Jump to content
  • Advertisement
  • 01/12/17 08:10 AM
    Sign in to follow this  

    Elegant Design: An Applied Example

    Game Design and Theory

    Orymus3
    • Posted By Orymus3

    Foreword Learning to make content for games is a journey that never ends, but trying to break in for the first time is a difficult process. When I started several years ago, I came across too many theoretical articles on content creation for games and too few applied examples. To this end, I've put together this brief article on elegant design, but decided to do so from the vantage point of an applied (theoretical) example. Disclaimer: at the time of writing this article the suggested card effect had never been released by the developers, but by the time of its release a very similar effect was added, possibly proving the legitimacy of the process. Enjoy! On Elegance The title of this article states that "Elegant" Content will be designed here. So, what exactly IS Elegance in design? To answer this question I find no better alternative than to quote Mark Rosewater, Head Designer for the Magic the Gathering team over at Wizards of the Coast: In the words of Rosewater: How big should a piece of text be if you want it to be elegant? The answer is as big as it needs to be - and not a word more.

  • Elegance requires taking a holistic view of writing. Every word, every sentence, every paragraph is a piece of a larger puzzle. It's not enough to understand the impact of a single element. Elegance requires simplicity. Simplicity requires a single purpose of thought. This means that elegance starts before you write a single word. A good sculptor must know his image before he picks up his chisel. There are many ways for you to explain an idea. The most elegant one though is not through definition but by example. By connecting your idea to one already known by the reader, you're leaving the work of teaching to someone in the past. Education is hard. Comparison is easy. A common barrier to elegance is the belief that only one way will work. Often a writer is unable to abandon a beloved piece of prose even when evidence demonstrates otherwise. If something doesn't add to the larger sense of the piece, you have to learn to let it go.
But remember: "If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." - Marcus T. Cicero Choosing our Game I was just as lost as you are. I mean, for the most part, I thought I understood what the above meant until I actually started to implement it and figured these were all pretty words... The truth is that these words are perfectly accurate, but without a proper example to ground them into a process they're meaningless to a beginner -- so let's change that shall we? Now that we have a rough understanding of what it means to design elegantly (but have yet to see it applied to truly understand what it really means), we need to pick a framework (a game) to which we will apply this knowledge. For this example, I chose the relatively modern board game/miniature game "Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures". If you are not familiar with the product, I would recommend a quick read of the core principles of the game. They can be found on the game's website, or I could just give you the link now couldn't I? Now, I'll assume you have not read through that documentation and cover the basics. It's important to note that the more you know about the core game, the more you'll understand this article, but that understanding of the game is not mandatory to understand how elegance will be applied to design as a whole, though some of its subtleties might be lost on you. The Framework - Core Mechanics / Components X-Wing Miniatures, at its core, is a game of ships moving, attacking, and getting destroyed. Each ship comes with stock capabilities ("stats": attack, defense, life/shields), specific maneuvers it can do (moves) and specific actions it can perform (boost, focus, barrel roll, etc.) Each ship also comes with a set of customizable "slots". These slots can be filled with upgrade cards before the game starts, which effectively constitutes the player's list. For example, the Millenium Falcon allows the player to bring 2 "CREW" upgrades along, so you could bring Chewbacca and Luke aboard Han's favored craft to recreate some of the greatest Star Wars moments if you wanted. Upgrades come in various types, and each ship fields a unique combination of them: Astromech: Much like the famed R2D2, these are droids you can attach to some crafts to add some special abilities Salvaged Astromech: Similar to the Astromechs, but faction-specific to the Scum and Villainy (think Boba Fett & Friends) Torpedoes: Expendable ordnance. Fire and forget! Missiles: Pretty much the same as torpedoes, they're just "different" Cannon: Repeated-use secondary weapons. They tend to pack a punch. Turret: Repeated-use secondary weapons. These tend to fire "out of arc" (360 degrees) Bomb: Expendable ordnance, dropped from your rear, and only trigger when someone moves over them, or at the end of a combat round. Crew: Having them on your ship grants abilities. System: Having this equiped to your ship grants abilities (it's just like a crew or astromech in a different package). Modification: Once again, grants special abilities. Modifications are special in that every ship can field one. Illicit: Tend to be "single-use" abilities. Elite: Grants special abilities. Unlike others, these are not physical additions to the ship, its armament or its cargo (crew). Rather, this depicts the pilot's skillset (but, mechanically, this is just the same). Title: Provides a branching upgrade for the craft itself. These are ship-dependant. The Process As this article is focusing exclusively on content creation, we'll assume there's a framework in place (as per the above). In other words, you're not a designer creating a new game. Rather, you're a designer adding to a previous game's success. This could be a board game or digital product (TCGs for example). The example provided here will fit most competitive-driven scenarios. It would not apply to games such as a single-player experience where you're adding new levels, but most of it may just as simply carry over. I chose this particular example given that my experience as a fresh designer, and that of many colleagues to come locally, was related to this type of content so it is a much easier example for me to work from. What to make When designing content, you generally have a frame in place. This frame is determined by theoretical elements of the game. Whether they become a part of the end product or not is irrelevant: these are the building blocks you have to work with. For example, in X-wing, one might argue that the core building block is the Tie Fighter, which for a long time was the most cost-efficient unit and one of the simplest. Looking at it allows one to reverse-engineer parts of the game economy quite efficiently: The unit is costed at 12 points, and does not have any upgrades, and boasts fairly average/poor stats (aside from defense). When creating a new ship, it helps to bear in mind a few of these beacons so as to avoid creating something that does not make sense, even beyond just the game balance itself. As a junior designer or a designer in charge of adding content to a pre-existing game for which a specific sandbox has already been established, it is important to leverage these building blocks to ensure coherence. One then needs to commit to an idea. This can be done in two different ways: A - Determine a mechanic that the game requires, and then define how this can be articulated in terms of flavor or B - Come up with a flavorful idea and then break it down into its mechanics. Method B tends to work great when the game is just starting, especially if there aren't really any player base yet. Method A requires more insight into the metagame and is usually best employed when having access to player data or a large pool of playtesters to observe. For this essay, I've decided to cheat a little. I've actually employed method A but will present it as though I had come through method B. The reason for this will be explained further. For some reason, as a designer, I have determined that it would be great to add some form of cheap kamikaze ship to the game. I then proceed to write down my objective: Objective: A kamikaze ship that incapacitates a larger ship. The reasoning is that, from my experience of playing and analyzing the game, there is unused design space, but more importantly: a piece missing that could help everything else fall into balance (or closer to a more balanced state). Think of it like looking at a game and realizing something is "OP" (overpowered) in the eyes of a credible majority, or identifying it on your own however subtle, and finding a clever way to address this by introducing a new option for the player pool that, in turn, will have an effect on the metagame, and hopefully minimize the 'OP' strategy in some meaningful way. How I go about making it When using method B to design (top-down design), I need to translate a concept into game mechanics. This is a very fun and challenging process. It effectively requires one to consider mundane text and convert it, leveraging all of the game's mechanics to have an effect that makes as much sense from a mechanical standpoint as it does from a flavor standpoint. Our original objective was: Objective: A kamikaze ship that incapacitates a larger ship Translating this into game terms, I can break it down into keywords to be further refined into mechanics: Kamikaze: The action of attempting to collide with an enemy to cause harm, and be destroyed in the process Incapacitate: The action of causing irreversible damage Larger ship: a ship which has above-standard stats, most likely, sustainability. I can further break down Kamikaze as follows: - Requires collision between this object and another to trigger - Has a one-time trigger to cause harm - Self-destruction is the end result I can also break down Incapacitate into a game effect: - Deals damage Note: Sticking to dealing damage alone would not be irreversible. Several game effects can repair the damage. More importantly, we need to ensure that this effect has a higher or at least similar potency against larger ships than smaller ones, and damage alone would tend to scale the opposite direction (1 damage against a small ship representing a much larger % of their total hull than it would on a larger ship). Furthermore, I should break down effects that I feel would be irreversible and work well with larger ships. One of the things larger ships tend to have that smaller ships don't is upgrades, so I chose this effect: - Destroy an upgrade card At the time of writing this article, there was no game effect that effectively allowed to remove a ship's upgrade card as a result of an attack. By the time of publishing, however, such a game effect was created (fate?). The above effects can be brought together as a list of conditions and effects. An exhaustive explanation of this ability could read as follows: "When this ship collides with an enemy ship, if this ship's current Shields value is higher than the enemy, destroy this ship. Then, deal 1 damage to the targeted, and choose one of its crew upgrade cards. Remove that upgrade card from the game". Applying Elegance There's no denying the above game ability fits the original objective. It fits the criteria set forth in the original description of the intended effect. Elegance does not challenge this, rather, it simply asks whether there's a way to achieve the same result without being overly specific and exhaustive (optimize). For example, I've included a condition that requires for the Shields of the ship to be higher than that of its target, the intent is to convey that one couldn't ram another ship if their shields could protect them. If the ramming ship has higher shields, it could effectively tear through the opponent's shields with its own and attempt to ram against the hull. To be elegant, however, one might have decided that the added complexity of this clause was insufficient to justify it being included. Or perhaps, it could've been simplified to focus on the effect. For example: "When this ship collides with an enemy ship, destroy this ship. If the target has no shields left, choose a crew upgrade card from the target and remove it from the game. Otherwise, removed all shields from the target". The above revision retains the idea of shields, but assumes a slightly different interpretation: by ramming in the opponent, its shields are lost. If there weren't any shields left to protect the ship, instead, a crew dies. This removes some of the mathematical computation that players would need to consider when using the card, and already makes it a bit more elegant in that regard. One might argue this is still unnecessarily complex... "When this ship collides with an enemy ship, destroy this ship. Then choose a crew upgrade card from the target and remove it from the game." Simple and effective. The concept of shields vs shields is entirely lost, but the core idea of ramming remains prevalent. One (such as the designer himself) who was aware of the history behind this ability might feel like the idea is missing something, that it does not feel sufficiently 'true', but the game effect does benefit from being clear and concise. More importantly, if the intent was indeed to minimize the potency of an 'OP' strategy, the shield clause would make this card's usage very circumstantial, whereas the latter implementation makes this a great fit. Note that I've listed "crew" upgrade card in the above game effect. This would support the original concept as it could be translated as someone dying aboard the enemy spacecraft due to the harsh collision. With the 1 damage, one could reason that this could've been a localized hull breach that caused the crew's death. The effect makes sense, but it may not make sense within the game. For this, we'll need to take a look at the metagame. On Metagame, or seeing the game holistically Seeing the game holistically is an art. It requires to play and look at a lot of players to see what stands out. If the game has the benefit of having a competitive scene, then the designer should really be observing (a lot) before making any hasty decisions. Information will never come from any 2-3 games where something happened, but rather, from the plurality of these experiences and how they shape the game. In a popular game such as X-Wing, players that are allowed a certain level of control over their custom lists will eventually start to polarize their choices around significant archetypes. At various levels (casual, softcore, midcore, hardcore and competitive) players will start to field several similar lists, that is, lists that have more in common than they have different. This alone would probably be worth an article of its own, but once a designer has started to understand what 'works' and how it is played by players, and what the associated feelings are (is it fun playing? is it fun playing against? is there any frustration when strategy A doesn't or does work? etc.) he can start listing the issues that the game likely needs to address. This doesn't happen overnight, and some of it might remain hidden to the untrained eye. More importantly, a game that has periodic content releases such as X-Wing deals with a shifting metagame, that is, if they release only every year, then the metagame goes through several phases: Last year's metagame New year's 'infancy' stage New year's 'mature' stage Anticipating next year's stage At each of these stages (and sometimes in-between) players click on 'new things' they hadn't considered before, and start leveraging that, which is identically met by how other players have discovered new things, or have adjusted their former strategy to compensate for new ideas. In a perfect world, this constantly changes, but in the real world, there are periods where it goes stale (and the massive introduction of new content is required to keep things moving forward, even if it means only nudging players in the direction of formerly underutilized strategies). At the time of writing this article, a new wave had just gone out, and the metagame revolved around several poles, two of which, though very interesting and fun, demonstrated some 'OP' cases or at least, the potential to be. To be fair, the metagame for this specific wave was still in its infancy, but it proved a very interesting ground for analysis. Put simply, the two problematic poles were: - The empire has gained access to a new crew (very expensive "Palpatine") which granted them the ability to change one die's result to any specific result every turn (which tends particularly well with 'aces' that dodge enemy fire and are basically glass-cannons). By further increasing the survivability of the Empire's aces, and making them deadlier, lists that fielded Soontir Fell soon became near unstoppable (at least, at first!) - The infamous 'TLT' (Twin-Laser Turret) becomes available. Put simply, this is a turret (which can fire in any direction, in a game where facing is critical) which has the greatest weapon range (and is the only turret to do so), Add to that that though each attack is limited to 1 damage (which is generally what most turret attacks would do to begin with against aces) this turret attacks twice, and is a perfect counter to aces as it tends to force their opponent to spend whatever defensive measures they have against the first attack (Palpatine for example) and simply get hit by the second. It is also an upgrade that fits the 'tank' class of ships (Y-Wing most notably) and based off its two attacks, is the most reliable damage source in the game. No criticals, no strokes of luck, but just an ongoing barrage of attacks from a list like the 4 Y-Wings which packed as much as 8 attacks per turn (and half of these would generally go through defenses). It is a very strong strategy because it works against aces and tanks alike. - The 'Autothruster' is a simple modification that improves defenses against attacks made from long range (range 3) or attacks made 'out of arc' (turrets). Basically a response to the TLT. As I said, I cheated a bit when planning this article because, as a player and avid designer, I already identified that this wave of content (unlike most previous waves) introduced specific cards that could really annihilate entire lists in a blink of an eye. While most previous waves did so by having several pilot abilities and upgrades work together, Palpatine, the TLT and the Autothruster all severely impede other strategies and act as direct counters. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and to be fair, most of them are fun to play with or against and, as time has proven, relatively well balanced, but it called for a 'universal' response. I figured that what the game was essentially lacking is a card that allowed players to try and identify what was the core threat in their opponent's list, and eliminate it, to see if the rest of the list could still hold. Instead of allowing anyone to field a list that had a 'combo' you couldn't do anything about, it tests the opponent's ability to build something that can survive that deliberate sabotage attempt. As a result, destroying an upgrade outright felt like it made a lot of sense. Stapling that effect to a kamikaze cheap ship such as some kind of custom Z-95 made a lot of sense as well, though as history has demonstrated, the official design team found a similar way of going about it but at the crew upgrade card level and without the need to lose a ship (which is probably more balanced). Refining the Concept: tying the content to the metagame The above explains the situation we are in, and what needs to be addressed, but asks a question: What (if any) type of upgrade card should we limit this effect to? Our original solution mentions 'crew upgrade card' which does fit the Palpatine case, but it entirely forgoes the TLT and AT. That leaves us with two outcomes: A - Target a specific scenario (kill crew for example) and hose that strategy, but risk allowing the other two spin out of control. or B - Lose a bit of context and flavor, but allow this solution to work across the board. Note that solution B may prove equally or more dangerous to pre-existing staples of the game. If the 'rest of the game' relies on missiles for example, and that this card could effectively be used to destroy any missile before it fires, or any potent crew, etc. it could very well make this particular card the new metagame staple and unbalance the game, unless it isn't necessarily cost-efficient. For the purpose of this essay, we'll let elegance win, assuming that the designer has identified all potential use cases and costed the upgrade appropriately, knowing that, under most circumstances, trading this particular ship against any upgrade wouldn't be worth it, unless the latter is 'OP'. The end-result would be that this card shouldn't see too much play, but remain a valid answer to TLT, Palpatine, and AT. As the card gets released, it sees a lot of play because it is new, and during this period, a lot of TLT, Palp or AT players see a lot more losses than usual, eventually reconsidering the value of their strategy. A number of these players stop using these lists, or tweak them a bit to add a post-kamikaze end-game, which in turn makes the list less efficient (and less OP) but more versatile. As a response, players' interest in this kamikaze card decrease slowly, but the metagame effect has already rippled through lists and much fewer players rely upon the TLT PALP and AT uber lists, and occasionally get crushed as a result. Those that use the kamikaze find other uses for their card and either bait their opponent or try to identify the opponent's new powerful upgrade that they can't counter otherwise and kamikaze on it. After a few months, some people use our new card, but not so much, and they don't tend to dominate the scene, but more importantly, we see much less TLT, Palpatine, and AT, though we still see them, and they're still good when they show up. We've just created fear for players that couldn't be countered before that they might be now, and this fear alone has helped move the metagame towards a more balanced direction. It doesn't mean a sudden TLT list couldn't show up at an event and that none of the players there would have a kamikaze, landing them a sudden win, but it greatly diminishes the likelihood of this happening and brings the game closer to being 'skill-based' where every player decision matters more than the list they are playing. It also results in the creation of a card that comes with a huge baggage of player decision and opponent guessing. The player needs to figure out what to destroy, and the opponent needs to guess what that might be, assess whether this is something he's willing to live with or react. Our final effect: "When this ship collides with an enemy ship, destroy this ship. Then choose an upgrade card from the other ship and remove it from the game." By comparison, the card released a few months later: latest?cb=20160210233157 A short aside on Design Space I've hinted at metagame analysis as being its own art, but haven't really mentioned 'design space', and yet I feel it is critically important to Elegance in design. Put simply, design space is the art of knowing the player's capability to consider different information. For example, a game like X-Wing focuses primarily on 4 stats (Attack, Evasion, Hull, and Shields) and then applies movement patterns, etc. All of these things require some concentration on the player's part so that they can understand, internalize and remember the rules all the while remaining open to new streams of content (such as cards, which tend to be rule-breakers and individually require brain space of their own). If too much design space is occupied by the core mechanics, the game cannot expand, and if the new content is too complex, then the game quickly reaches a point where it is impossible to understand everything at any given point and very hard to play a game without having to refer to the rules, or a lengthy read of some cards, etc. Games such as Magic the Gathering used to field a number of very complex cards, which when put on the table inevitably led to players stopping everything else, reading the card 2 or 3 times, asking a number of questions, and this basically halted the game because these cards simply required too much attention, or in other words, exceeded the design space. That's not to say a game doesn't have room for complex mechanics, but rather, that design space is like a budget, and it needs to be spent wisely. A clever designer will allow for complexity where the tradeoff between complexity and fun is balanced. In general, the core precepts of the game (those most likely played by the majority of players over the course of their games) will be kept simple, so that the majority of the game flows naturally, and will allow for uncommon situations (though not necessarily rare) where a pause is warranted to refresh the players' memory on some of the concepts less used. In X-Wing, one of these concepts is the simultaneous rule of fire. Most pilots in the game have a unique pilot skill level which determines in which order they play, and in the case of ties, the player with initiative (determined at the start of the game) will play or attack first. Simple: follow the numbers, and if there's a tie, remember how that tie was broken at the start of the game and always resolve the order in this manner. This is elegant because every player is expected to understand the order of numbers 1-10, and a simple (and single occurrence) action determines tie breaks. That being said, sometimes a ship with the same pilot skill as another might destroy it when attacking, and it may be hard to internalize that pilots from the same pilot skill wouldn't play at the same time. In these particular scenarios, a specific rule is invoked (the simultaneous rule of fire) and the damaged pilot is marked as dead for all intents and purposes except for the fact it is allowed to fire at its regular turn, as though it hadn't yet been destroyed. How often does that rule actually come into play? Unclear, but most likely in under 10% of the games. The rule is elegant because it does cover something that the designers felt had value, yet it doesn't get in the way of the actual game and keeps it simple (for the majority of people, they won't struggle with a specific sub-phase in combat). It is ok to sacrifice elegance if design space allows it. It can allow for some 'noise' to make things a bit more organic and realistic, but it is critically important for the designer to bear in mind the extent of this finite resource and how much of it they're willing to invest in mechanics. A designer's ability to apply elegance to their core mechanics and content is what allows them to withhold design space for later use and is the key to longevity in a content-driven game. Article Update Log - May 16 2015 - Original Article - September 5 2016 - Revisited (post Boba Fett crew release)



  Report Article
Sign in to follow this  


User Feedback


There are no comments to display.



Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • intellogo.png

    Are you ready to promote your game?

    Submit your game for Intel® certification by December 21, 2018 and you could win big! 

    Click here to learn more.

  • Latest Featured Articles

  • Featured Blogs

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By dj180
      For some gamers out there, platformer games can be the main deciding factor when considering which console to buy (when buying all of them is not a realistic option). Personally, I have been playing Playstation consoles my entire life, dabbling in other consoles and portable gaming platforms, yet I always seem to return to Playstation because of the exclusive games only available through their platforms. The Last of Us is an award-winning 3D action platformer game available only on Playstation consoles. 
      The single player campaign opens in the midst of a zombie virus outbreak among the entire world. The narrative follows two characters Joel, a father to a recently deceased daughter due to the outbreak, and Ellie a teenager who is believed to hold the cure to the virus in her immune system. Joel encounters a militia group, known as the Fireflies, that formed after the outbreak and is quickly tasked with the mission of delivering Ellie to other members of the militia outside the quarantined zone. Due to the initial conflict set up by the narrative and the undercover nature of the main mission, the suggested way to play the game is by remaining out of sight as much as possible and engaging enemies in a sly manner. However, games are places people flock to when looking for an escape from reality, a place with no rules or direction in some cases. For this reason, gamers approach games from different perspectives, causing them to play the game using different strategies. 

      Some player types such as the Killer player type defined by the Bartle player dichotomy the would prefer to take tactical approach to the task at hand, rather than a strategic one. For these type players, the combat they seek would include more face-to-face and traditional battles. For a strategic player, playing the game as if they themselves were in the shoes of the character, it is more appealing to remain as hidden as possible. The Last of Us also does a nice job of including both perspectives in specific instances. Players do not have to actively seek out or play intentionally with a certain strategy, the elements that Killers and Achievers enjoy most are built into the narrative at some main turning points, whereas most minor engagements are left up to the choice of the player. 

      In addition to the two polarizing player types mentioned previously, The Last of Us elegantly includes elements favored by the scavenger and artisan player types as well. Above the main mission of transporting Ellie to the Fireflies, there is obviously a larger responsibility to remain alive. There are several mechanics contained within the game that players can use to increase their chances of survival. Some of these mechanics include looting and crafting. It is possible to “loot” in virtually every scene of the game, although it is entirely the player’s choice whether to spend time looting or continue on with the main story line. Looted items can be used to craft items to boost health, melee weapons, and throwable items such as Molotov cocktails and nail bombs. These items are crafted with smaller parts players find by looting abandoned place and of course, classic to most Naughty Dog games, some of the better items require more exploring. Although all players must use items and crafting to some degree in order to play through the game successfully, the game will reward players more who spend more time searching for these items. This is also a positive feedback mechanism because players who are excelling in the game will be given opportunities to make the game easier through the use of the items they are able to craft. Crafting can also allow players to make improvements to Joel’s abilities and, at certain work benches found throughout the story, his firearms.  Dylan Richmond 

      The craft-able items also introduce a variety of combat techniques that appeal to the wide array of player types. Certain enemies require some sort of tactic or craft-able item in order to defeat. A “clicker” is a type of enemy players encounter who uses its sense of hearing to detect players, making it easier for players to sneak around in plain sight, however players cannot engage this enemy without a weapon of some sort, or they will instantly die. This encourages players to come up with a clever and stealthy way to defeat this type of enemy. One option is to sneak up behind a clicker and use a craft-able item called a shiv in order to defeat the enemy. This is designed for rational players because this technique requires a great deal of thought and concentration in order to prevent the clicker from noticing the player. Aggressive players might ignore the clicker’s abilities of enhanced hearing and strength and face the clicker straight on with a gun or a melee weapon, such as a crowbar. Casual players may attempt to defeat the enemy from afar with one of the easiest methods, a Molotov cocktail. This item will attract the clicker to its flames and if the clicker has been standing in the flames for long enough, it will be defeated. This method is also best for defeating large hoards of zombies or clickers and might be chosen by a strategic or tactical player. 

      People have all sorts of play styles, approaches, and ways of enjoying video games, many beyond the scope of merely one game. Including these alternative pathways throughout video games increase their appeal to a greater number of people, which is ultimately the goal in creating a video game, yet having these various routes also increases the overall enjoyment of the game for everyone. For any player type, it is reassuring to know that if one of the options are situationally unavailable, another option is always at hand. The Last of Us artfully combines its narrative and combat mechanics with a multitude of viable player types. It’s the cross between elements and approaches from these player types that keeps The Last of Us fresh with every new engagement. Keeping a single consistent play style throughout the entire game is not an easy task for most, often times players must use a combination of strategies, abilities, and interact with various features in order to successfully complete The Last of Us. 
        
    • By GameDev.net
      Originally published on NotesonGameDev.net October 27, 2008
      Jenova Chen, creator behind the multi award-winning student game Cloud and flOw, co-founder of thatgamecompany, is dedicated to expanding the emotional spectrum of video games and making them available for a much wider audience. And how did Jenova "make it" as an independent developer? With a lot of support and a drive for innovation.
      Can you tell us a little bit about your interest in game development and where it all started?
      When I was 10 years old, my Dad, who worked in the software industry, took me to a special Computer Programming school for kids hoping I'd become Bill Gate's one day. However, I had no interest in learning programming; instead I got to play my very first computer game at the school. And from that point on, video games were pretty much my obsession.
      My first attempt in making video games happened when I was 12, and my enthusiasm quickly faded due to a bad 5 inch floppy disk which carried a week's worth of my work. When I went to college around 1999, I was pretty much bored with the math and programming, and I started to put all my spare time on digital animation and 3D graphics.
      At the time, there were no domestic video game development studios in China and video game education was also a vacuum. And by accident, I met some very enthusiastic students in the college who wanted to make video games. It seemed like a good place where I could put my digital art skill to use. Once the training started, the adventure and joy from game development has never stopped.
      Speaking of college... What was your role in Cloud and how did it come to be?
      My first big student team project in the grad school at USC Interactive Media Division was not Cloud but Dyadin (IGF 2005), where my role was lead artist. It was the first video game made by student team in our division. The big success brought a lot of attention to the school, therefore the school started a grant to encourage students to team up and make more innovative games. The grant was open to the entire university.
      As one of the applicants I came up the rough idea of making a game about clouds and rallied around students and faculties. Once the cloud game idea won the grant and got funded by the school, we put a team together. My role was team lead. As a result I worked with the team on many aspects of the game: gameplay prototyping, game design, story and all the visual arts.
      What do you think made Cloud the 2006 IGF Student Showcase Winner?
      Being one of a kind--a fresh emotional experience that's different from anything on the mainstream market.
      Following Cloud, you went right on to working on flOw. How did Cloud's success influence you?
      It's not the success part of Cloud influenced me but the failure of Cloud. So many people downloaded our game, including people who never played games. I guess they were lured to the childhood fantasy. As a result, their lack of game knowledge prevented them from enjoying the relaxing experience---instead, their frustration of learning how to control the game ruined the experience.
      I learned from Cloud that there is a huge market for games that evoke a different emotional experience. However, new markets mean new audience. In order to search for a design methodology that enables a game to satisfy both experienced gamers and not so experienced ones, I started the flOw project.
      Interesting concept to work with! How was flOw conceptualized and developed?
      As part of my master degree thesis at USC, flOw, the original web game, was made for the sole purpose of testing whether the design methodology I developed based on Flow theory works. In the academia, there was a lot of many research about how to use an A.I. to read player's performance and alter the gaming experience. However, through playing those games myself, I feel there are so many cases where the A.I. can't assess player's true feeling based on rigid formulas.
      As a side effect, the false reaction of the A.I. broke my "sense of control", a key condition to enter the Flow state. Therefore, through learning successful video games with mass appeal, I came up a different approach to adjust the difficulties of the game. I call it Active Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment, which uses player's choice to change the difficulty of the gaming experience.
      The trick is to embed the difficulty adjustment choices in the core gameplay mechanics so that when player makes those choices, he won't feel interrupted from the core gameplay. In flOw, player's only action is swimming and eating, and the way the player engages different content with different difficulties is also through swimming and eating. And the result of the testing was amazing
      flOw is now available on PS3, something that indie developers aspire to. How did you make the leap to console?
      My business partner Kellee Santiago and I were very lucky to have studied at the USC Interactive Media Division where we took a class called business of interactive entertainment. It's that class that opened our eyes that starting up a company and chasing your dream is not a fairy tale; instead it's something totally possible for normal people like us who had no money, but a passion.
      We had a sneak peek at the great potential and promising future of video games through Cloud. And we really hope the maturing of video games as an interactive medium could happen faster. We want to push the boundary of video games and allow more people around the world to see games like Cloud, to awaken the dormant market so that more people can join us to further expand video games' emotional range and meet various needs from the public. Not just things made for excitement and leisure but also things that are thought evoking and deeply emotional. With that goal, we started to pitch the grand idea of Cloud, the commercial version to almost all the publishers in North America.
      Quickly, we realized that based on the experience we had fresh out of school and the ridiculous budget we asked, there was simply no one who would take the risk with us. It had to be the timing and pure luck that we encountered the opportunity of making games for the digital distribution platform for next generation console like Wii and PS3. Both of Sony and Nintendo were going to launch their new gaming consoles, and they were both dying for new content on their digital distribution channel.
      The fact that flOw was a rather complete game concept made with two students in three months helped us to convince Sony that they could trust us for a much smaller game than Cloud. And then the leap was made.
      Well that's great! What are you working on now?
      We are finishing up our second title for Sony's Playstation Network, Flower. A game that is a sister piece after Cloud and flOw. Our version of a video game poem dealing with our inner desires towards the wild nature and urban life.
      What would you say is the biggest challenge you've faced so far as an indie?
      The biggest challenge is to grow up, to become experienced from inexperience. We made so many mistakes in running a startup company and in game development. Though we've overcome all the challenges, the taste is still yummy pain.
      Heh heh. What about your biggest triumph then?
      Thatgamecompany is still up and running. And we are making games that we believe will push the boundary of what video games can communicate.
      What advice do you have out there for those aspiring to join game industry as an indie?
      Really consider indie game developer within our industry. Just look around at what's happened in the past two years. How many of your favorite indie games have shown up on the commercial platforms? How many highly reviewed video games are from independent studios? This is the golden time of independent video games. We see so many talented new faces coming out of school and even veterans who left the big studios to form their company and chase their dreams. The renaissance of video games is already happening.
    • By blesseddisciple
      So I have a decent amount of JavaScript experience now and decided I was gonna lower my head and start cranking out some 2d games, partly to learn, partly to have fun. Afterall, HTML5 canvas is such an easy and enticing medium. I love the JavaScript implementation of it. But after literally struggling for a week to get basic game functionality working I have had enough of the little stupid bugs that pop up with JavaScript. Don't get me wrong, I still love the language for scripting. I'm just not going to spend 20 mins coding and 5 hours debugging just because the language is crap.
      I've decided to return to my previous endeavor, Java. I like Java a lot and the only reason I haven't pursued more in the way of game development is just for the fact that Java is limited to mobile or PC apps that may never see the light of day unless it's hosted on some obscure Java game hosting website that is populated with 2,000 half developed games that no one will ever care about. BUT, still, I enjoy hand coding and I know C# but don't feel like using Visual studio and I really don't wanna hand code C# on the .Net or whatever. I use Visual Studio for business apps (ASP.NET) but I don't wanna build a game with it.
      So, does anyone have any points to share about why moving to Java for game development is not smart? Besides the whole, "Java is slow" thing. I mean things that might make it harder in JAva to make games vs. in other languages. Please share your thoughts. 
    • By Nafei
      Tired of working on games that never get released? Then you're at the right place!
      Game Description
      Titanforged Entertainment is currently working on a 3D multiplayer game containing several board games. The environment of the game is something of an RPG tavern/potion/scroll shop and the game style is stylized with hand-painted texturing. You can think of the art style as in World of Warcraft or Fortnite or Warcraft 3, just to make it more clear. The environment is ONLY used for the looks. Meaning, the environment is only there as a lobby screen & waiting area. There will be a cinematic screen in the tavern and we will make it feel cozy and nice when people are in the menu's and waiting for a game. At the bottom of this post, you can see some screenshots from the game at its current state. Note that the screenshots are taken from the 3D software and are still not sculpted or textured which is why they look simple and plain. They will look more detailed at a later stage in development.
      The game contains multiple board (and card) games where people play against each other in for example Chess, Ludo, Snakes & Ladders, Uno, Poker, Scrabble, Drawing/Guessing and more. The boards we are developing will also be in full 3D. For example, Chess would have a castle/monastery environment with the pieces designed as character pieces. In this game you can play to gain ranks and medals. You earn coins from playing, which you can use to buy skins and different pieces in the coin shop. There are more features in the game but these are just some of them.
       
      Programmer Needed
      Titanforged is looking for a highly motivated and talented Programmer. You will be provided all the assets from the artists and it is your responsibility to bring life to the game. If you’re up to the challenge, we want to hear from you!
      Description:
      - We do not require a specific programming language. It is up to you, as long as everything is written nicely and the game is working as it's supposed to.
      - You should be able to program the game as a solo project. We only try to recruit members if necessary.
      - You need to have a passion for board games.
      - You are someone who finishes projects. Please do not apply if you have a hard time finishing a game. This will at least take 3-5 months before release.
      - You are confident when it comes to Networking and Multiplayer programming. The game will be released on Steam.
      - You should know how to build good security for the game to avoid cheating and 3rd party software.
      - You are able to spend at least 15 hours a week on the project. If you can spend more, that's great. Currently we are spending 35 hours a week on the art.
      - You are 18+ years old (Legal contract reasons)
       
      Big plusses (NOT REQUIRED):
      - You have previously released a game before.
      - You have a degree in your field.
      Notice that if you don't have a solid portfolio, you will be tested by creating a chess game. We will provide you the board, pieces and textures. You will "only" have to write the code. There is no AI / singleplayer programming.
       
      Payment
      The payment for the project is revenue share. This will be our first game to release on Steam and therefore we are currently all working for free. When the game is released on Steam, payment will be divided between each member as promised in the contract you will sign before working on the game.
      Your revenue share for the project will be 35% and is not negotiable. We predict high income for this game when it is released on Steam. A lot of the money will be saved in Titanforged Entertainment so that we can create a better next-game and afford anything we need. Our goal is to progress such that we can do this full time and pay our members monthly.
       
      Contact Information
      If you're interested in joining us for this project and hopefully for the future projects, you can add me on discord Nafei#9413 or write an email to Nafei@titanforged.net
       
      Screenshots




    • By andrii_k
      Hi all! We are a team of two programmers developing a turn-based browser strategy, and we need someone to help with the art.

      It is a card+board strategy. Every player has a castle, and in their turn can move units and play cards.
      Current art is partially placeholder, partially original (contributed by some friends),
      but we'd love to have somebody joining the team and taking care of the visual side.
      Main tasks are drawing cards, objects on the board and interface elements.
        A prototype is available here https://lords.world (needs at least two people to play properly, but you can play against a dummy bot to get an idea).
      Please pm if interested. Best regards,
      Andrii and Serge

×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!