quote: Original post by Lysander
I found the "art of computer game design" to be pretty much worthless, especially now. It contains such gems as "Game-playing requires two things: a game and a player." Thanks, Chris.

Actually this is a point of vital importance and anyone who dismisses it without analysing why it is important is missing out on a fundamental point of game design.

Movies, games, books, comics, theatre are all forms of entertainment so why do people decide to play a game instead of go to the movies. With TV, film and theatre is can be a simple format issue (X story is only available as a film so I go to the cinema). There are also several other reasons why people choose a particular entertainment. Returning to our main topic of games why do people buy/play games? Because they want to PLAY, as well as being entertained.
A movie requires two things. A movie and an audience (non-interactive).
A game requires two things. A game and a player.

The more you prevent the player from playing the game the worse they will judge the game play experience to be. This is the reason why interactive movies failed as a genre. They were the worst example of the designer doing what he/she wanted as opposed to letting the player make decisions and take actions that have an impact on the outcome of the game.

That doesn''t mean that every game must be 100% free range but rather that you must think very carefully about how and why you limit a player’s choices. If a player is walking through a forest and bumps into an invisible "edge of the map" you have stopped them doing what they wanted and broken their suspension of disbelief (the world you created just became less real to them). If instead you have a deep ravine, a sheer cliff face or an electric fence you have still limited their game play but in such a way that they can believe in. They are more likely to feel that they could get past the obstacle if only they had X, Y or Z and so the limit is acceptable.

An understanding of what a game is and why people want to play them is the best foundation of a great game design.

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

Dan Marchant: "Hear, hear!"

I finally got around to finishing "Chris Crawford on Game Design" and I have to agree with ''BlahMaster'': it''s his thoughts on game design, rather than a straight textbook. It isn''t intended to teach you game design from scratch, but he does give you a flavour of what it was like during the ''70s and ''80s. He also puts computer games in context by looking at how many traditional table-top/boardgames have influenced this industry. It''s also an excellent illustration of how issues outside your control can affect your game''s success in the market.

Adams & Rollings on Game Design, on the other hand, is a textbook. Well worth buying, if only because it distills a lot of the terminology and provides a definitive resource for the subject. If this book isn''t on the Required Reading lists for university courses within the year, I''ll be very surprised. If you can afford to, get both.

Chris isn''t in it for the money. He headed up Atari Research, back when Atari was actually good. He coded for the VCS and Macintosh, but WHAT he coded was truly intriguing stuff. He isn''t the most successful designer ever to have lived, but he doesn''t flinch from describing his mistakes, as well as his successes. Some of his games deserved more success; it''s a shame that his attempts to bring social interactions to the fore were rarely understood.

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley

quote: Original post by Obscure

quote: Original post by Lysander
I found the "art of computer game design" to be pretty much worthless, especially now. It contains such gems as "Game-playing requires two things: a game and a player." Thanks, Chris.

Actually this is a point of vital importance and anyone who dismisses it without analysing why it is important is missing out on a fundamental point of game design.

I''m not dismissing it. It''s just incredibly obvious and therefore does not need to be said. The book needs some editing.

quote: Original post by Lysander

quote: Original post by Obscure

quote: Original post by Lysander
I found the "art of computer game design" to be pretty much worthless, especially now. It contains such gems as "Game-playing requires two things: a game and a player." Thanks, Chris.

Actually this is a point of vital importance and anyone who dismisses it without analysing why it is important is missing out on a fundamental point of game design.

I'm not dismissing it. It's just incredibly obvious and therefore does not need to be said. The book needs some editing.

I didn't say you were I said "anyone who does". As for being obvious, sadly it isn't obvious enough. The entire (thankfully short lived) genre of interactive movies was created off the back of ignoring this one fundamental point. It tried to replace "players" with "watchers". Even now too few designers are creating games that offer you the chance to stop and watch the story, as opposed to stopping you in your tracks and forcing you to watch it. Until everyone is doing the former we need to continue to state the obvious.



Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions
Game Development & Design consultant

[edited by - obscure on August 11, 2003 5:43:24 PM]