• 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
overactor

What's the true worth of an initial game idea?

107 posts in this topic

1. What's the true worth of an initial game idea?
2. "Can video games be art?"
3. who is the painter?

1. $.008333
2. "Yes."
3. The entire team, including the producer.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're exactly right, someone with enthusiasm suggests how they think things should be and someone worn down by the industry talks beside the question by stating how things are.

 

Unfortunately, even with all the enthusiasm in the world, the lack of experience basically means your idea of 'how things should be' may not very well rooted in reality.

 

Let's suppose though, for the sake of argument, you're right. Idea Guys are a downtrodden and under-appreciated font of creativity, and games developers should make better use of them.

 

How do you propose we harness their untapped potential? Should studios start hiring Idea Guys? What are you actually proposing here?

 

How about this, you move from huge projects being the standard to medium sized projects. You give the game designer an even bigger say and have him work form an idea he came up with himself or is extremely passionate about. The problem of course is, who in their right mind would finance that over some sequel or rehashed game that is a guaranteed moneymaker? It might turn out to be a flop, it will definitely not appeal to as large an audience as AAA games do, but the end product will have a hell of a lot more integrity.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. What's the true worth of an initial game idea?
2. "Can video games be art?"
3. who is the painter?

1. $.008333
2. "Yes."
3. The entire team, including the producer.

I couldn't disagree more.

How can a game have any personality what so ever if everyone involved gets a real say as to what direction the game goes in.

Furthermore, do you really think everyone in the gaming industry has good ideas about what games should be like and how a good game is designed?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first discovered gamedev I was shocked

there was virtually NOTHING about real video game design

nothing about how to entertain people

nothing about how to create pleasure in peoples' brains

 

there was some rubbish about rewards and so forth, completely missing the point IMO

 

in essence nothing describing the most important stuff (which is psych-stuff)

 

instead it is all about "how it looks"

 

Probably because we do not possess the language to describe what goes on in the human brain

and all the really good stuff that could happen is "invisible"

 

Instead we focus on what we can see and describe "how it looks"

which is just a "comfort zone" as long as it looks good nobody can complain ... and we don't have to feel ashamed about our creations

 

That is why I use the word "boring"

 

Even the most impressive video games are not stimulating my brain in an interesting way

 

Many of them are just saying "look at me, look how clever I am"

 

Which leaves me with an empty bored feeling ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're exactly right, someone with enthusiasm suggests how they think things should be and someone worn down by the industry talks beside the question by stating how things are.

 

Unfortunately, even with all the enthusiasm in the world, the lack of experience basically means your idea of 'how things should be' may not very well rooted in reality.

 

Let's suppose though, for the sake of argument, you're right. Idea Guys are a downtrodden and under-appreciated font of creativity, and games developers should make better use of them.

 

How do you propose we harness their untapped potential? Should studios start hiring Idea Guys? What are you actually proposing here?

 

How about this, you move from huge projects being the standard to medium sized projects. You give the game designer an even bigger say and have him work form an idea he came up with himself or is extremely passionate about. The problem of course is, who in their right mind would finance that over some sequel or rehashed game that is a guaranteed moneymaker? It might turn out to be a flop, it will definitely not appeal to as large an audience as AAA games do, but the end product will have a hell of a lot more integrity.

 

This has nothing to do with 'Idea Guys'. It's more about how games get funded. And in case you hadn't noticed, what you describe here is kind of already happening.

 

Non-traditional, incremental release models are made feasible by the ubiquity of high speed broadband. Crowdfunding models such as Kickstarter offer an alternative to the traditional publisher model, with digital distribution sites like Steam providing a strong platform for distribution even for small indie studios.

 

A number of well known developers have turned to Kickstarter in order to make the game they want to make, rather than the game their publishers want them to make. Isn't this what you are talking about?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with 'Idea Guys'. It's more about how games get funded. And in case you hadn't noticed, what you describe here is kind of already happening.

 

Non-traditional, incremental release models are made feasible by the ubiquity of high speed broadband. Crowdfunding models such as Kickstarter offer an alternative to the traditional publisher model, with digital distribution sites like Steam providing a strong platform for distribution even for small indie studios.

 

A number of well known developers have turned to Kickstarter in order to make the game they want to make, rather than the game their publishers want them to make. Isn't this what you are talking about?

 

While I think that this is a positive evolution, it's still a bit lacking. In stead of trying to please a publisher, the game designers are now trying to please the end users. This is of course a significant improvement but not the way to go if you want to make art. Don't get me wrong by the way, by far not every video game should strive to be high art.

Another thing that the crowdfunding model doesn't address is how much say the game designer gets in all aspects of the game. The open nature of the model seems to promote that everyone gets to contribute to the project, even the consumers. And since when do consumers of art know anything about the creation of art?

 

What I will say for the crowdfunding model is that it enables passionate people to work on the ideas they are passionate about. But they still have to adjust them in a way that they will sell well rather than stay true to the original meaning.

 

As to what it has to do with idea guys, some people are simply better idea guys than other people, those people should be recognised and encouraged to learn about game design and possibly other aspects involved in game making, because that person could be the Rembrandt of the game industry. As opposed to a very talented programmer or 3d artist.

Edited by overactor
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

overactor, on 11 May 2013 - 06:04, said:
1. What's the true worth of an initial game idea?
2. "Can video games be art?"
3. who is the painter?
1. $.008333
2. "Yes."
3. The entire team, including the producer.

 

Perhaps to big companies an idea is worth very little. The idea guy doesn't exist in pro game development, but in an indie situation, your sudden idea in the middle of the night could be what gets you started, adding on to that idea in the following months of development is the next step, but you needed that first spark.

You wont get paid for having ideas and only ideas, but if you have ideas and can execute them you are in a good situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think that this is a positive evolution, it's still a bit lacking. In stead of trying to please a publisher, the game designers are now trying to please the end users. This is of course a significant improvement but not the way to go if you want to make art. Don't get me wrong by the way, by far not every video game should strive to be high art.

How do you know this is what happens? Publishers won't make much money if they don't care about pleasing the end user. Yeah some games may not turn out to be the best, but that doesn't mean that they didn't try. It's hard to implement a good game. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

As to what it has to do with idea guys, some people are simply better idea guys than other people, those people should be recognised and encouraged to learn about game design and possibly other aspects involved in game making, because that person could be the Rembrandt of the game industry. As opposed to a very talented programmer or 3d artist.

Making a video game with a team is not like making a painting with one person. It's comparing apples to oranges. If you want to be the Rembrandt of game development, you'll have to make the complete game alone. Then it's a fair comparison. Artist, programmers, musicians, etc are creative people. There's no way to stop them from adding their ideas. This happens automatically in the creative process. Yes, programmers are creative.

In your opinion, what does the idea guy do? Don't give general statements. Can you give a detailed list with say 10 to 20 bullet points? You have to move from philosophy to real world. If you can not write down those bullet points, you don't adequately know how to express the idea and are not qualified to tell ideas to programmers or artist.

In the real world, everyone has to pay their dues (unless you have a lot of money). Someone may have good ideas, but it doesn't matter if noone believes. Designers need to prove themselves, build prototypes and refine their craft.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

You've basically described a computer program and the data it loads.

 

Programmers only really do two things:  Take a rough idea and fill in ALL of the blanks and solve every constraint and conflict (the hard part), and convert it into their favorite programming language (the trivial part).

Edited by Nypyren
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

At that point, even if you don't have it in a computerized form, you've got yourself a tabletop RPG. You'd actually be able to play the game.
So at that point, it's not just "an idea for a game", it actually is a game, just not yet computerized and depicted with fancy graphics.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the initial idea successfully describes how to entertain people in a way that can actually be implemented - it would be the *most* valuable contribution

Everything else is just manual labour

I respect designers and I think they can do a lot, but comments like this show no respect for programmers. I will no longer comment on this topic. An idea guy can't lead people that he doesn't repect. Programming is difficult and requires a lot of creative effort.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can a game have any personality what so ever if everyone involved gets a real say as to what direction the game goes in.

Are you suggesting that the industry has never produced a game with "personality"?

 

There may be a lot of blandness out there, and a lot of games that aren't to your liking, but in the overwhelming majority of cases most if not all participants in a games creation have some impact on the direction of the final product, and I'd say there are definitely some games that have real character that have resulted from this process.

 

Compare it to music -- which is typically considered an art -- and where it's common-place for multiple people to collaborate on the writing and production of a song to produce the final product.  There's no reason you must have a single artist to produce a piece with "character" or to stick to a vision, and music provides thousands of examples of that -- even in Classical music where the composer has dictated the entire piece note-for-note and often includes additional instructions, performances can vary greatly based on nuances introduced both by the conductor and by individual musicians.  Songs are also often covered by bands with completely different styles who produce an entirely different take on the original piece, or remixed to produce an entirely new piece of music.  All of this is widely accepted as art, and all of it is the product not of a single individual's vision, but of a collaboration between many people who all contribute.

 

If music is art produced by collaborations then why can't games be the same?  Perhaps the solution is not for individual designers to establish dictatorial control as you're suggesting, but for teams to learn to work better together with a shared vision.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

But that's the whole point. It can never, ever be done (well, except if you are making an exact Tetris clone, but that's more like a reverse engineering than design). The problem with idea guys is that they believe it can be written down as some sort of blueprint to follow and then a game can be build based on it alone. It can't. It's not possible. It won't work.

 

If you disagree, please provide the name of the game you finished this way :) Because so far I have not met a single dev who managed to make a design doc that was sufficient to make a whole game without any need for interpretation (or even changes!) upon implementing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's the whole point. It can never, ever be done (well, except if you are making an exact Tetris clone, but that's more like a reverse engineering than design). The problem with idea guys is that they believe it can be written down as some sort of blueprint to follow and then a game can be build based on it alone. It can't. It's not possible. It won't work.



If you disagree, please provide the name of the game you finished this way smile.png Because so far I have not met a single dev who managed to make a design doc that was sufficient to make a whole game without any need for interpretation (or even changes!) upon implementing.

 

While I don't entirely disagree, this seems to only become more and more true if the game has an "open" nature to it. That is, if it's made of components that aren't very predictable and are very difficult to describe with words or simple mathematical formulas (such as complex physics engines and advanced AI). If the game is more closed and rule oriented (like Tetris, as you mentioned) then there becomes less room for interpretation or deviation. Hodgman made a very good point about my RPG idea example, that once that idea reaches the level of detail I described, it's possible to play it in a pen and paper, D&D format - and at that point it already is a game. There would be little deviation if this was turned into a digital game

 

As for an example of a GDD that is sufficient to make a whole game without any need for interpretation, there is no need to look any further than the myriad of games based on physical, tabletop games (or even a board game such as chess). The rules of these games serve as the GDD's for their digital counterparts. There is no need to interpret the rules and the mechanics of the game. Of course, there's room for interpretation with the visuals (and obviously sound), but these are for superficial aspects that have little impact on the game's core mechanics. So as for the names of the games I've finished this way: Tic-tac-toe, and also Connect Four.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Hello everyone, please excuse my poor English & naive character

 

   I must say I was intrigued by this conversation. You see people consider me an artist, as I'm part of a rock band that's started back in 1995 and I happen to write both the music and the lyrics of our songs. I just felt like sharing with you my thoughts on that. If we seek to answer the question "can a game be considered art?", we must first answer the question "what is art?". As I perceive it through my years of observation to all forms of art but mainly music, art started out as the initial wish of man towards self awareness. The tendency to reveal and embrace universal or fundamental truths of once existence. Now, unfortunately or fortunately art in our days is more of entertainment than of a quest towards revelation. Some people perceive art only as craft, like the fact that someone painted a painting with those specific brush strokes or someone played the guitar by doing awesome "tapping" for X seconds and say: "what an artist". Bottom line is that since we people think subjectively, we won't agree unanimously to what art is. As for me I choose to believe that art should be an expression of once strive for self awareness and redemption because I want to place art as a sacred expression for the person who performs it. Craft is just the practical part of it and something you need to do at least pretty well in order to have a beautiful outcome.

 

   Now, the video gaming industry, from day one was all about entertainment. So, no matter how many years I've spent playing video games, I must say that I had to deal with the conclusion that in the end, video games tented to act as drag in my life.

 

Now, if art is a craft then video games are art

If art is entertainment then video games are also art

If art is a journey to self awareness then video games are not art

 

   As for the "idea guy", I believe that the fact that most of the people have ideas that they think are great but actually isn't or have a general idea and nothing more, gave the "idea guy" the bad reputation he/she bares today. I consider myself to be an "idea guy hybrid" if you allow me to invent the title, because at least I've written down every single detail of my game (points, awards, rounds and penalties algorithms) starting small for an expansion on a title that had some hardcore fans and tested it for two years in order to see the flaws and fix it till it's viable. I say this in order to try and save me being "word punched" to death after I press "post"! ph34r.png        

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for an example of a GDD that is sufficient to make a whole game without any need for interpretation, there is no need to look any further than the myriad of games based on physical, tabletop games (or even a board game such as chess). The rules of these games serve as the GDD's for their digital counterparts. There is no need to interpret the rules and the mechanics of the game.

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the field of design. The rules of chess are not a GDD, they are (in and of themselves) a complete implementation of the game of chess.

 

The GDD for a digital version of chess would require significantly more content than the mere rules. Where in the rules of chess does it specify if the user interface is 2D or 3D? Where does it specify whether input is via mouse or keyboard? Where does it specify the AI necessary to provide a computer opponent?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the field of design. The rules of chess are not a GDD, they are (in and of themselves) a complete implementation of the game of chess.

 

Yes, you're right. I suppose this was a poor choice of wording on my part. I should have said the rules of chess would be a fundamental part of the GDD, not the GDD by them selves. Still, my point stands - the programmers would be required to implement these rules exactly as stated. It would be these rules that guide the programming process of the game mechanics. There is little room for interpretation. Am I wrong? Is the GDD in fact only meant to be a guideline that is up for interpretation and deviation by the rest of the development team? Can it not include any hard rules about how the core mechanics work?

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