quote: Original post by Kugels
You have to know how far the technology can be pushed. It probably should be thought about during design, but only to keep the design realistic, not dictate the design in any way.

That was my point. Don''t design around the technology, just keep it in mind or your design will end up unfeasible. I don''t think design should focus on technology, unless you are desiging with the intent to showcase a technology. I don''t think disregarding technological impossibilities is wise either, and I think it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.


The Tyr project is here.

quote: Original post by OctDev

Original post by Kugels
You have to know how far the technology can be pushed. It probably should be thought about during design, but only to keep the design realistic, not dictate the design in any way.

That was my point. Don''t design around the technology, just keep it in mind or your design will end up unfeasible. I don''t think design should focus on technology, unless you are desiging with the intent to showcase a technology. I don''t think disregarding technological impossibilities is wise either, and I think it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.



True, but I guess the difference is in the timing. Technology is such a large and complex area I have doubts that any one person could have a total handle on it. SO the question becomes do you burden the designer with technology issues and/or let the designer do his job then establish feasability of the project.

I would say at our company probably 3 out of 10 designs pass the next stage and of those three probably only one makes it out to actually viability coding.


We''re not necessarily disagreeing here, it''s just the method of implementation. At our place of work, Technology is a function of implementation not design. There are another 3 phases a design document must get through before it get actually get to the coding stage and even then that''s only preliminary prototyping to verify aspects of the design. Probably another 2 or 3 stages before hitting production. And by that stage, programmers have ripped it to shreds and hopefully given their seal of approval and decisions such as make or buy have been made.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
True..But I think your confusing design with specification.
Design is the structuring of a fun game.

Specification is the archectural and coding structures.
Production is the actual platform specific components being built and integrated.

Many designs never get further than design because of technology issues, market or legal issues, or just the industry isnt ready for it. But these decisions are made on a completed design, if you base your design around what you think the technology is then 99% of the time you are headed for absolute failure.

I am not confusing design with specification. Many companies design games (structure the fun game) around specification (algorithms and hardware). Let's say there's this company which has lots of experience with a licensed engine and so will continue to use it. So the design of the game is centered around this engine. Let's also say that engine allows a new graphical feature. Then you design a game that fully utilizes this new feature. Does this mean this game is doomed for utter failure? That's just silly. The company structured their fun game in a way that utilizes the new specification because they thought it would add to the fun.

You didn't really address the issue of designing around technology. There is nothing wrong with designing a game around technology. Why does it make for a worse game? If it opens up new possibilities in design, why not? Think of the ultimate example: the jump from 2D to 3D. The N64 comes out, which makes true 3D games feasible. So then Miyamoto takes that new technology, and then creates Mario64 around that technology.

You're obviously trying to point out the mistakes of games which only focus on looking good but don't play good. Why is that necessarily because of the technology? You think because there is a correlation between "focusing on technology" and "poor games", that also means "focusing on technology" _causes_ "poor games." That is not the case. "Poor design" causes "poor games." "Focusing on technology" _can_ lead to neglecting design which leads to "poor design", but "focusing on technology" does not immediately _cause_ "poor design." If that were true, any and every game that focuses on technology would be a poor game. Which hopefully, shown by my earlier examples, is _not_ true.


[edited by - beantas on November 2, 2002 1:23:09 AM]

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
Yeah but the issue is technology shouldnt be a factor in design. If the term rendering comes up in a design document it would automatically be shredded at our company.

Your company obviously is not Id. You cannot argue the fact that Id has focused heavily on technology and yet has come up with fun game after fun game. Commander Keen (scrolling engine), Wolfenstein and Doom (raytraced 2.5D engine), Quake (true 3D engine).

Just because that is the philosophy that your company takes, does not mean it is the correct philosophy for everyone.

[edited by - beantas on November 2, 2002 1:32:32 AM]

quote:
Let''s say there''s this company which has lots of experience with a licensed engine and so will continue to use it.

Um...how many developers are reuseing the same licensed engine over and over again?

Even game engines have a lifespan of a couple of years before "something new and better comes along"...and notice that it generaly takes a couple of years for a development team to complete a game...even with a licensed engine.

quote:
Your company obviously is not Id. You cannot argue the fact that Id has focused heavily on technology and yet has come up with fun game after fun game. Commander Keen (scrolling engine), Wolfenstein and Doom (raytraced 2.5D engine), Quake (true 3D engine).

Also notice how SIMULAR id''s games sense Wolfenstein have been...the game design itself hasn''t really developed with the technology...you still run around an shoot stuff...pick up a key to open a door(or some variation there of)...take out everything developed by the modding comunity (''capture the flag'', team fortress'',etc..) and id''s only real design contribution was ''deathmatch''...which started getting stale two games ago for most people...in it''s raw state the gameplay from Wolfinstein to Quake 3 has been pretty much the same (what real differences are there gameplay wise between the Quake games?)...only expanded to "fill the tech" (not talking about mods here...id wouldn''t be where they are now without the modding community...and they know it)...put it this way...if company X licensed one of ids game engines, and released a duplicate of id''s game but without the ability to mod it...is it really a "good" game?

id isn''t a bad company...but they have been "milking" the same basic game design for a decade now...as the tech improves...they just write a new engine to take advantage of it, useing the same game design as before...compare Quake 2 (raw game without mods) with Half-Life...Valve used the same basic game design...but put more innovation into that one game then id software has done gameplay wise with the whole Quake series (and includeing most of Doom)...Valve took a established tech mark, and developed a game to fit within it...while id just streaches the same design to fit within the new tech standard.

quote: Original post by MSW
Um...how many developers are reuseing the same licensed engine over and over again?

Many companies re-use either a licensed engine or an internally developed one. But that's not the point. The point is that companies are often forced to use certain technologies due to budget, experience, and their situation. And that forces them to design games that change because of these technologies.

quote:
Also notice how SIMULAR id's games sense Wolfenstein have been...the game design itself hasn't really developed with the technology...you still run around an shoot stuff...pick up a key to open a door(or some variation there of)...take out everything developed by the modding comunity ('capture the flag', team fortress',etc..) and id's only real design contribution was 'deathmatch'...which started getting stale two games ago for most people...in it's raw state the gameplay from Wolfinstein to Quake 3 has been pretty much the same (what real differences are there gameplay wise between the Quake games?)...only expanded to "fill the tech" (not talking about mods here...id wouldn't be where they are now without the modding community...and they know it)...put it this way...if company X licensed one of ids game engines, and released a duplicate of id's game but without the ability to mod it...is it really a "good" game?

id isn't a bad company...but they have been "milking" the same basic game design for a decade now...as the tech improves...they just write a new engine to take advantage of it, useing the same game design as before...compare Quake 2 (raw game without mods) with Half-Life...Valve used the same basic game design...but put more innovation into that one game then id software has done gameplay wise with the whole Quake series (and includeing most of Doom)...Valve took a established tech mark, and developed a game to fit within it...while id just streaches the same design to fit within the new tech standard.

You've got to be kidding me.

Take Doom. It created deathmatch (like you said) but also paved the way for more violent, atmospheric, dark-themed games (one of the first games I saw that had a satanic pentagram in it). Its design also introduced a set of weapons that becomes a standard in FPS games (melee, shotgun, rapid fire minigun, rocket launcher). They create a weapon (BFG) which stands on its own uniqueness and hasn't been copied. The level design totally pushes the 2.5D engine to its limit. Somehow they incorporate stairways and vertical level design, which Wolf3D didn't have.

Then take Quake, which further improves the deathmatch aspect. It also introduces some more "now standard" FPS weapons like the grenade launcher and lightning gun, as well as the quad damage powerup. The true 3D aspect blows open a door for design, which then allows things like prefabs, non-sprite enemies, etc. The impact on the freedom of level design alone is phenomenal. You have true rooms on tops of rooms, underwater exploration, ceilings, platforms, jumping, etc.

Quake 2 introduces the railgun, rocket jumping, but isn't all that innovative or different from Quake, yes.

But Quake 3? One of the first retail action games that is primarily made for multiplayer? Creates an FPS subgenre of arena deathmatch? Paves the way for huge open-area maps which totally changes gameplay. Jumppads create much more of an arcadish atmosphere in tune with its sports arena deathmatch theme. Think of those platform levels out in black space. You can't tell me those levels play out like a Quake1 level. Play through Quake3's singleplayer campaign. Is that _anything_ like Quake1's story based singleplayer?

They are not milking their initial design. id's games seem similar because they created a genre and they stick to it. It's deceptively easy to mistakenly label all FPS games similar because they all have in common certain design aspects (shooting a gun). But you see that they've continued to refine the genre and pave the way for new designs. You go play Wolf3d and then play Quake 3 and then you tell me with a straight face that they are essentially the same game. In fact, you go play Quake and Quake 3 and tell me with a straight face that they are essentially the same game.


[edited by - beantas on November 2, 2002 12:33:15 PM]

Outside of graphics, the technology already existed in the Quake1 engine to do everything Quake3 did.

Quake1 had "rocket jumping"...which was a unintentional side effect of the rocket explosion code that top players at the time often used to thier advantage (where the term was firt coined) Later games (Quake2 & 3) exagerated it, but it was definetly in Quake1.

The railgun was first developed as a Quake1 weapon mod that drew inspiration from the film Eraser.

Jumppads were also Quake mods...as were better AI "bots" to fight against.

Take out Quake3''s graphics, and more advanced net code...and the whole game could have been made with the Quake1 engine...no, Quake1 wouldn''t be able to duplicate the Quake3 levels...but it could do a fairly close approximation.


Point is, instead of useing the Quake1 engine to make Quake3...they built a new engine that takes advantage of the newer PC technology of the time...To many people get "wowed" by the graphics, that they can''t see that the gameplay mechanics are essentualy the same...this is sad really...but as P.T. Barnium said "There is a sucker born every minute".

Argh...I think we are talking apples and oranges.

You see I dont consider quake a game, more a Technology Toy. Doom was a good game and was fun, but to call their subsequent efforts games is stretching beyond the realms of reality.

Now games made on top of the quake engine such as SWAT or things like Thief are true games but the core engine itself is just that a technolgoy engine. If you add multiplayer it becomes a technology toy.

quote: Original post by MSW
Outside of graphics, the technology already existed in the Quake1 engine to do everything Quake3 did.

Take out Quake3''s graphics, and more advanced net code...and the whole game could have been made with the Quake1 engine...no, Quake1 wouldn''t be able to duplicate the Quake3 levels...but it could do a fairly close approximation.

How are you assuming all of this? Have you written a BSP-based deathmatch game?

I think that the Q1 engine couldn''t have handled Q3-style open area levels simply because Q1 didn''t have them. If it was possible, why didn''t level designers do it? And I think that just having better hardware wouldn''t have done it. Why? Because Q1 was written with certain assumptions about hardware in mind and so therefore was optimized for that hardware. You do realize that Q1 was originally written with a software renderer! Between Q1 and Q3, the way games were rendered changed significantly due to 3D cards. Which is one of the reasons why Carmack writes a whole new engine. Why would he have completely rewritten a new engine if Q1''s engine would have sufficed?

quote:
The railgun was first developed as a Quake1 weapon mod that drew inspiration from the film Eraser.

Jumppads were also Quake mods...as were better AI "bots" to fight against.

What does this have to do with my point that Quake1 was different from Quake3? It doesn''t matter if the ideas was first implemented in mods. It doesn''t change the fact that Quake3 had railguns and jumppads but Quake1 didn''t.

quote:
Point is, instead of useing the Quake1 engine to make Quake3...they built a new engine that takes advantage of the newer PC technology of the time...To many people get "wowed" by the graphics, that they can''t see that the gameplay mechanics are essentualy the same...this is sad really...but as P.T. Barnium said "There is a sucker born every minute".

And my point is, the new engine didn''t just create better looking graphics. It enabled new kinds of levels to be designed. Which creates different gameplay mechanics. You haven''t successfully argued that the gameplay mechanics from Q1 to Q3 are essentially the same.

The poor guy just wanted to know what a game designer did, and instead he got a stupid debate on the details of the Quake series!?!?!?

Instead of bickering about little details, how about we talk about game designing?

blackhammer2:

What does a game designer actually do?
> varies a lot from company and depends upon the game designer''s individual skills, but to be a designer is to figure out at least the general shape of the game and decide what sort of gameplay will actually be in the game.

Is it REQUIRED that he/she be an artist?
> no, but it can help.

Does programming experience help, or does it matter?
> helps, but not neccessary

Are there any apt institutes where I can receive an education on this career choice?
> Digipen, Full Sail, probably more

What kind of attitude is well suited for a game designing career?
> love games. love thinking about games. don''t mind working REALLY hard to get a game done.

educational requirements
> I have no clue whether there are specific majors or courses that they look for, but I don''t think that designers are just hired off the street. They look for previous experience working on a game. So you usually can''t start out as a game designer, but might work your way up from being an artist, programmer, QA, techical support, playtester...