.
Or mixing micro managment with fast aktion.

#74 jms bc   Members   -  Reputation: 439

Posted 13 May 2013 - 02:55 PM

I work for an idea guy. He did quite a bit of design and development on his first idea and was successful. Now, he hires designers and developers to flesh out his ideas.

 

It's a good job.

 

How much are the initial ideas worth? Revenue minus the cost of development. Some are more valuable than others.

 

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned 'idea guys' like Blow, Molyneaux, Fish...

 

I think the quality of Braid and Fez comes from the fundamental ideas that preceded development. Great ideas.


The Four Horsemen of Happiness have left.


#75 Elchi   Members   -  Reputation: 780

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:15 PM

Perhaps relevant...Ed Catmull (Pixar) on collective creativity:

 

http://www.resourceful-humans.com/Documents/Catmull-CollectiveCreativity.pdf

 

First paragraph:

 

A few years ago, I had lunch with the head of a major motion picture studio, who declared that his central problem was not finding good people—it was finding good ideas. Since then, when giving talks, I’ve asked audiences whether they agree with him. Almost always there’s a 50/50 split, which has astounded me because I couldn’t disagree more with the studio executive. His belief is rooted in a misguided view of creativity that exaggerates the importance of the initial idea in creating an original product. And it reflects a profound misunderstanding of how to manage the large risks inherent in producing breakthroughs.



#76 jHaskell   Members   -  Reputation: 1053

Posted 13 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

starting from an idea that has been thought out to great extent and will thus require less iteration will result in a product with more integrity

 

You should not assume that an idea that has been thought out to a great extent will require less iteration.  In all likelihood, it will have little to no impact on the number of iterations required during implementation.  It may even, in fact, have a negative impact on the number of iterations.

 

I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing.

 

Have you heard the quote from a 19th century German military officer, "No plan survives contact with the enemy."?  A corollary to this topic would be, "No Design Document survives contact with implementation." (Design Document = extensive idea)

All that time spent making it perfect in your mind is largely wasted effort.  The implementation WILL riddle what appeared to be a perfect idea with all assortment of holes, flaws, and kinks.  The greatest game designers in the world will not be able to create a Design Document that does not require a significant number of iterations to refine into a high quality game, both mechanically and aesthetically.  So why put so much time into refining the idea itself?  Get the idea 'good enough' and then work on refining the idea at the same time you refine the implementation.  That is quite simply the most efficient and effective method of developing a game.  Your concept of ideal just isn't ideal at all.

 

In fact, if you watch just about any classical artist (painter, sculptor, composer, etc.) work, you'll see they work in a highly iterative process as well.  The painter starts with a rough layout of what he's envisioned in his mind, using broad strokes with a focus on overall composition of the scene as a whole, then iteratively introduces more and more details, likely revising portions of the painting at various stages when (not if) those portions of his vision don't play out on the canvas the way he saw them in his mind.

 

a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design

 

And you seem to object to the idea that game development teams are typically full of a bunch of 'true artists' (at least, no less true then the game designer), whether those team members be programmers, artists, or designers.  Artists, by their nature, want to express their creativity.  Let me repeat that.  Artists, by their nature, want to express their creativity.  Very few, if any, artists have a singularly focused interest in expressing other peoples creativity.  Your ideal Game Designer would have a hard time indeed finding a team to work on his idea.



#77 Ludus   Members   -  Reputation: 970

Posted 13 May 2013 - 05:36 PM

In fact, if you watch just about any classical artist (painter, sculptor, composer, etc.) work, you'll see they work in a highly iterative process as well. The painter starts with a rough layout of what he's envisioned in his mind, using broad strokes with a focus on overall composition of the scene as a whole, then iteratively introduces more and more details, likely revising portions of the painting at various stages when (not if) those portions of his vision don't play out on the canvas the way he saw them in his mind.

 

While it is certainly true that you can produce a painting in a free and almost improvisational manner and make up the details as you go, this is not how the Old Master painters created most of their works. Perhaps you don't quite understand the scale of their paintings or the techniques they used. Take for example, Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" - it is a painting on a massive scale. Before he applied a single stroke of paint, he had already worked out just about every single detail of the painting with the use of many pencil sketches and colour studies. He would have then created a final pencil draft with all of the details in place (except, perhaps for mechanical details such as textures of cloth. But even then, he would have worked these details out in his head at this point) He would then transfer this drawing onto the large canvas, up-scaling it in the process. Then, and only then would he begin to apply the paint, but still working from that final pencil draft he created earlier. Also, for the painting process itself he would have used something similar to the Flemish technique for applying the oil paints. With this technique he would have built the painting up in layers, letting the paint dry in-between layers before applying a new layer. Due to the long drying time of oil paints, this process can take several months, or even years. During this painting process there is almost no room to make changes to the composition of the painting (unless, of course, the paint is scrapped off, but even a small correction would tack on a few months to the process). This development process varied little between the Old Masters.

 

I believe that people working in game development could take a lesson from this process - and possibly give something like it a try. The concept of the game should be worked out, prototyped, and refined until all of the mechanics become finalized (this prototype is essentially the "pencil draft"). This would preferably done by the game designer alone (though probably with play testers for some feedback). Only after this process would the game be taken to the studio, where the production team of artists, programmers, and composers, and QA staff should come in to create the final product (the "painting").


Edited by Ludus, 13 May 2013 - 05:43 PM.


#78 jbadams   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 19070

Posted 13 May 2013 - 06:37 PM

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned 'idea guys' like Blow, Molyneaux, Fish...

Right from the start of the topic we drew a distinction between "idea guys" and actual designers, and these people do not fall into the "idea guy" category -- nor do they stubbornly stick to the design they had up front, but instead spend time iterating and improving upon their ideas.

They're actually fantastic examples of how an initial idea only gains value as it is refined and implemented.

(Posted from mobile.)

#79 Cornstalks   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6991

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:11 PM

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned 'idea guys' like Blow, Molyneaux, Fish...

Right from the start of the topic we drew a distinction between "idea guys" and actual designers, and these people do not fall into the "idea guy" category -- nor do they stubbornly stick to the design they had up front, but instead spend time iterating and improving upon their ideas.

They're actually fantastic examples of how an initial idea only gains value as it is refined and implemented.

Indeed. And I think some people in this thread don't realize how much these "initial ideas" changed as they were refined. Fez was rewritten and drastically changed at least 3 times. Braid had some features modified, and was actually built upon by several past ideas (so the initial idea(s) for Braid was really a conglomeration of several past, semi-refined ideas), and the story (and especially its presentation) was carefully refined from its initial basic idea.

 

Super Meat Boy never had a design document. Minecraft never had a design document. Braid never had a design document. They were initial ideas that were refined as they were implemented.

 

These games show that it's not just an initial idea that makes a game good. It's good refinement of the initial idea and implementation of it that make a good game. The initial ideas are so far from complete and final it's silly to say it's the initial idea that gives the game worth.

 

It's the implementation of that idea that gives it worth. It's the refinement of that idea that gives it worth. But initially, in the idea's infancy... no.


Edited by Cornstalks, 13 May 2013 - 07:25 PM.

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

#80 Sandman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 2136

Posted 13 May 2013 - 07:17 PM

Yes, artist don't always get it right on the first try, but they try to get it right without getting too distracted from what they were originally trying to convey.

 

Do they? And nobody else does? You're making vague, unfounded and basically meaningless statements here.

 

 

I fully agree with you there, the only thing we have slightly different opinions on is to which extent a game designer should deviate from his original idea to optimize it.

 

 

Most of us think the lead game designer should deviate as much or as little from his original idea as he feels is required to make the game that best achieves the desired goal, whether that's making money, being some wonderful meaningful artistic statement, or simply being fun. Or more likely, some combination of all of the above.

 

You seem to be in favour of imposing some limits on game designer's ability to tweak the design, supposedly because you fear that if he's allowed to change it, programmers and artists and other meddlers will corrupt his grand vision. Sorry, but that's just silly, for a number of reasons. 

 

 

I believe that people working in game development could take a lesson from this process - and possibly give something like it a try. The concept of the game should be worked out, prototyped, and refined until all of the mechanics become finalized (this prototype is essentially the "pencil draft"). This would preferably done by the game designer alone (though probably with play testers for some feedback). Only after this process would the game be taken to the studio, where the production team of artists, programmers, and composers, and QA staff should come in to create the final product (the "painting").

 

 

This is a wasteful and time consuming process. Many Game Designers are not programmers and would struggle to create suitable prototypes on their own. Even those that are programmers would struggle to create prototypes for non-trivial designs alone, in a reasonable time frame.

 

It also strongly implies a waterfall style approach to the final game development, which is a very limiting and rigid approach. Sure, perhaps that's the idea - but unfortunately in practice it's proven not to be a great approach to developing software. Things go wrong, some things take longer than expected, and waterfall style development processes are extremely bad at compensating for slippage.

 

Games can already take a lot of time and money to create. What do you think we would gain from this rigid process that merits increasing this time and cost - and increased uncertainty in terms of overall budgeting and timescales that come with such an inflexible approach to development - even further? 


Edited by Sandman, 13 May 2013 - 07:21 PM.





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