I take it back after rereading that quote “Im trying to add as much complexity as I can.” That does indeed sound like horrible, god-awful game design.
Adding complexity for the sake of complexity is just idiocy. A surefire way to make a trash piece of software.
Just make a game. If the design needs complexity, allow it freely. However, always remember to ask yourself if that complexity is required, or if it can be simplified WITHOUT LOSING QUALITY/DEPTH. You do indeed want it to be as simple as possible, as long as you maintain the design feature’s goal and adhere to a cohesive design in relation to your desired player experience. “Does it fit with the overall player experience? Is it consistent with the major features? Will this feature detract from or enhance the desired experience?” Never sacrifice quality/depth for simplicity unless it is worth it and you think it’s for the best.
I will give the benefit of the doubt to the quoted- that he is trying to make a great game with depth (complexity) and doesnt mean he is tryjng to add complexity for the sake of complexity. I assumed he meant he is adding features (which happen to be complex) amd doesnt care if they are complex. However I fully understand how someone can see that statement as awful design.
I just read the original article ( the one you replied to ).
Even though your article was not easy to understand on my phone, and I didnt think much of it (I couldnt click any of the links, so I mised alot of it), this is certainly true: it is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the original article. Next to that article, you sound like a genius when compared to the author who claimed chess was a perfect system while instantly contradicting himself in the next line by saying computerized chess is an imperfect system. So which is it? LoL.
Holy. Crap. What a pile of tripe. It is as if the author completely ignores TellTale’s games. Telltales the walking dead was one of the best games ive ever played, and it contradicts nearly every point that author made. Holy crap. What a horible article. No wonder you wrote your article in rebuttal. I didnt realize how bad the original article was, lol.
I would also add, that if you are going look to other’s advice, make sure to put that advice in context. How valuable is game design advice from one who has never had a successful game, let alone ever shipped a game?
To be honest, I think even the term “game” is a bit restrictive. I’ve heard narrative/film people say that they’re not interested in working with games because adding game mechanics (challenge, scoring, choice, whatever) detracts from the experience they want to create. I’ve always thought of that as a cop-out, because there’s no reason you need any of those things in particular.
If I talk to the same people about “interactive media” rather than “games” I get really different responses, oddly enough. As soon as you break away from their pre-concieved notions of what a “game” should be the conversation can really open up.
According to that logic, we could only take advice seriously from big names. Yet who is to say many one hit wonders like notch/minecraft know any better/worse than someone like the OP or random commentator #12 named ‘gokutwentythree’.
If there is anything I have learned with age (and disappointment) it is that very often it doesn’t matter WHO but the rationale behind the advice. I often wonder why people put so much importance on celebrity over substance. For example, a thread earlier in this forum discussed a tweet from notch about mobile games. People commented that they could care less when he tweets. Others take vague sentences as gospel. While it makes sense to trust those with evidence, it is far more common that even famous devs release hit or miss titles. Only sometimes do we see consistency in quality (ex. Uncharted series + last of us + game engine architecture book).
So does that mean that the moment a famous Dev releases a flop, we should immediately disregard all their thoughts and relieve ourselves of their past statements?
Game Design is hard to quantify, making most advice (even from experienced devs) theoretical. In theory, even the layman can take precedence to the celebrity. That is why I listen to everyone’s thoughts with fair consideration, giving no special treatment to celebrity devs. Except Richard Garriott. I hearts him <3
What logic? There’s no proposition in what you’ve quoted. Only the suggestion that advice be taken in context - which doesn’t mean that any of it should necessarily be discarded or ignored, and should certainly take the hit-and-miss nature of “big names” into account as you mention in your next paragraph.
Exactly, I didn’t say what should or should not be ignored or anything of that nature. And indeed, one-hit wonders, or even designers that are successful in area completely different than yours may not have advice that is useful. And depending on the nature of the advice, even those who have shipped nothing but failures may have value, at least in the context of what should be avoided. Success in no way needs to be defined as chart-topping revenue. I would say, having actually made/finished/shipped a game would be a bare-minimum for considering an opinion on game design valuable.
Adding context to theory which can’t be quantified is silly in some cases. This is especially true when no one has the answers (otherwise they’d have the golden ticket in game dev) to a new, somewhat unexplored territory. What benefit does context give you when discussing game design? The factors which go into a game being hit or miss are so numerous and unknown that it begs to question whether credentials even matter. Reality on the other hand; Truth has no context. It is true or not. It is how it is, or it is not. Reality does not bend to the whim of context. So why should we allow our perspective of reality to do so? Game Design is hard to quantify, so it is not an exact science which allows us to apply credentials or context to evidence. The hit or miss releases of famous designers just goes to show how little value context has. The rise of an unknown young man called notch or tarn shows how valuable it can be to consider nameless newbie’s words over a game dev with decades of experience if you wish to argue they have talent in design. Context is what causes idiots to chastize Tarn before dwarf fortress, then to kiss his ass worshiping his advice after. Sorry, but IMO context, in this case, lends only to cloud judgment, not to strengthen it. Hence my exaggerated use of a single celebrity Dev failure resulting in disregard of all future advice. As if a games success or failure even has to deal with design in an industry plagued by publishers, lawsuits, and rushed deadlines
Furthermore, most people seem unable to even agree on game design constants, let alone what makes a game a success. Not even what it means for a game to have ‘‘success’’. Does that mean its fun? What if it is a financial failure?
This entire thread has people from every angle discussing game design constants. agree. disagree. Facepalms and applauses.
Applying context to ones credentials is not acceptable for most people in relation to game design advice. That is why no matter who is the author, the comments will flood with different opinions, even attacks claiming a celebrity has long since past their prime. Otherwise unknown bloggers applauded or even recognized by big editors, lots of fans, or even famous names. Comment sections on gamasutra alone indicate that credentials are not important to most people in this topic. That inexperienced gamers can write up something put in the spotlight.
Context is for people who have no idea about the topic. This is a forum for game devs. People who know enough to listen to the substance, not the celebrity.
Sure, you can cite outliers like notch as a case for the fact that a random can make successful games, but what are the chances of that? And, given the choice, would you pick someone who might do cool stuff in the future, or someone who’s already had a career doing cool stuff to draw upon?
In short, I don’t think that zombiegorrilla’s suggestion is silly in any cases. It’s always valid to weigh up information you’ve given in it’s appropriate context. You just seem to be assuming that this necessarily entails either treating stuff as gospel or discarding it, where in reality there’s plenty of ground in between those two things. Just 'cause Will Wright says something doesn’t mean I’ll treat it as gospel, and just because an Internet random says it doesn’t mean I’ll throw it out.
I forgot how reality bends to the whim of celebrity.
Two people who say the same thing. One is not valuable because they do not wear a crown. So rational. So logical.
Celebrity > Reality.
Celebrity > Substance.
Truth = Not Valuable unless spoken by specific people.
…I’m out of this convo. Enjoy your alternate reality to the rest of us.
It has nothing to do with treating it as gospel or throwing it out with no middle ground. It is about the simple fact there is little to prove one devs success (or lack of) includes them in (or excludes them from) theories with substance.
I will give you this: Context is great to use for people who have released games. Not for those who have not, Not because of a measure of success or failure. Instead, only as a measure of quality. Low quality to be exact. I will concede only that context is appropriate to apply so we can ignore people whose released works are total ****. When their own efforts show how little they understand basic concepts of design, like usability. Then, and I concede only then, is context appropriate to determine the value of game design advice. Otherwise we should consider the substance of the advice fairly, without bias, and judge based on the rationale behind their statements (as opposed to their worthless credentials).
It is a small concession, but I am at least considering your side and listening.
Of course we should consider the context within the context, so as to not exclude someone simply because their game failed for reasons outside of design (ex. Famous Dev #3 rushed by publisher who limits design or destroys the game before release).
It will probably depend on what type of game your trying to make. I was watching a game called “Lifeless planet” which is a narratively driven exploration game with some platforming elements, it seemed to be really compelling. There is no complex gameplay or anything like that. But then take a look at resogun which has no story and for a while was one of the best games on the PS4 (better then all the AAA games). You cant really say a game needs all these elements, no you probably have to break it.
So some games will need a story, other games dont need it.
You are the only one fixating on celebrity. I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Shipping a game is easy and can be done by anyone. What I am saying is that talking!=making a game. Someone writing articles and making claims about game design without making a game bears little weight. Celebrity is not relevant at all, as there are tons of very successful game designers who are unknown outside their field. And context is valuable because game dev is a huge field. The input of the key designers of GTA may have no value to a designer building a casual game, and vice versa.
Uh, he didn’t forget what he was writing and thus contradicted himself. He contradicted himself to make a point and explained that same point within the next 2 rows of the article. Are you one of those superfast readers that skip 90% of what they’re reading? _
In this context, “celebrity” is defined as a minimum of having shipped the game. It does not imply egregious amounts of fame or success. The latter end of the “celebrity” spectrum would be those who have shipped MANY games or uber-succesfful games. The “great” devs have both. However, someone who ships a single game still has some measure of “celebrity” over someone who has shipped nothing, or made nothing.
Celebrity is entirely relevant, seeing as how you stated that someone’s advice is only valuable if they have shipped a game.
edit: It seems here that zombiegorilla and others do not understand that the term “celebrity” is not exclusive to Kim Kardashian or Barrack Obama. I wonder if they have ever heard the term “Local Celebrity” or understand the definition.
I read it, and so did the commentator at the end of said article.
The author did not defend himself with what you are claiming. Instead, he admitted it wasn’t the best argument but asked the commentator to focus less at the example and more at what he was trying to communicate.
Seeing as how the author replied to the exact same statement I just made, entirely different than the way you think he would, well…
It seems as though not only am I not what you claim (a superfast reader), but that you are the one who did not read enough. Next time, be more thorough like me and read even the author’s statements in the comments.
Except that game design, just like basket weaving, can be studied and theorized without having to release video games. Underwater basket weaving, if studied enough, the first basket will be significantly better than many people’s first or even second or third attempt at weaving. (ex. Those users here at Unity who show off their first game prototype which looks significantly better than some people’s tenth.
Not to mention that zombmieogrilla stated that for someone’s advice to be valuable, they must release a game first. Having some experience in game development isn’t enough, as he requires them to complete the project.
Dwarf Fortress, if you consider it unreleased, means that Tarn Adams has no valuable advice according to zombiegorilla. Yet he is interviewed by game enthusiasts and hailed by many an indie dev as being a hero in game dev.
Sure, if you consider his perpetual alpha as a “released” classification because it is playable, he could be considered valuable. However, zombieogrilla was quite specific.
Dwarf Fortress is not finished or shipped. It lacks the qualification for Tarn Adam’s opinion on game design to be valuable. Thus according to his logic, which I disagree with but you apparently agree with, Tarn Adams has no value as a game designer. That is something that would get you laughed out of a convention, as many people cling to DF and Tarn Adams like they want to have his babies - all because of his game design philosophy.
You are saying that we shouldn’t listen to someone who has no skill in underwater basket weaving. Yet that isn’t the reality. The reality is hundreds of people who have used baskets underwater. Who have messed around with baskets. Who have studied weaving. Who have studied weaving in relation to underwater physics. Who have simply never sold their baskets that they have weaved. Who have never shown others their baskets. Who have never shipped their baskets to a distributor.
Since the arguments and logic behind both of you seems inadequate, and my points so strong in contradicting what you are claiming, I consider this conversation over. Anyone reading it can make up their mind, given the substance of both of our arguments.
TLDR: I am satisfied with the substance of my argument and rebuttals. #TooStrong
