Philosophical Discussion: Game Design

News & General Discussion
1

I keep thinking about how to make a fun game. I want to make the best game ever! Do you ever feel this way? Then your project becomes your baby. The more it grows the more you worry about it.

I keep thinking about the code. Every different possible way to handle the same action.
Unity is great for creating games. The best one I have come upon and I see it popping up in games on PS4.
Unity handles coding games well. I prefer c#.

Then I think about… wait… What is a game?
In my understanding of what games are
and what has been considered a game is:
A set of rules created for recreation.

Now, why would anyone purposely follow rules as a form of entertainment? I don’t know.
But I do it because some crap in my brain makes it where when I get focused on doing a routine
and become immersed.

So the goal of a developer (at least in my opinion) should be to get the user immersed into a set of rules.

But these rules!! They can be anything you can imagine or they can adhere to a genre. Genres including (but never limited too; In no particular order.)

  • First Person Shooters - Rules including: 3D Environment; Forward facing camera; Handling of projectile; Handling of destructible.
  • Role Playing - Rules including: Playing a Role. (Role: the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a particular situation.)
  • Tag(Yes, that game you played as a child.) - Rules including: Something is “it”. If “it” touches you, you become “it”. “What strange matter is this?”

As you already should know: There are many types of games and people are creating rules and rules are being added to games faster than we can communicate. Constantly trying to balance skills, resource management, damage, and how these are handled are refined and tuned.

To what end do we play?

What is the point of the game? Why would anyone choose to progress through it? Will there be an end? Why should it end? How do you make a game that never ends? What collection of rules will create an immersive experience that will continue endlessly?

I am struggling to even start a game as I play with mechanics and think about all the possibilities. Where to even start is coming to: What do I want to play?

An RTS… It’s competitive and only requires a few things to start. Real Time Strategy games are often just: Two teams, Unit(s)* per team, A win condition. The win condition can be as simple as: The team with the most surviving units at the end of a round wins. Maybe you want to do something a bit more King Of The Hill and you get points by controlling points on the map. I don’t know, this really can be anything. Even be more creative and say, “I win because my units have discovered the alphabet and wrote a joke so funny that all your units laughed; except Douglas but he doesn’t count.”
*Unit: (noun) an individual thing.

No, an RTS isn’t quite all I want to play… It should also be an FPS! First Person Shooter games are not too complex. A camera acts as the eyes of a player in a 3D world space. Often the standard PC FPS controls are used (we should all know them.) As long as something gets destroyed from clicking we cannot be happier! It does get better when that something you are clicking at is also clicking back at you and trying to out think you. Woot! Headshot! That’s skill right there! This ever-returning genre (like RTS) is based highly on dexterity (and internet connection.) We love that there is an element of us in every achievement and the outcome was dynamic.

But I want an immersive story and characters!! I want to feel like this isn’t a game but a reality that I am getting a peak at through this almost literal window; An RPG is what I need. Role Playing Games (huh why is games boldedd)
are really self explained. You play as a character; This character often has a path. I never understood why RPG’s were so strict on how you spent your time in the game; until I started trying to develop them. An RPG (also like an RTS) has, at minimum, a unit and a win condition. Unlike other games, role playing games often develop the character(s) as you play them. This is the appeal. Now it starts to feel like your actions are directly affecting the mood of the game. Your character’s survival rate increases and drops with your decisions.

But what I really want is to invent a new sport! Sports games can often lean heavily into sport simulation; Where you are accurately trying to recreate the experience of a sport. Maybe though, you want to create a new sport. How do you even go about this? Well, maybe you can dig up some old rules from games you played as a child and fine tune them for an entertaining experience in a simulated world. Blitz Ball in Final Fantasy X is a good example. Angry Birds can also fit this genre. (Think: Bowling)

How about just a fighting game… Fighting Games can be as simple too. You can use 2D box colliders and create/check collision/destroy (on input) at different heights offset from a player box collider.

Ok… I think I have decided… I want to make all of that stuff!! So, where to start…

I guess then we need to extract the rules and lay them out.

  • A unit can be created.
  • A unit can be destroyed.
  • A unit has health.
  • A unit can deal damage to other units.
  • A unit can move.

With those set of rule alone I could create a thousand games. We can go for days with all the different ways a unit can deal damage and how health is handled. Don’t forget about all the different types of movements. With just these few rules and a bit of creativity we have just about every RTS. So lets extract more rules.

  • Items exist and carrying one modifies a unit somehow.
  • Structures exist and they can do things.
  • A Resource unit exists and can be used for many things.
  • Props exist and may or may not do things.
  • A unit can carry items
  • A unit can build structures
  • A unit can create dynamic 2D collider shapes to deal damage or increase health of other units.
  • Props can be items and items can be props.

With this added set of rules with can build many RTS, RPG, and other games. We could keep extracting rules until we have figured out all the rules of games.

  • Vehicles
  • Destructibles
  • Parameters
  • Lore
  • Puzzles
  • Quests
  • Relationships
  • Technology

Ugh… It goes on and on and does not end until you have exhausted all of your will to continue to discover or recycle what is available.

So lets look at games of the past and what we see that survived ages:

Mazes: These we love because it’s simple path finding. We feel achieved upon escaping the challenge. PacMan is a good example of a maze puzzle game that has lasted through the ages; Even is an item collecting games.

Item Collecting: Collect enough of a certain item; get a reward. This is likely stemming from ancestral harvesting and gathering roots. Mario is a good example: Collect 100 coins get a 1-UP.

Logic Puzzles.

There is so much more but I am tired and should just create the thread already. What is your opinion on a good game and where to start?

2

With the prototype :slight_smile:

6 Likes
3

I think I meant Designer’s prospective. lol

I just can’t get the angle of attack to tackle a large project as a solo.

4

Is a subjective question, really a good game dev is a code that run as the game design says.

5

That’s why prototype.

2 Likes
6

There it is.

7

A large project can be designed by a single person. I have designed many large projects; none completed. I didn’t want to complete them. I just wanted to enjoy designing games. This is not about coding, this is about designing.

I want to design a large project but I am having trouble with how to approach designing a game; from another’s philosophy.

Mine is to:

  • Pick core mechanics
  • Develop interesting Characters/Plot

But the problem I came across was that after playing my prototypes I wasn’t enjoying them as much as I wanted too. I want to know what your opinions are on what makes a game enjoyable, or what makes you want to play a game.

8

I think hippcoder is right, prototyping is your best bet. If your game isn’t fun with shitty graphics and no sounds there’s a very big chance it still won’t be fun with amazing graphics and music.

On the idea of where to start my idea would be start at the bottom. Of course you first need to know which kind of game you want to make. For example when I got Unity I did one tutorial to make a space invader clone, then I tried making a tower defense game but I was not into it so I abandoned the project. I always wanted to make a medieval city building game so I started looking at how I could start.

The first thing I did was make a terrain, then I found a tutorial on how to create roads. Then I started reading on PathFinding, eventually I started placing green boxes on my terrain to represent buildings, and blue capsules to represent villagers. And from there I just kept adding and adding, we need resources, we need people to consume those resources. Eventually I started looking into modeling and texturing and gradually replaced my green boxes with actual buildings, and capsules with actual people. And now I’m 19 months in (I work on it part time as I go to school and have another full time job) I still consider it a prototype.

It’s not for everyone, it’s definitly not for you if you intend to make a living out of it, but if your only intent is to make an amazing game stop thinking and start prototyping.

2 Likes
9

I changed the title to fit more with what I am asking about.

10

The problem is you can’t know what’s going to be fun until you actually play it. Designing is fun yes but the only way to actually see if it’s fun is to test it.

Just like when you first start cooking, you can’t be sure what you’re making will be good, so you experiment, taste, adjust and so on. Eventually you’ll be an amazing cook and you’ll be able to know if what you’re making will be good or not before trying it but this takes experience. And you gain experience by trying recipes and tasting them.

Same here, you have two options, either take a recipe that’s been proven to be excellent or invent your own but without all those years of design experience you can’t tell in advance what will be fun or not. We can discuss what everyone enjoys in a game here if that’s what you want sure, but we can’t tell you how to design fun games.

1 Like
11

My view is, people are inherently creative, playful beings, and without being immersed in or believing in some kind of fantasy, we’re capable of joyfully taking anything lightly and having fun with it. The fun comes from within as an expression of that playful nature. It doesn’t require that a game be set up to intentionally be a game. You can play with anything if you so choose. You can turn anything into a game (think of how kids use their imagination here). So the game is, to begin with, and continues to be, always INSIDE the player’s mind.

I think that what we formally call a game, a video game, is an intentional game, where some of the decisions about what to play with and how to play with it are somewhat decided for you, and then it’s up to you to go along with it, or resonate with it, or allow it to seem to affect you in a certain way. Always though people are still the ones who choose what they experience and how they experience it… it’s just that many people choose to go at least slightly unconscious, to immerse themselves in a fantasy, to give up a certain sense of disbelief (suspend disbelief) and play along with suggestions. This is how they seem to buy into a game. It requires putting aside a certain amount of … sanity… and awareness of the whole picture, in order to enter into a kind of fictional state, immersed in imagination and pretense. Some people more than others stay more aware, some really like to lose themselves. But this is all happening in the mind, regardless of what is on the screen. On its own, a game is absolutely nothing, it’s entirely up to the user what THEY see in it and what they bring to it. The game just seems to try to coerce certain reactions or decisions out of them, it’s all about trickery and persuasion and attempting to offer the user some kind of a ride - a mental adventure - which they may or not choose to participate in.

So there really can’t be a game without the user’s willingness to pretend that they are unaware of something, in order to narrow down their perception and put themselves in a little box and to then pretend that they can’t get out of it. They have to accept certain imposed limits as if they’re real hard limits, in order for there to be a challenge. I mean, if the game is saying, hey you can’t move past this gate without a key, in terms of the game you have to get the key to get past the gate, but the player also has another option - stop playing the game, which solves the problem - it may not show them what’s on the other side of the gate but they can step outside of the fantasy and deflate the entire thing at any time. But people choose to stay inside the fantasy, provided the fantasy doesn’t turn them off or trigger certain negative reactions, which causes them to snap out of it or reject it. Essentially I think you can only play along with a game if you choose to in some way be a victim, and to in some way impose a limit on yourself, and do so in order to meet this totally fabricated scenario where there are things you cannot do because of some made up rules, which you accept for the sake of then having to find a solution within the rules. And for what purpose? Well, people seem to enjoy it. They like to play at having problems to solve. It’s all a great bit distraction for the mind. I think there are also bigger, more spiritual reasons why people do this, but I won’t get into that.

2 Likes
12

What @hippocoder is referring to this:

2351×2364 179 KB

An iterative approach to software development. You create your first prototype as fast as possible, then test it to find out where it’s lacking, then evolve it. The same thing applies to game design.

You need to forget about finding “the idea”. That’s not how reality works. Sure, you may get lucky and find the best idea by coincidence, but that’s usually not the case. We once had a visitor from a large corporation in the university, whose job it was to make people get ideas. I am not kidding. The thing is that people approach creative processes the wrong way.
One example he told us about was when he was with a group of designers, which should design advertisements. He tasked them to design an ad for cigarettes with only one condition: A teddy-bear had to be part of it. They had plenty of time (I think half an hour). A considerably large portion of the group wasn’t able to finish within the time limit. “We simply didn’t have enough time.” was their main excuse.
Their next task was similar. Cigarette ad with a teddy-bear. “You’ll design 10 each. I’ll be back in 5 minutes”. He made sure that he was dead serious about that and left the room. 5 minutes later he came back and not a single designer had less than 5.

It was an important lesson. Their task was to create AN advertisement, not THE advertisement, the definite one, the best one.

If the beginning phase of your game design process includes you discarding your own ideas, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment. Numbers matter. Produce as many ideas as you can. Even if they’re ridiculous or stupid. Write them down (in your head does neither work nor count). If you’re at the point where you don’t any new ideas, keep digging. That’s when the unique ones come up sooner or later.

You need to practice this. The habit of disregarding ones own ideas because they’re bad/stupid/ridiculous/… isn’t something you unlearn just by wishing.

tl;dr version:
During the designing phase, you strive to create as many ideas as possible. After you have a considerable amount (which could take weeks), you lean back, look at the list and extract those, that have the most potential.

During the development phase, you prototype and iterate…a lot.

6 Likes
13

Mods should move this to Game Design forum. It is a perfect fit. And yes I thought you were struggling with the complexity of a very large project scope.

For game design itself I will have to read again when on computer this evening and see if I have anything to contribute.

14

@TheSniperFan has understood exactly what I am saying. The prototype-iterative approach also allows you to better grasp the extents of the project for both design and implementation. Without a prototype you would need decades of experience and still end up pushing a prototype out regardless.

Prototypes aren’t just to make the game, they’re to design it too. Much like a living document.

2 Likes
15

I’ve written a couple of games now (see signature,) so I’ve learned a few lessons (this is ongoing.)

The idea for the premise of the work is somewhat secondary; ideas set the content. For example, “Zombies vs. Knights” is the content; I chose to make it a cut-down RTS (and, I cut the RTS conventions down way too much), but it could have been a First-Person “Shooter” (as much as possible with Knights…and Zombies, for that matter) as well. Based on that game’s reception (lukewarm, and rightly so), where I went wrong wasn’t the idea - Zombies vs. Knights has quite a few views! No, it was the adherence to the genre. There’s a large body of works that call themselves RTSes - I deviated too far. So, a best practice: adhere to a genre.

A question to ask yourself - can you create a vertical thin slice that adheres to the conventions of your target genre? This is something that has recently worked for me on my current project, “Sara the Shieldmage”. For instance, I reasoned the following things are things a Eastern-style RPG must have*:

  • At least one player character. Eastern RPGs specifically imply a party of characters with limited customizability, since in this genre characters serve the plot, and the ethos of the genre is to emphasize the party’s growth from a bunch of rag-tag individuals, to a band of fire-forged friends who save the world.
  • At least one town where the player gets quests, information, and can purchase supplies.
  • For that matter, at least one quest. You need a reason to be doing things. In a Eastern RPG, the overarching quest arc should be to save the world from conquest or outright destruction; nothing less will suffice. Eastern RPG villains don’t know what the word ‘subtle’ means (in fact, most villains don’t, but that’s a different topic.) The game’s victory condition is completing this quest!
  • A world map that serves to make travel manageable for the player’s time constraints, and your resource constraints. If you had infinite resources, you could make an infinitely realistic world. You don’t, though.
  • At least one dungeon with treasure and the objective of a quest.
  • Random battles in a place where it makes sense, to provide a chance for the player to lose.
  • A main menu that lets you use supplies, review relevant stats, and interact with non-battle game systems.

My current, rough, super rough thin-slice has most of these things, and so far the feedback has been positive. I can now expand the slice to cover more of the game (e.g. more enemies, more quests, more dungeons, more towns, more characters, maybe throw in a new mechanic if it is able to be justified.)

So, I suggest starting with the concept, but only so far as it will define what your content will be, and what conventions you will adhere to. Don’t spend too long. Where you start implementing is once you’ve identified the genre conventions you’ll be adhering to (and, breaking in very small, but cool ways. That’s very important.)

*: I am not calling them “JRPGs”. Eastern RPGs follow a generally eastern set of ideas, some of which are explained in what I identified a Eastern RPG as typically having. Also, JRPG implies that the game was created in Japan. I live in Austin, Texas. This is not Japan. Yay for rudimentary geographical knowledge!

1 Like
16

I have to say this is spot on in my opinion. Prototyping/play testing is how I try out ideas, determine if feedback is good or needs to be improved and see opportunities for adding a new play mechanic or improving on the original idea.

17

That’s not a big deal, because you have very little chance of finishing a large project as a solo either.

If you can’t even figure out the angle of attack… that’s a key indicator that you’re simply in over your head.

3 Likes
18

I like the idea of the prototype being part of designing… planning to very basically prototype my current game and not dive into the proper artwork/effects until later.

1 Like
19

Paper prototyping is a core part of my game design process. Even before the first digital prototype, the first prototype I build is on paper. Nothing channels creative power like Mr Sketch fruit scented markers.

4 Likes
20

I can’t recommend this strongly enough: prototype on paper. Trading card games, role-playing games, and strategy games are obvious candidates – after all, they started as paper games! But you can do the same thing with platformers, adventure games, shmups, even shooters. It’s so much faster than prototyping on a computer. You can iterate a dozen or more ideas a day like this, which will help you find and refine the gems. And since you haven’t invested any effort into creating assets and battling technical hurdles, it’s easier to let ideas go.

3 Likes