I hesitate to simply post about content from elsewhere, but Gamasutra has a short article that’s very relevant to a lot of the recent discussions on this forum: 10 Quotes Every Game Developer Should Remember.
Some quotes that jumped out at me (shortened for this post):
– Ken Wong
Prototype, prototype, prototype! Don’t waste time working on elaborate Game Design Document, since most of it will get scrapped as you prototype.
– Dave Lang
Good reminder for indies.
– John Carmack
– Alexander Freed
Nice counterpoints to recent discussions about open worlds and autonomous NPCs. To me, open worlds are fun not because NPCs have their own stories, but because the player can affect those stories in significant ways.
Can’t say I really agree with the Carmack and Freed quotes. They both play into the notion of the empowered player/protagonist. The underlying notion there is to make the game fun, and strictly from the purview of making fun games, it’s not bad advice. Outside of this very narrow notion of what games do, these quotes end up pretty much useless.
Flip most of their notions on their head and see if you don’t come up with some interesting ideas.
That narrow notion is important. Control is what separates games from watching TV, or watching a fishbowl. Control means affecting the game world. If the core experience loop is “player acts” → “something happens in game world,” then the player is going to be most invested in his or her actions.
Since we’re social creatures, affecting NPCs has particular impact. It’s important that NPCs are interesting, but it’s even more important that the PC can affect them.
What are your ideas for flipping these notions on their heads?
Speaking of control, we developers like it, which is why we create worlds. But the dangerous flipside is that it’s hard to resist the temptation to control everything from the start by writing an inviolable, time-consuming GDD bible. Wong’s quote is a good reminder to be willing to kill your babies quickly.
Yes that is important. I enjoy design and creating a design doc of sorts. But never the massive overly detailed GDDs I see many pushing. I design more for systems and other technical aspects. For game design it is just a concept, some design goals and so forth. Certain core play mechanics. A “feel”. But the games are actually primarily designed through what I call developmental design. I put in obvious things from my initial brief design notes, play test and see how it feels. Then I add or take away. The importance of the initial time spent on design is in providing an overall framework of a conceptual game world and specific design goals within that context. For example, I am currently working on a game that has “smarter than average” enemies as one of the major design goals. I get tired of games with masses of dumb opponents. The design goals and framework of the game (setting and so forth) guide the design. There are many concrete things I know to do because ot that. However, there will be as many or more I “discover” along the way. The game design evolves through iterations of play testing and refinement.
I disagree with the interpretation of the Wong quote a little bit (the Wong quote came off Wrong? I know.Please don’t sue me.)
I interpret what was meant as, “your early projects are going to suck. In discovering why they fail, and avoiding doing those things wrong, you’ll learn how to succeed.”
That’s a valid point. The quote in full context was related to a GDC China presentation specifically discussing how they designed Monument Valley:
Essentially a variation of Marc Leblanc’s “Fail faster” mantra – setting up an environment where it’s okay to prototype wildly and throw away ideas that don’t work, in the pursuit of refining the core gameplay for a game. I think that’s one of the strengths of indie development. You don’t have the crushing weight of management telling you to always move forward, never look back or to the side, because time is money.
This is still thinking in terms of fun. Even the feedback loop as you’re thinking about it is still in the vein of “I did something in the world. Way to go me!” This is a notion of grandeur that takes only from hero stories. It’s completely antithetic to survival horror that revels in giving the player very little control. What about the notion of games that are more “slice-of-life” with protagonists who would just be trying to get by? Papers Please is pretty much the main one I can think of, but I imagine the idea of games that aren’t just the hero’s journey might just catch on (supposedly the witcher 2 is like this but it’s a series that eludes me).
Not exactly what the quote is about. If anything the quote is about people being narcissistic and not standing for other characters taking the limelight. If the player isn’t the center of the universe, then the universe should just collapse in on itself, essentially. As far as storytelling conventions go, I would have to chalk that into the pretty fucking stupid category.
Sorry, I think I was unclear before. I’m not arguing for the traditional swashbuckling hero’s journey, but only that action in the game should be a result of the player doing something. In Papers, Please, things only happen because the player acts, choosing to let people pass or not. Writers sometimes fall in love with their NPCs and give them stories that overshadow the player’s story. It’s okay if the player is a sidekick and not the hero, but the action of the game should revolve around what the player does as the sidekick, not just passively watching the hero.
Yeah I will bet you the guys that made watchdogs wish they could have thrown out the idea (after they did a few prototypes). Sounds good on paper but was not actually fun to play.
I agree with @RockoDyne in that the quotes from Carmack and Freed are only for a certain type of game. I’m way more excited about game worlds that seem to go on without you.
I believe the quotes about player focus were referring to the (not uncommon) mistake of some designers and teams to forget the intended player or audience in favor of a personal vision that may (for example) heavily restrict player choices in favor of a story line. This seems to affect AAA projects more than indie projects. Think the game equilivilent of star wars episode 1.
Personally I prefer rich living world’s with a story that happens inside. I also hate super hero’s as an archetype. The only thing a super hero ever does is absolve everyone else of responsibility. With the possible exception of their nemesis who almost universally sees your hero as the ultimate challenge (in literature anyway)
There’s (potentially) a difference between events that happen for the player’s benefit and events that are centered on the player. I think that all events in a game should be the former, but not necessarily the latter. Whilst I know that game worlds do literally revolve entirely around their players things feel exceptionally shallow if there’s not at least some illusion that that’s not the case. It’s nice to see that stuff is generally happening and the world is alive, rather than solely and entirely waiting with bated breath on your every move.
I think this is a part of what I like about games like Stalker and Far Cry 4. There’s explicit goals and quests, but there’s also stuff that just happens (or has the appearance of having happened) whether or not you’re around. Enemies will overrun a camp, and a posse will head out to take it back. If you happen to be around at the time you can help defend it or help take it back. Random events happen during your travels, or you’ll run into other people doing their own thing which you can ignore or assist (or hinder). All of this stuff still happens for the benefit of the player - it’s all purely to give you more to do and to make the world feel more alive and interactive and, in some cases, to put pressure on you and increase challenge. But a lot of it doesn’t arise from player interaction - it just happens, and it’s up to the player whether they want to change course or not.
Totally true. An example at the other end of the spectrum is when you accept an urgent mission in Skyrim. The general tells you his troops are waiting to make the attack. Then you completely ignore the mission while you go complete the thieves guild story line. Three months of game time later and you turn up at the exact moment the troops are ready to go.
Yeah, that not only spoils immersion but takes away the ability to make choices. To me, if there’s two urgent and immediate tasks to do I expect that there will be consequences one way or the other. If I do one and then the other is still patiently waiting for me… first of all, it wasn’t that urgent, hey? Secondly, I didn’t get the opportunity to choose between them because there’s actually no choice (aside from willfully avoiding that part of the game from then on).
Hmm… you two are expressing a desire for games to be a little more “real” internally and not just “pretty faces”… this gives me hope that I may not be insane after all.
The problem is always balance. Given the same game, the epic version where the fate of the whole world/universe relies hangs on player actions will be better received. Sure there are edge cases where the player has no effect on the world around them, and just experiences it. But these are infinitely harder to get right.
…after the whole game pretty much sets up a more-or-less standard JRPG plot, it turns out that the point of the game is to get one of the two Sacrifices - Ernst or Heiss - to complete the ritual that will halt the desertification. The only way you can have a hand in saving the world is the Conut sidequest. It turns out Conuts are able to absorb and store Mana, and properly cultivated they can return mana to their surroundings. Given that the desertification is caused by the environment having its mana forcibly evacuated due to a spell cast by the ancient Empire, this is the only way to actually reverse the desertification and save the world. You just have to discover two Bad Futures in order to unlock this outcome, though, and even then it’s implied during the ending sequence, and completely optional.
Couldnt disagree more with Carmack. The issue with a lot of these design quotes is they are very generic, sure if your making your standard fantasy RPG, its great, but what if your not