I have read numerous times about how ideas are a dime a dozen and just about worthless, but is there ever a point when an idea gains value? What if that idea has been refined over the course of months, or even years, to the point where just about every detail of the game can be explained in words precisely, down to each minute aspect? What if the design document is so comprehensive that it can be followed to a T, with little need for interpretation? Say, for instance, this "idea guy" was making an RPG, and in his GDD he has descriptions of every combat mechanic, formulas for every kind of calculation, tables of every item in the game (along with stats, descriptions, etc.), drop tables, blueprints of every map, the storyline progression, detail of each quest, and so on...

Even after all that, would that idea still be just about worthless, or would it have gained some value by then?

There is a point when an idea gains value: When it starts generating money.

As I said before, a thing is worth what someone will pay for it. When we say ideas are worthless, it's not because there is some giant price list somewhere that says "Idea: $0", it's because we know from experience that they're unsaleable. Can you ever imagine buying an idea off someone else?

As you embellish that idea, flesh it out and begin to turn it into an implementation, then the probability of being able to sell it to someone, and the amount they might pay for it - increases. You need to focus on aspects that reduce the buyer's risk and increase their potential reward, in order to make it an attractive investment.

FWIW, a giant monolithic GDD is far riskier and therefore much less attractive than a simple, buggy, but playable and fun prototype with no GDD whatsoever. Getting something implemented is therefore a far better use of your time than refining your GDD to the microscopic levels of detail.

I've read through all of the replies on this topic since my last post and, for obvious reasons, won't bother with quoting them all. In stead I will tell you where I stand on the issue now, after your input and some reflection on my part.

I have concluded that the points raised in my initial post might have been a bit miguided, if not wrong.

It's obvious that I don't have much real experience in game development and I don't think I ever tried to claim otherwise.

I will try to rephrase some of my views to better fit how I feel now.

One thing the gaming business seems to rely on very heavily is iterative processes. This is of course very understandable given the complexity of an average, let alone a large, game. It also seems that these iterative processes mostly come into play during the implementation. And that's where I have a bit of a problem. Of course it is unavoidable that there will be a significant amount of iteration during implementation, but I am of the opinion that starting from an idea that has been thought out to great extent and will thus require less iteration will result in a product with more integrity. Furthermore I feel like the need for iterative processes are a shame. In a way, it reduces people to components of a machine, each with their own specific functions. This is good for implementation, but not ideal for refining ideas. In stead of working as one creative person, you work more like a computer program.

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design. Even stating that you can't be a game designer without other relevant skills. All I can really say is that I disagree. I think it is sad that it is froyned upon that some people want t get into the gaming business without art or programming skills. Game design is a very real skill set and good game designers are just as rare (if not rarer) and intergral to a game as good programmers and artist. (and writers and composers and animators etc.)

So here's what I now think the value of an initial idea is: I think the value of an initial idea lies in how it can make a game designer passionate about it. If a good game designer thinks of or gets a hold of a game idea and falls in love with it. I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing. He can do that alone or with some friends or with a hundred man team. And I personally believe that at this stage, sticking to your idea can sometimes be more important than listening to everyone who has a way of optimizing it. Of course you can consider every suggestion, but weigh the possible benefit against how it fits with the integrity of your game.

Thanks for all the replies on this thread, I really appreciate them. If I offended anyone with one of my posts here, please know that I purposely took a bit of an extreme stance and didn't mean to insult anyone. I'm not done thinking about this subject yet but I think this thread has helped a lot.

If a good game designer thinks of or gets a hold of a game idea and falls in love with it. I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing.

What advantage is there to refining an idea in the abstract, rather than in a concrete series of prototypes (also know as "implementation")? Game development isn't Socratic philosophy, you know...

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design. Even stating that you can't be a game designer without other relevant skills.

Collaboration is a relevant skill, I'd settle for that. No one likes a diva, which appears to be what you are describing.

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design.

If a good game designer thinks of or gets a hold of a game idea and falls in love with it. I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing.

What advantage is there to refining an idea in the abstract, rather than in a concrete series of prototypes (also know as "implementation")? Game development isn't Socratic philosophy, you know...

>Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design. Even stating that you can't be a game designer without other relevant skills.

Collaboration is a relevant skill, I'd settle for that. No one likes a diva, which appears to be what you are describing.

I feel like implementation will take you away from what you want to achieve with your game and drag you into teh question of what you can achieve. I'm not saying tehre is something wrong in principle with doing it that way, I just don't get why refining it in abstract seems to be frowned upon. Is knowing your game and what you want to achieve with it through and through by the time you have to deal with practical problems really such a horrible thing that's not only not worth the time you'd spend on it but just a plain bad idea?

As for a game designer having to eb able to collaborate, of course that's an important skill. But if you as a programmer suggest a game mechanic and he doesn't see howm it fits in his design, why would it be a bad thing if he doesn't want to change it? There's a difference between being a diva and knowing what you want your game to be.

Another thing I'd like to comment on is that I notice that a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design.

-picture-

Note that I never said I see myself as an artist, I don't think I have it in me.

You have a really cynical view of artists though.

You have a really cynical view of artists though.

In case it wasn't obvious, I posted the image as a comment on your 'ideas guy as an artist' stance, rather than a comment on artists in general.

As for the 'real meaning' of the image, (which was created by an artist, presumably) that, like all art, is open to interpretation.

On the subject of artists, have you ever watched an artist at work? Because they don't always get things right first time. They prototype, iterate etc. just like developers.

Wouldn't the ideal scenario be for the game designer to work on his idea alone for months, figure out as many details as possible, weed out the flaws, refine it, create a working prototype, test play it (with other people of course) and get feedback - all of this before even starting the actual production of the final game with the entire development team?

To what end? If we're looking for an "auteur" style game, we could force it that way, but even then I don't believe such a severe approach is strictly necessary. An experienced lead game designer with a strong vision and a willing team should be equally capable, I think.

Coming from an artistic background, the process of refining and revamping ideas during the production process seems a little like putting the cart before the horse. Since the painter analogy has been made several times on this thread, I'll use it again as an example. A painter does not begin the process of making a painting by applying the paint to a blank canvas. He begins it by thinking of an idea, then by creating pencil sketches of it and even a few colour studies. After much refining, he will then create a final, pencil draft that he will copy onto the blank canvas to paint over.

So when does he begin creating the final painting? After every detail about the painting has been finalized. The painter does not decide halfway through the painting process to add something. All of that has been decided upon in the drafting phase.

While I am not a professional painter, I certainly add or remove elements of a painting as I work through the process. That said, I think a better analogy would instead be that each sketch/study would map to a particular iteration in a iterative game design project.

In any case, the pencil sketches and colour studies, or game prototypes, are all tools only available to someone who has the skills to implement the task. An "idea" artist cannot create these sketches or studies without having developed practical skills. Likewise, to prototype a game one needs to have at least some ability to actually make, rather than describe, a game.

My original point was that the mechanics of a game such as this could be worked out and refined on paper rather than creating a digital prototype to get feedback. In other words - it's something the game designer could do alone (with some feedback by play testers, of course) before even presenting the idea to a game studio.

To refine the mechanics of a game such as chess, you can either build a game prototype or prototypes until it gets to the point where you can sufficiently test the mechanics to the point of having confidence in them (and, incidentally, prove yourself to be more than an "idea person" ), or not make a playable game and essentially invest a lot of time and resources into a very specific design without being able to understand how it plays.

I think this is the core argument in the thread. It is not that an up front design is worthless, but that an unproven design is incredibly risky relative to a design that has been prototyped. To prototype a design we need people with the skills to execute the idea.

The combination of supply and demand (we have no idea shortage) with this risk , results in the valuation of such ideas without implementation as worthless. A pure "idea person", lacking the skills to prove their ideas, is facing an uphill battle to convince those who have the skills (and their own ideas) to work with them to prove their design.

As for a game designer having to eb able to collaborate, of course that's an important skill. But if you as a programmer suggest a game mechanic and he doesn't see howm it fits in his design, why would it be a bad thing if he doesn't want to change it? There's a difference between being a diva and knowing what you want your game to be.

Nobody is suggesting this. A critical skill for a lead game designer is knowing which ideas and changes to incorporate and which to leave out, and when to remove ideas that sounded good but that aren't working out.

The main thing we are suggesting is that the lead game designer must be willing and able to apply the same process equally to their own ideas and those of others.

Game design doesn't have to be a democracy, and it probably shouldn't be. A benevolent dictator will work fine.