Note to moderators: This is a review for a Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman , that i feel that belongs in this forum ,if am wrong please dislocate or if my lounge was unacceptable delete. Thanks in advance. Talmud says, "Plant a tree, have a child, write a book." I really don't understand what the authors expect when they wrote such a book , expect maybe fallowing the above saying. This book is good example of useless study who returns nothing for your money and time. The model is fallowing: 1 Target the wide market of : Written for game scholars, game developers, and interactive designers, ... 2Start with a cool text of Pong to hook the readers 3 Quote everybody with cool title you know about 4 Give a dozens of definitions for a same thing from various authors including you 5 Put pictures that readers don't need 6 Enclose few boring games 7 Fill the rest with bibliography you used That will cover $45.95 and 650 pages And don't forgeth make all your friends review it on Amazon etc.

Gamedev.net has a books section here, which allows users to write their own reviews - I think this might be better placed there.

The book you're talking about is here.

I disagree, you provide no evidence for your criticism slanted at this book, which I found more than helpful. It provides a more academic or scientific perspective of what we commonly view as an abstract form (game design is under the 'creative side' in these forums), for a profession that is becoming increasingly technical.

I would say that it is definitely worth your money.

I've only briefly browsed the book, but it looked to be a good analysis of game design. I don't understand the criticism as it seems to do exactly what it claims to. It's not meant to be a 'here's how you design a game' book by any means.

Need proofs Ok :

Chapter 4 Design
Some definitions of design

Richard Buchanan argues that "design is ..... [3]

Herbert Simon's definition emphasizes action,...ones." [4]

John Heskett employs a more ... conception of visual form." [5]

Donald Schon regards design as ...[6]

Designer Emilio Ambasz ......" [8]

Design historian Clive Dilnot suggests that design ....[9]

The author wrote 6 definitions , when 1 or 2 could be enaphe.
How could i define Design when the author couldn't decide what definitions fits most.And this was the bibliography shorten of course so you could read it.

[2]Klaus Krippendorff, "On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts
[3]Richard Buchanan, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking." In The Idea of Design, A Design Issues Reader, p. 6.
[4]Herbert Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968), p. 55.
[5]John Heskett, Industrial Design (New York: Oxford University
[6]Richard Buchanan, "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking." In
[7]Donald A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How
[8]Emilio Ambasz, Emilio Ambasz: The Poetics of the Pragmatic
[9]Clive Dilnot, The Science of Uncertainty: The Potential
[10]Doug Church, "Formal Abstract Design Tools."
Chapter 5 Systems introducing systems
Eight definitions
A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

A functionally related group of elements, especially:

The human body regarded as a functional physiological unit.

An organism as a whole, especially with regard to its vital processes or functions....

An organized set of interrelated ideas or principles.

A social, economic, or political organizational form.

A naturally occurring group of objects or phenomena: the solar system.

A set of objects or phenomena grouped together for classification or analysis.

A condition of harmonious, orderly interaction.

An organized and coordinated method; a procedure.

Do you wanna go further? I think this is enaphe.

Quote everybody with cool title
Chapter 1 :
Brian Sutton-Smith writes, "Each person ....
David Sudnow, Pilgrim in the Microworld ....
Chapter 2 :
E. M.Avedon, The Study of Games ..
Reiner Knizia plus his Biography
.........etc


I get sick of going through this book, it's consisted of barely nothing but quotes, definitions, latin words; biography of quoted persons , bibliography and so on and so on and so on.
If anybody likes this book could get my copy half price .

And some reviews from guys at Amazon who are obviosly not friends with the authors:

Little insight from an inexperienced pair., January 25, 2004
Reviewer: Jack Colon (San Fran, CA) - See all my reviews
When I received a copy of this book I didn't have any solid expectations. I had never heard of Zimmerman or Salen before and so I wasn't overly surprised when the text turned to disappoint. If you look into the authors credentials you'll find that neither have any experience in game design beyond a beginner/hobbyist level. I felt mislead by the bravado the authors put forth in assuming authority on a subject they are blatantly unqualified to comment on. Overall the book delves into game design on only a very shallow level.
On the brighter side, if you're a game player with a passing interest in old school design, or just want to know the opinions of some retro-gamers, you might care to check this book out. For anyone else, I'd suggest alternatives: "Game Design: Theory and Practice" and especially "Chris Crawford on Game Design". Both contain intelligent analysis from truly experienced designers with much more relevance to modern game design.

The bottom line is that there are just too many good alternatives to be interested in this instantly forgettable material.

Mediocre at best. Easily forgettable., January 5, 2004
Reviewer: Paulette Wellington (San Diego, CA) - See all my reviews
Managed to finally get through this wordy behemoth. Now that I have, I'm not sure that it was worth the battle. The historic/cultural analysis is quite one sided, leaving the most controversial topics entirely untouched. The text reads like a "retro-gamers guide to the universe", and fails to offer any meaningful examination of game design topics. Certainly not enough to warrant calling it a "textbook" or "reference book" (as the books description claims).
If you are interested in game design, skip this one and look to others like Chris Crawford for intellectual stimulation.

Not good for students of game making., May 29, 2004
Reviewer: Amy Talen (Berlin, Germany) - See all my reviews
While it is a nice romp through the games culture of the 1980's, it really has no input on the world of games today. The fundamentals have changed, and this book is showing it's age in a big way. If you are interested in learning more about true fundamentals to game design, check out Chris Crawford's great book on the topic. Money is tight for every student, don't invest in this under whelming hog wash.

A great door-stop!, May 10, 2004
Reviewer: Greg Banning (NYC, NY, USA) - See all my reviews
Failing at virtually every level to deliver useful information, this book is a whole lot of dead weight. If you are a student of games, you have many superior options.
By the way, the spotlight reviewer "Nikita" is a close friend of the author, so now you know why he's so enthusiastic about it.

Many words, little content, February 24, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
The authors treat you to a pretentious, hollow, lopsided ivory tower view of what games are and then summarize each section by having a guest writer design a game to be played with dimes.
This is exactly what's giving acadamic game research a bad name.

I can't imagine anyone who would find this gibberish useful

Dodge this bullet!, January 28, 2004
Reviewer: "john_l_s" (San Jose, CA) - See all my reviews
As a life-long game designer, I've worked on dozens of projects from multi-million dollar blockbusters to academic experimentation & pure research. The current glut of high brow nonsense being passed on as educational literature appalls me. Case in point: The authors here have laughable credentials. Furthermore, anyone with the internet can get this "information" for free. Cashing in on a gullible public has become a ubiquitous pastime in the game literature pyramid scheme, don't fall victim to it's wrath.

Academic treatise, December 18, 2003
Reviewer: A reader
Reading a book about the theory of games is like reading a book about the theory of humor: nowhere near as interesting or as satisfying you'd imagine it to be.
This book is not a cookbook for designing games, although it does offer lots of useful advice and numerous examples of game design. According to the authors, it's an attempt at creating a "critical vocabulary" for game design.

Early on, they say that we shouldn't take their definitions seriously, and that they know they are incomplete and leave out examples. But, they say, new ideas come when you start to think about and argue definitions. Thus, definitions are just a rhetorical device, and not meant to be taken in the same way as definitions in, say, science. This is an interesting tactic that drives people in science nuts: in science, definitions are fundamental tools for building theories and making explanations. To a scientist, it appears that the authors want it both ways: the apparent rigor of a definitional approach, but without the committment. (In science, *stories* and analogies are more likely to be used as rhetorical devices.)

Like most academic writing of this sort, the writing itself comes in various shades of purple, but it is generally clear and direct.

One interesting feature of the book is the 4 new games that were commissioned just for the book; the designers were asked to keep logs during the design, and these are re-printed in the book. It's interesting to read the thought processes of the designers --- more interesting than the main text, most of the time!

The authors are clearly well-versed in the arts and design side of game design; the source material for their "unit" on the "formal" rules of games consists mostly of references to popular books on math and science and computation. In other words, they really have no deep understanding of the "formal" side of game. That's a shame, because the rest of their book strikes me as much more of a serious academic exercise.

Ultimately, nothing struck me as terribly insightful, and nothing gave me that "aha" experience. Maybe that's just because it is an intentionally academic tome. Like a textbook, it is just too ponderous, too concerned with the artifice of academia as opposed to the heart of the ideas.

Not that I'm one to continue a flame... But

I'm a 4th year uni student studying software. I checked the rules of play out, as there weren't really many alternatives in the library.

I must agree that it's a terrible book... Or is it? Well it's actually quite well written and full of content. But from the point of few of a programmer, it's crap. Perhaps if I wanted to study games from a abstract view then yes that'd be good.

It doesn't discuss design concepts in terms of systems, objects modules etc. But then the book never claimed to do that.

So yeah it's a crap book if you want to learn how to design a game from a developers point of few, but they never said it was and they don't make you buy it, so the moral of the story is check it out in the library before you waste ur cash.

BtW does anyone actually know good books that discuss game design (apart from the ones listed on gamedev.net)

Oh yeah, I checked this one out at my local library. I didn't end up finishing it. Yeah it talks about some old 80's arcade games, but the book isn't really about that. It's about games as a whole, on a more academic level. The real major problem with this book is that it is quite wordy and fairly abstract. I wouldn't say it's total crap, but more along the lines of not very useful in helping to design games. It may be useful for more academic or schoolastic discussion, but as i'm not in school, I have no use for it myself.

Keith