quote:Original post by M3d10n Every little detail in a game merges down to settle the style. I completely disagree that the art (not the technical enhancement of the game, but the art itself, wheter 3D, 2D, with a millions or mere 300 polygons, on in 1024x768 or 240x160) and the music AND sound effects are uninportant for the game. They complement the gameplay to form the final product.
You can't simply pick a Zelda game, put stick figures drawn in MS Paint with no animation, remove the music and expect to feel the same. The sprites, the animation and the music worked together with the gameplay to present the game style and feel, and modifying any of those will change the final game experience a bit lot, just like ripping all graphics and sounds from the SNES Zelda 3 ROM and using them to make a homebrew game with utter crappy controls and gameplay.
When you play a game, you're not merely processing the game logic in your brain and racting to it. You are also seeing the game, and hearing it. So, if the gameplay, the graphics and the sound work in some harmonic way, the game will feature a more enjoyable experience.
I agree with you all the way. I must be writing unclearly. With regard to Zelda, the main point I wanted to make was that the gameplay would still be roughly the same if it lacked good art and music. On the other hand, I doubt this lacking version of Zelda would be any fun, which is the point you were trying to make.
My refined question is how do we add style to gameplay without considering music, art, and/or story? For example, the original Zelda game, how do we add style to it without changing the art or music?
[edited by - BlahMaster on August 22, 2003 2:26:23 AM]
I read a book on nonfiction writing by William Zinsser. I felt that some of the writing rules that he suggested could be generalized to game design. One of his points about writing style was that you shouldn''t even go for style, until you have mastered the basics. With mastery of the basics, your style will naturally appear with time. I felt that maybe this was true of game design--but this is mere speculation.
Anyway, it got me thinking what are the basics of game design? Game balance, fairness, interactivity, and simplicity came to mind. Please add more to this list, if you know of any. Also, what are the tools of the game designer? The writer uses a dictionary, thesaurus, etc. to help. What do game designer''s use as tools? I have no clue, and please tell me if you know any tools that help in gameplay design.
The main rule of non fiction writing is to be concise. If this is the case, then we could extend this rule to games to have concise gameplay. I''m not quite sure how to explain concise gameplay, but I feel that the word explains itself.
Zinsser said, "Surprisingly often a difficult problem in a sentence can be solved by simply getting rid of it." I think this goes for a gameplay feature too.
Zinsser also said that good writers often revise up to 8 or 9 times. Games are the same way. Crawford said in his game design book that you usually took months to make the game fun.
Anyway, a lot of stuff I''m saying is pretty simple stuff, but if we were to master the basics we could naturally develop our own unique game design style. Anyway, what do you guys/gals think?
If you just directly use the concept of concise writing in game play, the result would be: if it doesn''t add anything to the game, don''t put it in. But then, how many things could you think of that''d add something to the gameplay, but they''d be adding the WRONG things? For instance, the IP actions in Lufia 2. They add so much to the gameplay that they end up being an integral strategy in the game''s combat. If someone had decided to add a magic system based on using runes together to the game, sure it would''ve added something to the game, but would it be the RIGHT thing? Probably not, considering it *was* the 2nd game in the series and people kind of expected their magic system to work in a certain way.
So I think the revised game version would be: if it doesn''t add anything to the game, that fits with what''s already in the game, don''t put it in.
If a squirrel is chasing you, drop your nuts and run.
If a squirrel is chasing you, drop your nuts and run.
Indeed, a key point in giving a game a style is not only decising on the features it will have, but also deciding on the features it WON''T.
The constraints in a game cam play a big role, when used properly. When badly executed, constraints will look like design/programming fault.
A simple example: Megaman. In the major games in the MM series, they''ve kept a constant set of constraints: Megaman''s primary weapon can only shoot foward, and he can''t duck. This provided a basic setup where the levels could be worked on, to generate quasi-puzzles. Also the levels never pose challenges that would required those contraints to be broken, otherwise the player would be thinking "damn, only if I could duck!".
Also, even if you are not going to be the one working on the art and the music, the designer must take some part in planning those, for the sake of having everything working together, instead of random game mechanics thrown into random (even if good looking) graphics wrapped around with yet more random music.
If you are designing a game, you should at least sketch the levels to set their feeling. If you are totally unable to draw, you should still be able to at least visualize the levels and the characters in your mind, and describe everything so someone else can draw more or less like you envision everything. Same for the music. Also dig up tons of audio-visual references, mostly if it''s an indie game (like many here are). If you got som sort of a team, that includes an artist and a musician, then the basic game design should be done by discussing everything with them.
