• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SinisterPride

Ideas are a dime a dozen...

88 posts in this topic

@Thade The way I see it is, if it pertains to something someone feels like reading/is interested in, they won't feel pressured in its length. I also format constantly so people can realize when I'm ending or straying or starting a new topic. This way, they can choose to stop reading at any point they start to lose interest and NOT miss out on anything they might have wanted to read/could benefit from/contribute to.

 

P.S. That someone was in fact Sir Legendre. To which I haven't posted my reply yet (formatting and correctly wording still). I see his and your point but I stick to my original statement. If you don't like it, dont read it. If you do, thank you for taking your time to read it and it more than likely didn't feel like a waste/bothered you. 

Edited by SinisterPride
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Thade The way I see it is, if it pertains to something someone feels like reading/is interested in, they won't feel pressured in its length.

...

 

If you don't like it, dont read it. If you do, thank you for taking your time to read it and it more than likely didn't feel like a waste/bothered you. 

 

You are in danger of enabling your thread to be pulled right off your actual topic for this thread. I am not disagreeing with your assertion of how you present your posts or even the length of them, but with regard to your actual thread, paying attention to issues that detract from the actual subject is the fastest way I know of degenerating a thread into uselessness and probably locking. To a degree you need to moderate your own threads by reminding people to keep on track where appropriate, possibly summarising various points and thoughts derived out of the thread so far into a form that enable further constructive discussion or points to the fact that you have obtained enough information to your satisfaction on the subject. If you see something that strikes you as needing commentary but stands out as separate issue from the thread's subject consider using the Messenger tool as a form of reply.

 

I should point out that if I purely intended this message for you I would have also utilised that tool. But it strikes me that a gentle reminder allround about keeping to the thread's subject and its appropriate evolution is not a bad thing.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies; I didn't intend to derail and I meant no disrespect. My goal was only friendly advice...advice which really applies to most situations in life. When saying anything, the briefer it is the more likely it is to be understood and to be memorable. If your goal is to reach an audience, brevity is fundamental. That is especially true on the Internet. Youtube and cat videos are legit one tab away.

 

But don't mind me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sir StormyNature, I'll keep an eye on it.

 

I actually attempted to do just that with the edit of my last large post.

 

Specifically from when I said:

 

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

 

Up until I quoted Lady SunAndShadow

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this an official moderator warning that everyone -- and that includes you as the original poster SinisterPride -- is to stay on topic from this point onwards, as things are already getting off the topic at hand and the topic will have to be locked if it strays much farther.

 

-------------------------

 

@SinisterPride:  I realise you've put some effort into your posts, and I'm sure it's much appreciated that it helps increase readability -- and you're right that people who aren't interested can simply choose not to read -- but if you wish to effectively reach a larger audience I do however have two suggestions for you:

  1. Try to be as concise; if you can use less words or repeat yourself less it may aid the readability of your posts.
  2. Just use the standard font, which is clear and easy-to-read.  The one you've been choosing (comic sans?) is just that little bit more difficult to focus on and process.

-------------------------

 

In line with the above instruction, please do not respond to this post either.  There's been some good discussion so far, and it would be sad to see it dragged off topic. smile.png

 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized something on a reread of my post/making sure I didn't miss any post before and after I was active.

 

I've said two things and attempted to clarify what I see as a common root cause for misunderstandings in the heavy matter of politics relating to balance in Design vs Development. 

 

Sir SwiftCoder, Lady SunAndShadow as well as Sir Kylotan have contributed generously and continuously to clarifying and adding their opinions to this cause within this post.

___________

 

I'd like to reiterate my two main contributions:

 

1. Realistic design and productive development meet at a vague threshold where the balance of ideology and functionality/feasibility is key.

 

2. 

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 DevelopmentDevelopment 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.

 

Edit: Duely noted Sir Jbadams, Tahoma ok? lol (I jus can't stand Arial)

Edited by SinisterPride
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

[...]

Design is inarguably a part of Development within the gaming industry (as well as many other industries) and therefore IS a form of DevelopmentDevelopment 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.

Oh boy... this threads is drowning into words. Actually, it's all very simple.

 

Development is about having a game finished and completed. That's the goal and the whole purpose. To have a playable (and preferably fun) game in the end.

 

Design is not a form of development, its only a part of development. A tool you use to make development process faster/easier/better. But alone design without a game in the end is nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Acharis' timestamp='1358937722' post='5024665']
Design is not a form of development, its only a part of development. A tool you use to make development process faster/easier/better. But alone design without a game in the end is nothing.
[/quote]

 

I get your line of reasoning but I utterly disagree with your opinion/base sentiment.

 

I understand that your telling me you don't need someone to plan the work thats done by the raw/physical development staff. In theory your right, you can still build a house without mapping out blueprints/floor plans and all that stuff. A skilled team of developers or builders COULD make a fully functional game thats enjoyable or house that provides shelter and is comfortable.

 

However, I scoff at the idea that the overall likelihood of either being MORE enjoyable or provide better comfort. Its laughable to think of the odds and outcomes in which two teams with those set conditions were to compete xD

 

The potential/quality of the design team would far surpass the designless even though the designless could prolly dish out a product faster.

 

slow and steady wins the race and quality over quantity.. jus my opinion tho

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what are the merits of design without regard for feasibility.
_________________________________________________________

Space 4X Game
Functional/Feasible Design : Create a miniature representation of planets in our solar system and a small region of surrounding space. When players switch on the "FTL drive", he gets teleported to the destination planet to give the illusion that he has traveled vast distances.
Non-Functional/Feasible : Ultra realistic to-scale 3D world of our solar system. You can land on a to-scale life size version of Saturn or Jupiter and expore it. Your ship can fly at FTL speed through vast regions of space in real time.

Normandy beach landing FPS
Functional/Feasible Design : Think about the graphics/sounds capability of the engine, and how to recreate the experience of the beach landing. Perhaps using AI or scripted scenes to simulate fighting in a vast battle while keeping the number of players on each server to a realistic 32 or 64.
Non-Functional/Feasible : 50,000 players together on one server. Realistic experience delivered through virtual reality goggles so players feel as if they are actually there.
_________________________________________________________

During a design discussion of either one of those games, I would prefer to read about the functional/feasible ideas, than the non-functional/feasible ones...which IMHO serves no useful purpose. However, I am not against people having/enjoying such discussions. Perhaps we could have a "FUN" tag for game design discussions that are meant to be "just for fun" and not necessarily functional/feasible?

Edited by Legendre
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing that should be taken into consideration in this discussion is the design efforts of a one man team or small indie group. In a smaller group, even the "idea guy" needs to put in something else into the game such as creating art assets and/or programming. Smaller groups, which are becoming more and more popular, someone who is only an "idea guy" is simply not valuable and dare I say someone who is going to hold back the team. I mean, everyone is creative in their own right, and if you have one person trying to only inject their ideas; even over others ideas, then what good are they? In that setting, I find it better to brainstorm with the group and develop the games idea together and leaving the "idea guy" out of it.

 

In my experience, I worked with some one who was an "idea guy" once. Yeah, it was only "once". It didn't work out so well. The entire team ended up abandoning his idea, the project, and pretty much him because he wasn't willing to help with any of the creation of the game. This kid was a decent enough artist to make assets, but he just wanted to talk down to others and insist his ideas were better than others. Most of my team and I still can't stand the guy.

 

So yeah, my suggestion (to anyone really) is don't be that "idea guy". Bring more to the table, see others as equals, and take advice into serious consideration when its given. If you don't, you'll be that "idea guy".

 

...I think "idea guy" should be a bad word here. mellow.png

Edited by DaveTroyer
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Legendre' timestamp='1358961468' post='5024778']
Non-Functional/Feasible : Ultra realistic to-scale 3D world of our solar system. You can land on a to-scale life size version of Saturn or Jupiter and expore it. Your ship can fly at FTL speed through vast regions of space in real time.

Non-Functional/Feasible : 50,000 players together on one server. Realistic experience delivered through virtual reality goggles so players feel as if they are actually there.
[/quote]

 

With existing technology. I would anticipate this would alter with technological advances.

 

Generating ideas can be very much pie in the sky and have no regard to the actual constraints of what can and cannot be achieved with current levels of technology. I sometimes think this point in of itself is not made clearly enough on these forums. Developing an idea with no real understanding of these constraints is only feasible in the beginning but as you begin to refine the idea into something more concrete then it becomes less feasible (exceptions do exist of course i.e. simplistic/achievable). A little appreciated reality of the game designer role is merging the game idea with the engineering constraints to develop a game that meets both ends. In the end, this is one of the primary reasons initial game ideas evolve and adapt from their beginnings into a finished product that may bear little resemblance to the original idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acharis is talking about the difference in quality between a game produced solely by the design team, versus one produced entirely by the development team. It's a bit of a strawman, since the design team is very unlikely to be able to develop a game without any developers.

 

Well, thats a rigged proposition then sleep.png Because obviously, we all know designers need developers.

 

If not, a designer needs some development know how in order to complete a game. In which case you can't paint them out as a "designer". This person is multi-disciplined as was being brought up in DaveTroyers' post.

 

Designers need Programmers, Graphic Artist, and Sound Technicians. Programmers, Graphic Artist, and Sound Technicians could live without Designers.

 

We get it, you don't have to rub it in tongue.png

 

I am not sure what are the merits of design without regard for feasibility.

 

Perhaps we could have a "FUN" tag for game design discussions that are meant to be "just for fun" and not necessarily functional/feasible?

 

I agree with a slight different stand on why. Design without regard for feasibility is not in fact design. Its as you said before, day dreaming.

 

During a design discussion of either one of those games, I would prefer to read about the functional/feasible ideas, than the non-functional/feasible ones

 

Also agree, I believe in purpose in all my actions (even the menial ones) and shy away from waste of energy and time. Talking about things I don't believe I can realistically implement just counts as dilly dallying. I don't mind discussing something I believe I can implement but don't know how until I come to the conclusion that it is unrealistic.

 

don't be that "idea guy". Bring more to the table, see others as equals, and take advice into serious consideration when its given. If you don't, you'll be that "idea guy".
 
...I think "idea guy" should be a bad word here. mellow.png

 

First off, welcome to the thread Sir DaveTroyer!! biggrin.png Thanks again for your input on the FFC system happy.png

 

As you may have noticed, I've taken a liking to considering myself an "Idea Guy" in defense to the design aspects of development. Even though I am most definitely not an "Idea Guy" in the sense it is commonly used on here. So yes, the common notion for the term is VERY bad. I like to think of being an "Idea guy" from a more positive and practical perspective. When I refer to myself as an "Idea Guy" I mean I have a design heavy orientation and approach to development. As I mentioned before, up to this point I've done all of my own work and there is indeed alot more than just thoughts included in my work.

 

 A little appreciated reality of the game designer role is merging the game idea with the engineering constraints to develop a game that meets both ends. In the end, this is one of the primary reasons initial game ideas evolve and adapt from their beginnings into a finished product that may bear little resemblance to the original idea.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. This explains and adds to a statement I made a while back quite nicely.

 

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.

 

Thank you for getting the discussion back on track guys (and gal? lol) smile.png You're all champs biggrin.png

Edited by SinisterPride
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas.

 

I think that this is a very dangerous phrase you are throwing about, and that it heavily contributes to the resistance you are encountering in this thread.

 

Every discipline begins with daydreaming and spewing ideas. Writers do it, artists do it, theoretical physicists do it - hell, programmers do it too. There is nothing unique to game design about spewing ideas.

 

But in the same way that programming isn't just about daydreaming and spewing ideas, neither is design. If you insist on ignoring the technical aspects of game design, then you might as well be an existential philosopher, for all the good it will do you in actually designing a game.

 

When I am done daydreaming about some amazing new GPGPU procedural generation algorithm, I go implement the damn thing and see if it works. So if you don't have the drive and ambition to prototype your amazing new gameplay mechanic (and a prototype can be as simple as a quick spreadsheet, or a set of sketches on the back of napkins), then I don't see why I should grant you the time of day...

 

Edit: I realise that may have sounded a bit harsh. It isn't my intention to direct that squarely at you - it's a general criticism that applies to many people and/or disciplines.

Edited by swiftcoder
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1358985800' post='5024933']
I think that this is a very dangerous phrase you are throwing about, and that it heavily contributes to the resistance you are encountering in this thread.
 
Every discipline begins with daydreaming and spewing ideas. Writers do it, artists do it, theoretical physicists do it - hell, programmers do it too. There is nothing unique to game design about spewing ideas.
[/quote]

 

Agreed for the most part."Game design is in fact more about daydreaming and spewing ideas." IS a dangerous phrase. But only when taken out of context as it so commonly has been within my post. You said it yourself, "Every discipline begins with daydreaming and spewing ideas." and as I have reiterated countless times, my phrasing never suggest that "daydreaming and spewing ideas" is ALL that game design is about sleep.png

 

[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1358985800' post='5024933']

So if you don't have the drive and ambition to prototype your amazing new gameplay mechanic (and a prototype can be as simple as a quick spreadsheet, or a set of sketches on the back of napkins), then I don't see why I should grant you the time of day...
[/quote]

 

When I commented on prototyping my choice of words were very poor. I said something about not being willing to prototype a demonstrable demo. What I should have said is that I am not willing to spend time developing a playable demo in order to display a concept or idea. I in fact, I prototype my ideas in very extensive manners and have plenty of work to show for it (of which I'm slowly posting and sharing in my Project A.E. chain of threads).

 

So yes, you sir hit the nail on the head with your post biggrin.png 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I should have said is that I am not willing to spend time developing a playable demo in order to display a concept or idea.

 

In your case, your design is a specialized form of control for movement and attacking; it would really benefit from a rough playable prototype. It could get your idea across. I don't understand why this doesn't seem worth the time to you? If it's not worth the time to you, why should it be to anybody else?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bit agressive on your phrasing there buddy lol..

Did you read what I actually said? I won't spend time developing a PLAYABLE DEMO to DISPLAY a concept or idea.

If my goal is to express my idea for a concept or mechanic, my writing or sketches more than suffice to complete the task coherently.

If I aim to construct a playable model of said mechanics I will:

-sit down with an engine
-load up basic functional graphic models of my own making
-establish the scripting for the controller input > model reply/reaction
-then tinker my ass off until I'm satisfied with the results.

See the difference between when I aim to design something and when I aim to develop it?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SinisterPride:

I think, though, that the process of prototyping (or constructing a playable model of a mechanic) may not only give you something to show people who may be interested in being a part of the development team, but it could also change the way you look at your mechanic.

 

For example: Maybe you have an idea of exactly how your control scheme will work (as you laid out in one of your other threads), and it really might work very well, but when you explain it, without showing it, all I think of is QWOP, and I no longer want to have anything to do with the project.

 

I think a big part of why people seem to be resistant to the idea of a pure "Designer", is because everyone on the team is part of the design process. Maybe one of the graphics programmers develops a really cool shader or figures out a way to include some graphical flourish that was dismissed as being beyond scope before... that person just influenced the design. Maybe only aesthetically, but that's part of design. 

 

So, when someone comes along who doesn't want to show how a mechanic should behave or present a few concept sketches to get a feel for the aesthetic of the game, one really starts to wonder how integral their role in the development is. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally and 100% agreed Sir NoAdmiral.

The thing is, you have to take into account (as someone mentioned earlier, not sure who, I'll check and edit this when I get home) that up until now I haven't had to articulate my thoughts to anyone but myself. My notes and prototypes have all been for me to catalog in case I ever wanted to make things public. This way I'd have something to show or a staring point that's not from scratch for a prospective team if it ever came to it. If my personality has shown at all in the last couple of days it should be known that I can contribute as well as consider criticism/bounce ideas around without being self centered.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much agree with NoAdmiral.

 

SinisterPride, you said the following yourself in an earlier post:

 

I believe in purpose in all my actions (even the menial ones) and shy away from waste of energy and time

 

When designing a complex system you will inevitably reach a point where accurately reasoning about the design and all of its implications in your head / on paper becomes practically impossible due to fundamental limitations of the human mind (such as a limited working memory). In programming we appreciate that all of the intricacies of a sufficiently large project cannot possibly be kept in one's head at any one time. The same could be said for any sufficiently complex system of rules, such as a game design.

 

Unexpected emergent properties arise in games frequently. If your design has reached a certain threshold of detail/complexity, and you are still working on paper, then making a change to the design is going to take a long time (as you have to back-track through the various connected elements of your design, and anticipate the implications of the change). The change will probably introduce other problems as well (as due to the design's complexity it is unlikely that your reasoning will be correct, let alone exhaustive).

 

The time/energy cost of reasoning about the effect of a change to the design on paper increases as the design's complexity grows, and the accuracy of your reasoning decreases. When you finally do begin implementation, you will likely have to tear out parts of the design as you realize that they don't work quite as expected. This can be extremely expensive. On the other hand, if you have a basic prototype then you can make a change and immediately test the implications. You can also get an early warning of any game-breaking design decisions - potentially saving you huge amounts of wasted effort. This allows you to know, rather than just think, that the design you have laid out behaves as expected in the real world. It allows you to empirically test the validity of your ideas, and reveals their true implications.

 

At some point it becomes more efficient to stop thinking/writing and instead create a functional prototype. It seems to me that the only question is where exactly this line is drawn.

 

As an aside, prototypes have frequently served as sources of inspiration - I'm sure many games (or at least major features) have been born from some quirky behavior in a prototype which turned out to be fun.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0