doctorfrog on 8/3/2009 at 20:42
Hey, how about that thread title, a real eye-drawer, isn't it?
(http://lostgarden.com/labels/game%20design.html) Lost Garden: What Is Your Game Design Style?This is a good, clear article on the different approaches that designers take to building the games we all know and love. I like it because it is a different take from the usual genre-based classifications we all use, which are often inadequate.
When we talk about games or recommend them to each other, we often use the terms: action, adventure, rpg, shooter, strategy, etc. These are consumer-facing terms that don't necessarily cover the games very well. It's worth adding a few more developer-facing terms to our vocabulary:
Quote:
It is a broad topic, so I'll just jump right in. Here are some styles that I've noticed. You can think of these categories as pieces of a spectrum that cover all major aspects of the final game design that the player experiences. Though they are all present, each style is emphasized to varying degrees in a particular title.
* Copycat: make a game like another game that is interesting.
* Experience: Make a distinct moment of game play that looks and feels interesting.
* Narrative: Make a story that is interesting
* World: Make a place or world that is interesting
* Systems: Make systems and objects that are interesting.
* Player Skills: Make verbs for the player that are interesting.
(
http://lostgarden.com/labels/game%20design.html)
Click and read!Koki on 8/3/2009 at 21:54
My ideas don't fit into any of these.
Guess it's good I'm not a dev.
Tonamel on 9/3/2009 at 00:50
And what ideas are those, Koki?
Interesting article. My style is drifting toward Experience, though I tend to think of it as emotional design rather than experiential. The game is focused on making the player feel a particular emotion for a sustained period of time, rather than building the whole game around one moment. With his examples being Flower and The Graveyard, I think that's closer to what he means.
Yakoob on 9/3/2009 at 08:31
Quote Posted by doctorfrog
I like it because it is a different take from the usual genre-based classifications we all use, which are often inadequate.
When we talk about games or recommend them to each other, we often use the terms: action, adventure, rpg, shooter, strategy, etc. These are consumer-facing terms that don't necessarily cover the games very well. It's worth adding a few more developer-facing terms to our vocabulary:
So basically "MY categories are better than YOUR categories
Inline Image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/Koobazaur/emot-colbert.gif"
Stitch on 10/3/2009 at 00:18
Did you even read the article?
RavynousHunter on 10/3/2009 at 01:05
I like to think I'm a combo between Experience, Narrative, and World. Then again, I work primarily with RPG's, too.
Tonamel on 10/3/2009 at 03:24
So, you're saying the following games (which all pretty clearly fit in the Experience category), are automatically trash: His example, (
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/flower) Flower, (
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps2/wandaandthecolossus?q=shadow%20of%20the%20colossus) Shadow of the Colossus, and (
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/rezhd?q=rez) Rez. Is that about right?
It isn't "this is all this game has going for it" as you seem to think it is. It's "this is the core value that informs the rest of the design process." Any one of those categories can be done well or done poorly, and there's plenty of examples for each. If a game being designed around its narrative was inherently absurd, Planescape: Torment wouldn't make so many people's Top Ten lists.
Quote:
Besides, can't you make a "copycat" of an "experience" game or a "systems" game? And what makes for an interesting "system," anyway, if not the ways the player can affect it (i.e. "player skills"). And what makes for an interesting story if not an interesting world for it to take place? And a convincing world needs a robust system, etc...
The article describes the categories as "how you mix and match mechanics, story, player agency and feedback," which makes me wonder if you even made it past the first paragraph.
Chade on 10/3/2009 at 04:25
Man, you're taking a conversation about an intelligent and thoughtfull blog post and reducing it to angry gamer rage.
He's not saying that he has this rock solid bunch of perfectly distinct categories ... he's just musing on different types of inspiration that drive a game design.
So anyway:
Quote:
What do you emphasize? What aspects of the the player's experience do you highlight with your design choices?
Quote:
I understand these approaches from the design side as a way of describing the feelings a developer has when they set out to make something
Quote:
this is the core value that informs the rest of the design process
What is this argument even about? There isn't actually any real disagreement here.
Chade on 10/3/2009 at 04:50
The second quote is yours ... :p
Ok, firstly: the standard genre based classification is hardly rock-solid. It really just involves likening a game to some historical "template game" ... a usefull guide to gamers in a primarily copycat industry.
Secondly, "game" is such a slippery concept ... I defy anyone to come up with a rock-solid classification system. Instead, the purpose of a game classification system is to illuminate. A thousand different audiences might call for a thousand different systems. The standard genre system is aimed at illuminating gamers. There's nothing wrong with creating new classifications systems for new audiences.
Thirdly, wishy-washy subjects call for at least some wishy-washy analysis. You can't really avoid it. Not everything can be specified with mathematical precision.
Tonamel on 10/3/2009 at 05:00
Quote Posted by Wormrat
What [Planescape: Torment] has is comparatively excellent writing in service of the
role-playing mechanicThis is where we disagree. What the article states (and I happen to agree with), is that a game like PS:T doesn't have excellent writing in service of the gameplay, but that the gameplay exists to support the narrative. As does the art/world/etc. Just because something is a game, that doesn't mean that the mechanics are the main focus of the design.
Obviously, there ARE games like that, which he categorizes as Systems games. In something like SimCity, everything in the game exists to support the city building mechanics. But in Shadow of the Colossus, everything (including the giant-fighting mechanic) exists to support the evocative atmosphere.
It's a little easier to see when you compare SotC to Ico. The two games have a nearly identical melancholy about them, but that atmosphere is supported by two totally different mechanics. Ico's is slightly less fun, and they tweaked it for their next game, but it's still in direct service to the emotions they want the player to feel.
Similarly, everything in Oblivion is in service to the World, and everything in Ninja Gaiden is in service to Player Skill. The games have more to them than just that, but it's a useful way to describe the angle of approach.
