Well, I've been having some trouble thinking of what project to work on next. I decided to read some articles (which initially led me to this site ;) ). I read tons, on programming, to commercial/shareware successes, AI and finally game design. What I noticed is that in most game design topics they talked about storyline, graphics, ideas and such. All of them assured that gameplay was king and that all other factors bowed to his will. Because what is a game if it isn't fun? But there is a problem with this. What is gameplay? What makes it fun? Sure you can come up with vague answers but I was determined to find out what it was... So I did some brainstorming and I think I have the answer. Gameplay is a system made of two parts logic and skill. Gameplay is basically the mind trying to break and destroy these aspects. To defeat these subconcious and concious challenges. Everything else is just made to give the player a reason to face these challenges. Drama, storyline, graphics, music, effects and the likes are only designed to give a reason to face the system. So, if gameplay is the most important factor, why don't we design it first? Yeah, yeah, your saying: "But I already do that, he's just saying what I already know." Wrong. You don't design gameplay first. I have yet to hear a single person design gameplay first. Many people get an idea for a game and make gameplay a short second (if there lucky). They usually make all the goals for the game first, quite often the storyline and many of the features before deciding exactly how the game will be played. So what I propose is that instead of making our game idea first design the gameplay you want to make. First you need to decide what restrictions you have. Certain outlines of gamedesign require more time, more coding, or they may require high levels of complicated AI and such that you don't want to attempt. So, for example, making complicated premade logical or puzzle like systems (like Legend of Zelda) will take a long time. Remember you don't know what game this is going to be for yet. At this stage try to supress ideas for storyline, characters and mental pictures of realistic things as this will probably distort your gameplay so that it will fit with those factors not the other way around. Then decide these factors: 1) Do I want my game to be mostly logical or mostly skill? 2) Do I want the logical decisions my players take to be geometric or strategic. Geometric logical systems require the player to analyze and make strict boolean type decisions. Where as, strategic are made more on things like gut-instinct and rough estimates as not enough data is known to make strict decisions. 3) How can I keep the challenges new and fresh while maintaining a central theme? 4) How can I make the game so that there isn't any difficulty isolation. Difficulty isolation is when the game (usually ones based on skill) becomes incredibly hard for new players or those that aren't very good and becomes very easy for those who have mastered the skills. This makes an isolated group that actually finds the game at the right challenge level to be fun. Once you decide what your going to do for your game then try to come up with the other aspects. Here is an example: Lets say I decide that I want to make my gameplay system based on these factors: 1) I want the game to be based on skill and strategic logic. 2) I will make the challenges fresh and new by constantly expanding the different methods of beating the system. By doing this players will have more control and must make more decisions. 3) I will keep the difficulty scaled by allowing players to go down harder routes with more rewards all that will arrive at the same final goal. 4) The skill I use will be mostly fast paced and require players to make reactions to there surroundings rapidly. There surroundings will constantly change making adaptation necessary, so that players can't just use the same methods through the whole game. So now I have a nice system to work off of. Now lets apply this to a game. In my game you can control a spacecraft. You must travel througout the galaxy into various environments. You can collect various different weapons. Every weapon has its own strengths and weaknesses. The missions will be set up so that your success level in one mission will give you a mission that is based on your level of skill. Also rewards and enemy strength in each level will be effected by your skill in the last mission. That is just an example but I feel that this system of creating the method of gameplay first may help players come up with a game idea that they know will be fun because they thought of how to make it fun before they even knew what game it was going to be! I'm looking for any comments you have for this process and on ways I may be able to improve it by adding more things to look for to modify the gameplay, and game, as the result. Thanks for reading my long post.

Quote:

So I did some brainstorming and I think I have the answer. Gameplay is a system made of two parts logic and skill. Gameplay is basically the mind trying to break and destroy these aspects. To defeat these subconcious and concious challenges. Everything else is just made to give the player a reason to face these challenges. Drama, storyline, graphics, music, effects and the likes are only designed to give a reason to face the system.

I kinda have to disagree here. You could make a case that the reason the Myst games were successful was for the stunning imagery and deep immersion. The various puzzles, conversely, could be viewed as merely roadblocks to challenge you on the way to more drama and storyline.

It's a matter of perspective, but to say that drama and storyline are secondary components that aren't as important to a game is a bit of a stretch. Immersion is critical to the suspension of disbelief, and getting suspension of disbelief is a huge bonus to gameplay.

Quote:

So, if gameplay is the most important factor, why don't we design it first?

Because designing generally needs to come first. Gameplay is the furnishings; your design document and your engine are the house.

An innovative gameplay perspective or concept (e.g., Paper Mario, Super Metroid, Zelda) is all but useless without the proper foundation. Conversely, an awesome engine has no limits as to the kinds of things you can include. The limiting factor for the success of the game is the execution of its gameplay. Poor execution equals poor game, even if the concept is great.

If you're trying to increase the visibility of gameplay during phases of the design process, that's good! You should be keeping in mind what it is that you want to create, exactly. But you shouldn't let it sidetrack you from the crucial first steps of laying out how you're going to go about doing it. =)

- k²

While you make some good points I have to disagree with you on some.

I don't know whether I stated this in my initial post, but you have to see that a game has two points:
1) The challenge
2) The goal

So yes, storyline and drama are required but they only provide part 2 of this equasion. If you think really hard, then the goal isn't the reason you enjoy playing the game. If there was no challenge, it would be a movie, not a game.

I would also like to state that this process is relatively short compared to the overall game design. So, no, this doesn't provide three months working out the full details. It merely gives you a strong foundation.

I understand your criticism about design. Immersion is necessary, but immersion, drama, and storyline provide you the reason to play through the challenges. They go hand in hand.

However, a game is nothing if it isn't fun. So while making the game dramatic and immersive is great, if it isn't fun then that isn't worth much.

The other thing, is that, when making a game based on story what do you do? You take pre-existing genre's to define your game. That may be fine for the big retailers who, by advertising like crazy and working for years on awesome new features, are simply making an awesome version of that genre, then they can do that.

However, this method allows you to think outside the box. By defining what you think would be challenging, and encompass the widest variety of players, skill levels ect. you can make design new ideas to fit in with your plan and break the stereotypes.

For example, if I told you to make an RPG what's your reaction?(aside from the classic dismissal by anyone who's done any serious attempts in gamemaking)

You would probably start by thinking of existing RPG's and if you wanted them to be original you would probably modify the features (and of course having your own storyline).

If you caught the subtlty of my statement there, you can create that completely original storyline, however it is much harder to make new features or radically change the main idea.

If I define how I want my game to be played, then I can begin fitting game elements into this area.

Immersion is important, so I don't think that you should confuse this by me making a statement to sacrifice that for gameplay. I simply feel by starting with the goal instead of the challenge you don't think of new and intuitive challenges but rather classic pre-existing ones that will draw you to the goal.

This won't work for everyone. If you can already make fun games then go ahead. But I know that as an individual developer, I must think of new ways to tackle the market or I will be beaten by people that can out code/graphics/compose and market me.

I figure that if I can narrow down this process it would only take a few days to define what factors you want for a game that you feel you are both capable to do and one you think you would have a lot of fun playing. After that you can create any design you want. By keeping these design factors in you can manipulate your story to include them. It is my personal belief that story limits the imagination on gameplay far more than the other way around.

Thank you for your comment, though, as I do appreciate any thoughts on the theoretical process.

Quote:

Wrong. You don't design gameplay first. I have yet to hear a single person design gameplay first. Many people get an idea for a game and make gameplay a short second (if there lucky). They usually make all the goals for the game first, quite often the storyline and many of the features before deciding exactly how the game will be played.

Actually, with my Doom 3 mod I'm working on, I started by mapping a level on paper, making objectives and making a mental picture of how it would play and interact. After that, I started creating the level, then started making a list of all the changes and new content that would be needed to create the map, which has turned into a mod.

I know for a fact that many mappers like myself do the same thing. Though, I guess you could say we're not making a game, just adding on to one..but with this mod, it really is a whole different game than Doom3.

I haven't heard of anyone using my method.

My method doesn't use the natural system to think of games so I don't know anybody who would build it this way.

If you can make a fun game without doing what I said then go for it. I want to try this and see if I can make more original and fun games than by waiting for specific inspiration.

Sometimes the imagination needs a mundane kickstart.

The game design should be vague enough that most basic storylines can encorporate it, and most genre's can stick to it.

So if I make an gameplay design it should fit possible storylines for things varying from RPG's to Action, to RTS's.

By keeping fun gameplay as the driving factor through the first stages of development you will make sure that the game is fun.

I'm not trying to say that everyone should use my method. Or that fun games can't be made without this method. I'm just trying to attack the problem from a different angle.

Your method has advantages, and starting out with the gameplay is indeed a good idea. I'm using some kind of variant of your idea when creating games:

1- Get an idea. This can be any idea, whether a game idea or a feature idea for the game being worked on. It usually comes either naturally (when playing a game, you think of great features), instinctively (your playtesters try to do something the game does not allow, but they feel is natural), or inspirationally (from other games/movies/books).

2- Find the effects of the idea on the important categories of the game:
- The "WOW" effect: is this graphically or conceptually amazing to a player that discovers it?
- The addiction effect: will the player be attracted by whatever actions the idea implies? This comes either through discovery (wondering what happens next) or because of a reward system.
- The replayability: will the player want to play the game again because of this feature?

3- Work on these categories to increase the effect of the feature.
- For instance, you might work the explosion graphics to increase the "WOW" effect of a rocket launcher, or change the way an object is presented to the player so it seems extraordinary.
- Coerce the player better into performing certain actions using a reward system (either emotional, through the "WOW" effect, or based on other rules already in the system).
- Increase the possibilities of the feature, so it is impossible to discover all of it by playing the game only once.

4- Check that the rest of the game is not unbalanced by adding this idea. If it is the case, add more ways to coerce the player from doing unwanted things by:
- Changing the rules so it's not possible anymore
- Create a penalty for it
- Think about giving up the idea

5- Implement (in the design doc or in the code).
6- Publish the game or keep testing and eventually end up in 1- again.

I can't remember where I read this, but I'm fairly sure that Nintendo does exactly what you're talking about here. They prototype the gameplay of a game before working on any other part of it (except so far as to implement the prototype gameplay, of course). So for Mario, for instance, you have a cube that can jump, running around on a plain. There are other things that it can kill by jumping on, and that can kill it if it runs into them etc. Only after playtesting this for the 'fun factor' do they start working on concept art, level design etc.

I believe that's why some of their games are among the best games ever, gameplay-wise. (Personally I have yet to see anything beat Mario Kart for party play).

My idea is similar to that, except mine is more theoretical. I'm not really testing the gameplay before I design the game, just using it to build my design off of. Using both would probably ensure that the game is fun from the start.

I've always felt that Nintendo made the most fun games.

Just for the record, I actually DID come up with the gameplay of my game before anything else. It does happen.

Some people don't agree with the fact that 'gameplay is king', and would rather focus on telling a genuinely good story, or presenting a visually stunning adventure, or a multitude of other things. Gameplay is not something that can be the most creative aspect of the game, and a game can still be successful. Take Halo for example: a great game, sold incredibly well, the world is looking forward to it's sequel being released. But does it seem reasonable that the gameplay was designed before the other concepts? I mean that part of the game isn't revolutionary or anything, it's just another FPS (not to discredit the game at all). Or look at many of your installments of Final Fantasy, similar gameplay, obviously not what the game is built upon.

However, if gameplay IS what you want to design the game around, your questions are good to get a person started, making them question what they know and what would be innovative and interesting. Good advice!

As ever,
***Cosmic***

We're artists. The focus (the part we design first, usually) is whatever the hell we want it to be. Sometimes it's background, and sometimes it's gameplay. It depends on our whims.