I think you underestimate the value of a prototype.

A prototype can tell you many things, and most importantly of all, it tells you things before you invest too much into them. Rather than developing a whole game and then finding out that several core features suck, you can throw together some quick and dirty minigames that demonstrate the core features and prove that they are a) feasible to develop and b) entertaining enough to justify their inclusion in the game. The more atypical the feature, the more important this is.

If you don't want to develop prototypes because your features are so complex that it would take "too long", that to me is a pretty clear sign that your features are not feasible for you to implement. In a way, the prototype has done it's job without even having to write it - it's just up to you to accept what it's telling you.

By prototype do you generally mean a full on mini game that is released to the public (with very limited marketing and a different brand), or something you produce internally that your internal team and small group of alpha testers uses to give you feedback?

I'm dealing with this issue for my own game.. trying to decide if launching a fairly unpolished game missing many features (that nonetheless is fully playable) in 1 year is the way to go versus a much more polished, feature-rich game in 2.5 years.

My stand was (and probably still is) mistaken for a lack of willingness to flesh out a prototype. The fact is that I an not willing to flesh out a prototype specifically for the sake of demonstration.

I have to agree with what Sandman said - prototypes are incredibly valuable for the reasons he listed.

Adding to that, I think that prototypes can, without too much effort, be done in such a way that when you're done tweaking / fixing the mechanic you're testing, you can almost just

take any code or work you've put into the prototype and integrate it as a part of your actual game, or even use it as a starting point for your actual game, again without too much effort.

I'm doing something like that currently, where my project started with me messing around with some collision stuff and I slowly build upon it as a base for a game, and I think it's working out fairly well.

When doing UI prototyping at my old employer (In mobile UI industry), some prototypes involved absolutely no code at all.

Just cardboard cutouts, postits, tape and studs.

Prototypes should be just that, the bare minimum to show the concept and enable the team to play around with it, and modify what doesn't work until it works. (or is thrown away)

What is a common misconception people like me, oops I mean "Idea Guys" (.. silly idea guys) have?

That game design (thoughts, organizational aspects, iteration) is more cerebral, artistic and creative than YOU proposed when you vaguely defined Game Design as:

Taking an idea (existing or brand new) and making it work in an actual product under resource/time constraints

You were so "precise" in your statement that you could of been talking about a magic 8 ball and defined it the same way. Which is why, at the time, I recycled some words within the surrounding post to stay relevant to the topics at hand and said:

What you defined is functional game development. Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas. Where they meet, tying into what you're saying, lies within the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility.

Take note of the wording. I never said Game Design is in fact ALL/MOSTLY/ABOUT daydreaming and spewing ideas. I even admitted to Sir Sloper that I made a poor choice of words which is where your retort comes into play.

Design is far more cerebral, artistic and creative than -mere daydreaming. +Legendre was painting it out to be.

Makes more sense now that I paid more attention to what you chopped off. Its ok, you've made some points which I admit have shut me up or changed my perspective/made me think. However, the "Idea Guy" can totally prove you wrong some times too.

Speaking of which:

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

On the contrary? What are you countering? The quote you highlighted was taken out of context and spoke of the more mathematical/logical/scientific disciplines within the development process. They're jobs DO in fact leave little to no space for artistry. The only part which was even remotely close to what that quote was refering to was the mention of creating tools. In case you didn't know (but ofcourse you do, you're not an idea guy like me) creating tools is something that has to be done often from scratch by Programmers to aid Graphic Artist as well as streamline work for other Programmers.

Also, your comment:

.. skillful, innovative use of the available tools, materials or techniques ..

.. is so vague that you basically described what 95% of all Craftsmen/Artisans/Creators do. Kudos

As you may already know, I was making a comparison and subsequent correction of a common seperation/horrid definition of Design/Development. I was making a differentiation in definition which many seem to have a very failed concept of..

Don't worry, I'll break it down a bit here:

Definitions taken directly from Www.Dictionary.com

Development: the act or process of developing; growth; progress:

Developing: undergoing development; growing; evolving.

Design:

1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of.

2. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan.

_______

So what does this tell me, the "Idea Guy"?

It tells me that I have an Idea of where and how to show that there is a line drawn which clearly states what is and isn't design within the industry. The confusion which so many others seem to have stems from a misunderstanding and generalization of terms which I will attempt to mostly clarify in one a simple statement.

_________

Design is inarguably a part of Development within the gaming industry (as well as many other industries) and therefore IS a form of Development. Development however, is comprised of multiple aspects some of which (NOT all) comprise elements of Design.

Therefore, Design is ALWAYS Development while Development does NOT always entail Designing.

_________

I hope that was clear and accurate. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll now address some more direct comments on my work. If I didn't know how to receive criticism and opinions I would of taken direct offense to the manner in which some of this was stated.

However, the way I see it, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I can either choose to agree or disagree. In essence, my choices are to bicker like an immature little child and respond in a detrimental fashion or I accept your input in a productive way even if I don't agree with it. I did in fact take more offense originally before rereading and editing this. Reason being that I felt you know nothing of what is developed out side of ONE facet which I've shared. Nor do you know much of anything about what knowledge I may possess aside from what you assume to know about me. What makes it worse is that this is all according to what little I have shared pertaining mostly to my opinions since introducing myself a couple of days ago. As I said to Sir Sloper, I haven't claimed to be anything more than a Gamer/Fanboy. I am not an industry proffesional nor do I even consider myself an official hobbyist designer/developer. Sadly, the commentary on my game idea bothered me less than what I presumed as you insulting my intelligence. I humbly apologize if I have offended you Sir Legendre.

Nonetheless, here goes my response to your commentary on my ideas:

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

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

I've noticed you use the word constraint quite often. It sparked a memory (I have a bit of a accurate memory for detail if my mention of Rygar and Bushido blade didn't demonstrate it [I was about 7 years old when Bushido Blade was fresh on the market if it puts anything into perspective]) of something which although I don't remember where I read or heard it, stuck to me:

"A good designer takes into account their teams' as well as their own strengths, weaknesses, tools/skill sets, resources, and available time. Knowing these things very well, a good designer sets a realistic perimeter of what CAN be acchieved. However, limits are NEVER drawn, they are reached. A good designer knows this."

________

Your comments:

.. need to consider how.. combat control system fit in your overall game.. feasible to implement vs a simpler system.

The combat system is one of the key features and core mechanics. How could I:

1) Not consider every other aspect around a key feature as well as consider a key feature around every other aspect.

2) A simpler system which is common place to REPLACE a key feature? wheres the challenge and attempted innovation in that?

..should also protoype.. creative ways to pull off... limitation of controller.. -*bright smile, thumb up, wink*- "THIS is Design!"-

Good point, I actually have to fight my perfectionist tendancies/urges all the time in the name of productivity (look at how many average edits each of my replies and post have its a curse and a gift lol). So I understand everyones concern with Q&A and prototyping quite well. Its unrealistic to think you can land something from concept to final product without tweaking, testing and generally stressing the hell out of that product in every form to squeeze out every tiny bug/unexpected/unintended outcome you possibly can. Why does it seem everyone assumes I'm against fine tunning my work?

This is the end of my reply to Sir Legendre. Again I'm sorry for my childish behavior and I humbly offer my apologies.

_______

I said it somewhere on here the other day, I have my reasons for why I never actively stepped passed any of the various forms of design. Aside from emotional uncertainty, as I also said somewhere, I'm human and not all of my decisions are based solely on logic. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to do anything other that write in order to forward my work and passion.

I'm not one to boast or speak of my achievements and capabilities with high regard but in this case I'll push it just a bit.

I've done my own concept art, written my own lore, designed my own technical input/motion layouts, taught myself basic scripting in hopes of being able to atleast contribute or do some of the programing, designed skill and spell systems and trees, developed the way(s) I want to track expierience which isn't as mainstream as we're used to/have seen, designed multiple menus, huds, UIs and concepts for tracking things that are usually displayed on huds without having to clutter the screen, extensively thought of time mechanics to interact with varying other mechanics in the world enviroments as well as for character development, explored methods for online multiplayer which localizes server loads between players wishing to play with each other (sort of like lan with a bit of a twist in networking) which would in theory allow large gatherings of adventurers without requiring dedicated servers by spreading the load of bandwidth allocation to each individual player wishing to play, developed professions which tie into character development in a direct way not just as varying side benefits, extensively tied the environment into said professions while theoretically eliminating extensive rendering or resources in the enviroment when entering and moving around areas, theorized on ways to minimize input lag by uniforming control and response methods between the world and the player/npcs (this ties into the combat system as well).. and other stuff that I probably cant think of off the top of my head..

This is why I was so adamant by Lady SunAndShadows post. I approach from a design heavy perspective, but that doesn't mean I dont understand and take other aspects of development into account.

Last bit of general commentary on what I feel is unfair and would like to see less of around here.

- It seems some people feel strongly about triggers (things I have said or are commonly said) which leads to a automatic dismissal and subsequent tossing of everything that comes along with a given comment or proposed topic. This is unfair, we should strive to look past our prejudices and disect/attack the topics at hand, not our assumptions of what whoever said it may be like.

- As soon as some of us are convinced/assume that someone is "THAT" type of guy often refered to as the "Idea Guy" (which I've taken a liking to calling myself lol) a subconciously (or possibly conscious) trend of finding fault in just about everything that person can say occurs. I think we lose so many oppurtunities to educate and constructively contribute due to this.

- Some of us (I can be accused of doing it or coming off this way at times as well) have a "high-horse" attitude and scoff at ideas which is never an appropriate/mature response. We should take oppurtunities like this to either enlighten or pose a constructive response not condescend.

My ShiGong, Grandmaster Alan Lee once told me something which I will never forget:

We all start as novices in all given respects. It is the responsibility and duty of the more experienced to educate, lead and protect the inexperienced.

Regardless of what the case maybe I would appreciate it, if above all, we:

-Stop automatically assuming that inexperience is equivalent to lack of knowledge.

-That unwillingness to follow certain "standard paths" is a sign of doomed failure. We all walk our own paths in life, Game design and Development is no exception.

-Mainly, I would appreciate it if we could stop bashing each others strengths, methods and preferences. As Lady SunAndShadow so eloquently put it:

I think of design and development as different types of activities, but they're not wholly separate in that both are essential to artistic creation. A successful creator is by definition able to do both, so perhaps the reason why you have difficulty picturing a designer who does not like developing is that they are set up to fail at actually creating anything. But that doesn't mean they don't exist, and a few succeed by either forcing themselves to do the development like it's exercise or homework, or by using money as leverage to get others to do the development.

______________

On a more personal note:

If I had listened and taken to heart all the negative commentary through out my years of pursing this "hobby", I would of never been able to consider setting foot on the path to become a designer. In fact, after my first attempt at college (which failed in case you were wondering) in which I studied Multimedia Development with a focus in Game Design, I left the path to later pursue a career as a writer/artist and almost didn't set foot back into it. This should put my OP into perspective in regards to some of the vague details in which I praise and thank Sir Sloper.

This may all have seemed like a huge vent but I'm confident that aside from being that it has plenty of useful perspective and information. I am simply making a stand. If anyone has anything to say to or about me on ANYTHING within this post that does NOT pertain to design or development. Please, feel free to private message me. I'd be more than glad to hear you out if you feel I am wrong for saying anything I have said. But I will not have bickering that is of no benefit to others littering my thread.

I'm gonna go through hell editing this Guess averaging out 90wpm isnt as fun when you have to go back and edit lol

Edit: I did go through hell editing that

I'd like to thank all of you who down voted my original version of this reply/post as well as Sir Milcho for private messaging me and opening my eyes wider to the error of my ways.

Sincerely,

Alfred Liriano

aka

SinisterPride

?§• ??§?

Welcome to GameDev.net where you will find that a large percentage of the posters have a leaning towards the more practical side of game creation i.e. the actual work in making games a reality. This does not make them right I should point out but it also does not make them wrong either. The practical implementation of ideas into reality is absolutely necessary to seeing a game produced, indeed it is completely relevant in this particular point: You don't need a good idea(s) to make a game.

Multiple interpretations of what a game designer's role consists of have been pointed out and indeed there is a plethora of older posts in this this particular forum which rehash the same debate. Stepping away from that though...if you have an idea but you do absolutely nothing with it beyond the confines of your own person...then your idea while serving a function of personal value does not service anyone else. Ideas can be a dime a dozen but finding which ideas are effectively worth more can also be tricksome and often results in expensive mistakes when ideas of seeming value turn out to be fool's gold. This is basic industry experience (applicable across all industries tbh). Having the idea does not inherently make it valuable (excepting on a personal basis) and the only way to discover whether it has value is to begin the translation of that idea into a practicable form until as such time as you reach a point where you recognise it will not work out or alternatively a game is created.

Don't take the criticism in this thread as being personal to you. If you track back through older posts you will find similar threads to yours in this forum with regard the "Idea" and its relative value as perceived by many as being insufficient of itself. Personally I am of the belief that this is somewhat of an engineer's perspective which is often the role of taking something nebulous and creating something practicable. Ideas in my opinion do have their place and have a valid reason to be but ...they don't have to be used.

In a practical sense, if you are the idea man then you are seeking others to do the work for you. This is fine...just provide the appropriate compensation to those who would build your idea into reality or alternatively, inspire others to do it gratis.You will find people on this site who can be inspired to do things gratis but that doesn't mean they want to do all the work (nor would it be fair to think that they should).

I'd like to bring attention to the edit of my ignorant post earlier. I took some time to rewrite the whole thing.

Again, thank you all for your input you guys are awesome