There is absolutely no reason why programmers cannot design games. In fact, some of most celebrated designers in the industry are/were programmers. (Peter Molyneux, Sid Meier, to name the first two that came into my head)

So basically, Warsong's opinion is wrong.

Problem whit non programmers is that they dont know what it takes to make games. I have nothing against designers and I think its good idea to have couble because its understandable that programmers need to spend most of their time coding and rather read from the design doc how the game is suposed to be than planning it on their spare time.
But designers really need know about programming in every area they are working on. How well, is another queston...

Just my opinion.

Quote:Original post by Pipo DeClown
So basically, I think your argument is not solid.

1. He didn't design Fable anyway. He had some input on it, but the designers were Simon and Dene Carter, ISTR.

2. Black and White and Fable are not the only games Molyneux has worked on, you know.

3. Even if we assumed that Molyneux is in fact, the worst designer ever, there are still other designers I could have mentioned, like Will Wright or Ernest Adams, etc.

I'm not saying that all programmers are necessarily good designers, nor am I trying to imply that the best designers are programmers, I'm simply saying there is no good reason why a programmer cannot be a designer.

(Incidentally, although Shigeru Miyamoto did program Donkey Kong, that was in apparently his first ever experience with programming. He was primarily an artist, at least according to Wikipedia)

Designers have historically come from a programming background. When the games industry started, programmers were all you had. As the industry matured (if you can apply "maturity" to an industry obsessed with violence and breasts), those early one-man-band developers moved on to other roles. This is why so many older codeshops are run by ex-programmers.

Today, the one-man-band developer is a rarity, although you do still see a few. Chris Sawyer, for instance, designs and programs his own games with only a freelance artist and musician for help. He is arguably the most successful "indie" developer in the industry.

It is a valid point that a good designer should have an understanding of programming, an appreciation of art and graphic design, an understanding of the role of music in an interactive medium and...

I usually sum it up as: "Know enough about the relevant fields to recognise bullshit when you hear it." This is a pretty good rule of thumb for any management-related role, so it's not specific to design.

It is certainly possible for a complete newbie to be a 'natural' designer, but such people are exceptionally rare. A Mozart comes along perhaps once every generation, but it helps your interpersonal relationships in the team if you have at least some grasp of what your fellow colleagues are actually doing all day.

Now the real crux of this argument about programmer-designers is that computer games _are_ programs. It is the program code that melds the various media together into one interactive gestalt. This is why programmers are often to protective of their role in the game development process, even though the Lead Programmer is, essentially, the equivalent of a cinematographer: the game designer communicates his vision. The Lead Programmer -- who usually works on the 'gameplay programming' side of things these days -- actually Makes It Happen.

(Spielberg doesn't actually point the camera at the cast and set himself. The shot is actually taken by his cinematographer.)

That said, the need for the designer to communicate clearly and unambiguously with his colleagues is the reason why an understanding of programming, art, graphic design and audio is so important. If you don't know what a sample rate is, or how it'll affect the soundtrack of your game, you need to study more.

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley

EDIT: Chris Sawyer's website appears to be between updates or something. Suffice to say that he developed Transport Tycoon, Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 & 2 (and designed RT3), and his latest opus is Chris Sawyer's Locomotion

There are those people that know what good games are about, and happen to be very capable programmers besides.

So they design a good game, and use programming as a tool to develop it.

Nothing hard about that.

But yes, to design a game purely from the perspective of the excitement of programming would be bad. You wouldn't reach much of an audience.

My personal philosophy of game design is: think of what you want, then figure out how to program it, rather than always working inside the limitations of what you know how to do. Sure, you might find out it's impossible to code your idea, but along the way you'll have learned stuff you didn't know, and maybe be able to translate that idea into a feasible version. I'm obviously not a programmer on the scale needed to make a game, but this is how I've gone about most of what I have coded. You don't write a book by saying "ok I wanna use 'the' x number of times, 'umbrella' y number of times" etc. You think of what you wanna say, and then you figure out how to say it. If more games were designed with this thought in mind, there might be more of them worth playing.

I was originally a psychology major back in the day, so my initial background was in the liberal arts. I've also always had a deep love of military history (it runs in the family) and philosophy.

But about 3 years ago, after thinking about designs for a strategy game I had in mind, I realized that it would be better if I didn't just have an idea for a game, but I also knew the underlying details of how to make it. It's always better if you know both what product it is that you wish to make and how you're actually going to make it. When a designer has no clue about programming, his "wish list" may include details that are either impossible to recreate on the computer, or are very difficult. Moreover, trying to get your idea across to the programmers may be difficult, and the programmers may think they know what you want, but in the end, they implement your gameplay ideas in a totally different manner.

My question to you is, "Why does a programmer have to be a one-dimensional, narrowly focused, uncreative individual?". Having been both a liberal arts major and now a senior in computer science, I can honestly say that it takes more hard work and studying to do hard sciences or engineering than most of the humanities or social sciences (with the possible exception of linguisitics or foreign languages). I know many programmers who have hobbies and interests outside of programming which makes them multi-dimensional. Fundamentally, a programmer must be a creative problem solver. A programmer must also do something that rarely occurs to people without hard science or mathematics backgrounds..before he can find a solution for a problem, he has to understand what the problem truly is. As Pablo Picasso said, "Computers are worthless, all they can give is answers". But this belies the fact that it took programmers to ask the questions that give the answers. Asking questions must preceed getting the answers.

And that's where a primary disadvantage lay for the non-programming designers. Programmers in fact don't just deal with the implemenation of code, but they often have to model the system they wish to create. Whenever you model a system, you must abstract out the key essential qualities of that system. Choosing what to factor out, and how much you abstract is crucial. Then you have to translate these factors into what the computer can deal with. Non-programmers can only consider what key factors they wish to model. Ideally, a designer should be able to come up with gameplay ideas (the abstraction of what key elements to model of the system) as well as be able to consider how these factors may be influenced by translating it to the computer domain (not just the implementation of the code, but the actual ergonomics of interfacing with a computer I/O system as well as if these factors are even possible).

I think the main reason games are so bland and unimaginative are due more to business and marketing reasons rather than having programmers at the helm of game design. Games are made by big businesses and they don't want to take a risk by doing something too new or innovative. If game development is anything like the comics business, you have editors and "men in suits" who force the creative people to follow a certain direction even if it goes against their artistic vision. Unfortunately, many games are designed for the "lowest common denominator" to attract the most people. Also, the fact that a game that pioneers a new genre often doesn't sell extremely well (but often garners critical acclaim), while its successors do, also makes developers more leery to push the envelope.