[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

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?

[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.

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 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

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.

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

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) You're all champs

Something of note to mention: A game designer is not necessarily the person who created the orginal game idea oftentimes he/she is not.

[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

[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