What motivates you to share your ideas? I''ve often wished that the design community was more like the scientific community: Our attitude would be that open discussion enriches us all. Yet I''ve encountered among professionals and would be designers alike the (possibly right) philosophy that sharing is loss. I rarely see professionals come to boards like this, or newsgroups on the net, even to just brainstorm. And again and again I''ve encountered the fear among aspiring designers of ideas being "stolen." Maybe I''m naive (an ugly and distinct possibility ). But to me, if you''re a designer then you''ve always got ideas. There''re inexhaustible, because that''s what you are . And to me, you can''t improve them in a vacuum. I understand if you''ve got THE NEXT BIG THING in production , and don''t want to tip off your competitors... but if you look at the prevalence of cloning, that doesn''t seem to be that big a threat!!!! What do you think? What would have to change to get ideas to flow more freely? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by Wavinator
What would have to change to get ideas to flow more freely?

Non-Disclosure Agreements for one thing. The primary reason I think that pro designers are wary of boards such as these is that their employers will get a hold of a post and claim that they are spreading company owned IP, and fire them. Not something to open yourself up to really. IG are a fantastic company to work for, so long as I stay sensible about it, they are cool.

Im all for an open community, otherwise I wouldnt come here and post as oftern as I try to. It can be a very valuable thing, and a way in which to generate new ideas that may never have come about before. Something you also have to keep in mind however is that the majority of pro designers dont work in a vacuum. They have all these other designers/artists/programmers/marketing (ugh, did I just say marketing? ) people sitting down the hall who they can bounce ideas off, something most indi-developers dont have ready access to.

Ill never post on questions which are directly related to Freedom Force or any game Im working on, or use any game Im working on as a direct reference (unless its been released of course ), but I might respond to or even pose design questions of a philisophical nature.


Drew "remnant" Chambers
Game Designer
Irrational Games

But back to the scientist bit. Do you really think scientists do that these days Wavinator? Maybe if they all work in the same company or have been ordered to work in a group together. But i wouldn''t be surprised anyhow if scientists don''t really talk to each other that openly unless at course you''re studying something. I think universities alike are the major factor here for creating that stereotype scientist.

Most scientists i know are usually to busy trying to measure each others IQ than actually talking issues up anyhow unless you''re talking ground breaking stuff but how many scientists get the credit they deserve and how many get robbed. One thing aleast we don''t have to worry about is Interlectual Suppresion thank aliens for that. I think we''re a mile and a half ahead of them right here right now (the scientists that is )

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

But back to the scientist bit. Do you really think scientists do that these days Wavinator? Maybe if they all work in the same company or have been ordered to work in a group together. But i wouldn't be surprised anyhow if scientists don't really talk to each other that openly unless at course you're studying something. I think universities alike are the major factor here for creating that stereotype scientist.

Maybe I'm working on a stereotype, but I've always had the VERY STRONG impression that scientists collaborate internationally on things that don't involve national defense. They hold international symposiums, collaborate and share work even when there's no gain, and publish via the peer review system. And the ego thing you mention (which unfortunately does happen) gets even more ideas out into the open.

I know that as soon as economics or defense enters the picture, they clam up. I can understand that, and would expect a researcher or designer of anything to do the same (like Drew mentioned above).

But it does astound me that there aren't more philosophical discussions from the "big guys" and more idea swapping / testing / theorizing from the "would be's."

More inexplicable to me is the notion of amateurs thinking their ideas will be stolen. This assumes that you've got something unique (sorry, but I don't think most do-- including myself), that it is valuable just as an idea (implementation?), and that once taken you will never be able to use the idea (clone?!?!!)

I don't know if you've seen how many "SF RPG: ..." and other posts I've made in the past few months, but I do so with the idea that 1) I'm not in the industry, 2) I want to see this made, whether I do it or not, and 3) the only way I'm going to get better is to test my concepts against others. Since implementation is so expensive, and I don't have a team, #3 is very important.

Maybe I'm foolish for doing this. But heck, even if one of my ideas were stolen, my competitor would get to make all of the mistakes before me!


BTW, Drew... MARKETING?!?!?!?!?! Well, okay, just be sure to carry a crucifix!!!!




--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Edited by - Wavinator on January 22, 2001 6:05:31 AM

Wavinator''s right.

You need other people when you have a good idea. Because you need someone not too involved to see the flaws. Besides, we all have our quirks - I''ve seen when someone (occasionally myself) has had an idea and, upon telling someone, has gotten that facial expression that means ''You are kidding - right?'' - because what seems to be a good idea to you can actually be pretty terrible.

The computer games scene is maturing, and as such, there are few truely revolutionary ideas left. All that''s left is evolution, and evolution requires collaboration - you may find your great idea has been thought of a hundred times, and rejected.

Well this slightly swings back to a point i made in another recent thread here in the game design corner. The point being the difference between concept and designing of games. Design could be scene scientifically depending on your preference of learning. Where as concept really has little bearing what so ever on why we all come here in the first place - to discuss "Design". I lot of people confuse the two quite easily unfortunately.

quote: by Wavinator
Maybe I''m foolish for doing this. But heck, even if one of my ideas were stolen, my competitor would get to make all of the mistakes before me!

Yeah yeah, there is no need to worry about it, thats true because firstly as i''ve pointed out people don''t need to post concepts to start off with unless its in direct relation to a design issue. But then it all comes back to an exchange that being - you or i come on here and make our post hoping people will help us improve our game design skills. Now i would happily swap some fantastic concept in exchange for improved game designing on my part. You know the saying: give a man a fish feed him for a day...

Maybe i''ve lost my way in this but i think we''re at an agreement or something?


A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

I think that Wav's right too. Think about how many games are very similar, and there's still room on the market for many of those games. Besides, if you realease a game w/ a great concept people will just give it a genre name and then people will end up copying it afterwards anyway drowning the market with your own idea.



"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on January 22, 2001 9:39:49 AM

I dont think it''s about being a scientist, or an artist, or whatever you are.

It''s about money pressure.

People don''t mind sharing their ideas, as long as these are not money-making ideas.

Greed. That''s what it''s all about.

That''s why I gave up bothering to enter any form of industry. I even got fed up of the constant bickering amongst artists... I got annoyed with the constant pressure for more money in the ISP business, and even know that I am starting as a lecturer, I try to stay as far as I can from any form of internal politics.
All this competition crap destroy progress.
If people worried about having the money they need, rather than thinking "I NEED more money", then maybe, just maybe, we would make a step in the right direction.

Just look at the different projects on analyzing the human genome ? Why, oh why do the same thing in two different labs, rather than work together as a team ?? Mmmmh ??
Yep, repeat after me : M.O.N.E.Y.
Only because those people want to be able to say "we did it first, we get the patent, we get more money for our research".


But then again, you''ll always fing guys like me, who couldnt care less about money, and who''ll give their opinion, share their ideas, and if you make money out of one of my ideas ?? Well, I''ll be happy about it. A credit when due is good enough for me (If I had made pay all the french projects I have translated for the last three years, I''d probably already have my new computer ... )

Oh, and yes, I am being general on purpose here. This applies definitely to your topic anyway

youpla :-P

Yes, but the silly part is that how many games are there that are successful that have a really brand new unique idea. Everquest isn''t making tons of money because it was a unique idea. We all have seen tons of games with its basic concept. Same thing with Quake.

A fresh new idea is unbelievably rare. We have all said hundreds of times that the implementation and execution of an idea is more valuable.

For instance, IMO Thief included a fairly unique concept, but it was all the things that were implemented around that concept that made it truly great. Furthermore, I read that they had to play around with a lot of concepts before finding a way to make their concept of stealth interesting. So, the implementation is what showed them how everything would work, not the concept.



"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

quote: by Nazrix
A fresh new idea is unbelievably rare.

Today yes but yesteryear no. I think the reason being why we had so much more originality years ago is due to the lack of money in the industry. This plus the fact that games didn''t have to take up 10.5 cdroms just to be able to put it on the stores shelves = more originality. Those old games were small and one person could make them thus no one butting in saying NO i don''t like that idea. These days we''ve become like hollywood, marketing and special fx will be the next big factors involved in making any money from games. The art of developing a game concept that will set the players mind back a step and looking in a new direction are already gone.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew