Category: Game design theory

So You Want to Try Game Design

Posted on Posted in For new readers, Game design theoryTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Welcome! Game design is an endlessly fascinating and exciting field. It’s awesome that you want to try it out, and you can get involved without needing to invest anything more than your time and curiosity.

A lot of people will tell you start by learning something like Unity or GameMaker. Those are both good programs, but there’s a certain amount of lead time involved as you learn them. My suggestion would be to start by creating some games; once you’ve gotten a sense for where you want to go with your first design(s), you’ll be better positioned to judge which tools will help you get there.

Instead of working on the computer, begin by learning with Magic: the Gathering. Try making up some cards, and then play them and see how they work out. (Don’t worry about making them pretty–just cut up slips of paper and sleeve them with normal cards.) Expand that into a full set, or design a cube for drafting. Get used to reaching into a game’s systems.

While you’re doing that, play some games that will give you a sense for just how vast the genre is, and how limitless the opportunities for creativity are. Gone Home, Proteus, Beyond Eyes, Papers, Please–the list goes on. Challenge yourself to see games in new ways.

Don’t neglect to read, either. There’s a lot of great writing about game design out there. The links page above has some; when you’ve exhausted that, I’d recommend Salen and Zimmerman’s Rules of Play.

Game design is sometimes fun, always challenging, and incredibly rewarding. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do, and that the advice above helps you get started. Again, welcome!

Theory: “The Beast” and His Influence on Fighting Games

Posted on Posted in Game design theoryTagged , Leave a comment

Even if you’re not a Street Fighter fan, Umehara “The Beast” Daigo’s career is worthy of study. It’s a fascinating example of how someone can become arguably the most iconic player of a game, and in the process direct and focus the energies of an entire genre’s community.

Not familiar with The Beast? Take a look at this video, now legendary, and read through Dave Sirlin’s summary of what it’s like to play against him. Although he has had fewer high-level tournament victories in recent years, Umehara Daigo remains synonymous with skill taken to almost preternatural levels, and is still considered a kind of living brass ring, the standard against which all others judge themselves.

Yet, what I find most noteworthy about The Beast isn’t his play. It’s the way he has shaped the play of others. He demonstrated the heights to which it was possible to climb, and in so doing he popularized the climb itself. I used to meet casual fighting game players, but for years now those I’ve encountered have been heavily invested in skill-building. I attribute that in large part to the specter of The Beast, and the all-consuming effort that has gone into defeating him.

Umehara Daigo has, perhaps unintentionally, reshaped the image of Street Fighter. It’s not about Ryu versus Ken; it’s about one player versus another. Many people have changed how their games were played; The Beast changed the nature of the game itself, and that makes him a remarkable figure in the history of competitive play generally.

Theory: Build a Community

Posted on Posted in Game design theoryTagged , Leave a comment

Games are more fun when there are other people to play them with. Design quality, however, doesn’t guarantee that a game will attract a large enough audience to give players the best possible experience. Thus, it’s worth setting aside time as part of your design process to build your game’s community.

I’m not necessarily talking about a major marketing push. Large expenditures don’t need to be a component of your plan. Just assembling a self-sustaining group of players can be a tremendous forward step for your game; do that a few times, and you’ve got yourself a phenomenon.

Killer Queen, one of my professors pointed out earlier this week, is a great example of this strategy in action. At PRACTICE 2015 Killer Queen’s designers expressed that the game is meant to be played in an arcade environment. To help create that experience, they have divided their time between making technical changes to the game and getting machines into new cities. That effort invested in expanding Killer Queen’s community has paid off; today the game has large tournaments to keep competitive players engaged, and enough access to support casual play as well.

Releasing a game without giving thought to building an audience for it is like sending up a flare; maybe people will be looking in the right direction, and maybe they won’t. If you make sure that even a small audience sees your flare, though, you’ve immediately got some help in getting the word out. Put energy into community-building before, and immediately after, your game releases; it will be well-spent.

Slack

Posted on Posted in Game design theoryLeave a comment

We’re using Slack intensively this semester, and while keeping teams up-to-date and communicating is always good, I have to admit that I’m not yet clear on why it’s become so popular. I’m hoping that experienced Slack users can set me straight: what are some valuable features I should be aware of? What is Slack good at that other forms of online communication aren’t? The value of intra-team communication is undeniable, but thus far Slack doesn’t feel like it’s enormously better than other solutions.

Theory: Many Small Meetings

Posted on Posted in Game design theoryTagged Leave a comment

I am not certain how to categorize this bit of knowledge. Organizational theory, perhaps, or behavioral theory, or something else. Regardless, it has proven relevant to and valuable in my design work, so I thought I would pass it along: frequent short meetings can be more effective than a few long ones.

While I don’t know if the literature supports that conclusion, it stands to reason that three one-hour meetings in a week can be more useful than a single three-hour meeting. The single meeting is a major disruption to a workday, and tests the participants’ ability to focus. In addition, having only a single check-in time during the week encourages those involved to prioritize other tasks. A series of brief meetings are easier to fit into a day, encourage all involved to keep current on the project, and everyone is likely to be attentive and involved for the entire meeting.

Not being a behavioral scientist, I cannot offer a proper scientific justification for the idea that having a number of shorter meetings is better. It has been so in my experience, however. Give the approach a try; I suspect you’ll find it beneficial.

Theory: Notes on Controllers

Posted on Posted in Game design theoryTagged Leave a comment

Just a few interesting notes about controllers from recent playtesting:

  1. People will continue to attempt to use the first controller that works with your game, even if it is no longer functioning. It is very important, therefore, not to switch from the keyboard to a mouse, or from a mouse to a console controller, etc. Keep the player using one controller from start to finish.
  2. Players don’t necessarily explore to find out whether there are controls available beyond those they are aware of. They might push all the buttons on a controller, but that’s about it–and if a button doesn’t have a function at that moment, they probably won’t come back to it later. Don’t assume that the player will learn all of a game’s controls without instruction/tutorials/etc.
  3. Players will do things as fast as they can, not as fast as they need to. If you want players to do things slowly–e.g., in a rhythm game–you need to incentivize the pace you’re looking for, or find some other way (for example, visual and sound design) to lull them into a more restful pace.

Link: PRACTICE 2015 Videos

Posted on Posted in Game design theoryTagged 1 Comment

I’m a bit behind on this one, but the talks from PRACTICE 2015 are now online. There’s a lot of amazing stuff there, including Brian Moriarty’s incredible history of interactive fiction, Ben Ruiz’s masterclass on attack animations, and Jeff Mishtawy on balancing Nascar races. Meg Jayanth’s keynote was also remarkable; I was particularly struck by her discussion of how players feel themselves in control even of entirely out-of-control situations.

Check the videos out when you get the chance; they’re fascinating, and well worth your time.