In reference to the article here (may need to click the 'choosing a goal and a topic' link that follows): I'm trying to look at my game design in a new light and follow more of a logical approach to the design than an instinctual one, as I usually tend to develop my games based on a flash of inspiration for a type of game, rather than choosing a goal and THEN choosing the topic. I'm finding this hard to apply to everything though, I think a lot of very fun games would have a very weak sounding goal when defined in this manner. Take a game such as 'Wik and the Fable of Souls' for sake of arguement. The goal for such a game, even in hindsight would be quite hard to define in my opinion, and I'm pretty certain if I could work out what the goal was, it wouldn't sound impressive, yet it made for a very innovative and fun game. I'm also a little concerned at how he wrote off scrolling shooters as something that just "needs to be done by someone", which I can kind of see what he means, but I'm not sure I agree with. So anyhoo, I've considered a couple of goals for my game which I think I like, but I'm still not covinced my ideas coming from them are particularly any better. My design goal under this method of working I think would be to engage the player in a semi-sandbox environment (somewhat freeform, but having a distinct goal) allowing them to express facets of their own personality through the gameplay choices they make. So what kind of game would you come up with from my description of a goal? Is my goal badly chosen (It does feel a little vague!)? Is this method of designing flawed? Cheers, Steve

I think there are as many game design techniques as there are game designers. Personally, I think any design strategy that reliably leads to a good game is fine. Note that that article is from Chris Crawford's classic "The Art of Computer Game Design", which is still a great source for designers but was written in 1982. As a consequence, games have moved on a lot since then.

I also usually like to design by instinct rather than logic, because I trust my instinct to be a better guide about what makes a fun game. However, I'll have to admit that at present the best game I've created in terms of critical appeal is the One Week One Button contest entry "Pierre and the Fish", which isn't exactly the most complex of games [grin]. Its simplicity however does however make it a good example. (If anyone wants to try it out who hasn't yet, there's a link in my signature at the bottom of this post).

My usual strategy for design is to work virtually simultaneously on the goal, setting and technical constraints. In the case of "Pierre and the Fish", the goal is to experience a chase from the role of the hunted. The setting is a simple cartoony arcade game undersea world, and the technical contraints are the "one button" rule, the "collection" theme, the one week time limit and my limited programming and artistic abilities [grin].

Then when designing, I usually start with fixed techinical constraints that I can't modify, then dream up either a goal or setting, then work from that. When designing "Pierre and the Fish", I started from the technical constraints (which could not be changed), came up with the idea of the goal which described the gameplay and emotion, then the setting to give the game some body. All three were then refined as I fleshed out the design into something a bit more concrete with sketches and music.

Regarding your goal, the way you have described it "engaging the player in a semi-sandbox environment, somewhat freeform but having a distinct goal, allowing them to express facets of their own personality through the gameplay choices they make" is more of a combination of goal, setting and technical constraints. I suspect the goal something along the lines of "expressing facets of personality through choice", but that is still a bit vague for me to get exactly what it is that you mean. I can understand if it hard to explain; most of my game ideas are pretty much just felt by me as raw emotion which is impossible to put exactly into words in any case.

Maybe if you could describe exactly what kinds of personality aspects or gameplay choices you envisage the player having or making it will help define the game?

Thanks for the response :)

Well to be honest, my goal there is not necessarily the one I will use.

To give a bit of background, for a long time I've been trying to develop a programming portfolio, but have very little to show for the immense amount of work I have put in. The main reason for this is that when coding, I don't tend to make separate applications for each technique i am trying to implement. I tend to come up with a rough game design, and work on it as I code it, then for one reason or another, I end up going in another direction and either restarting the project, or more often than not, adapt the project towards my new goal.

The problem with this is not so much a programming one as it is a design problem, while my early coding left a lot to be desired, I am now feeling that I have a firm grasp on how to structure my engine, where to use 3rd party libraries and a good overview of the whole process.

My project is currently in the state of attempting to make a 3d air hockey game, with simple powerups. A nice simple design with a bit of room for interesting designs and the ability for me to jazz it up with some pretty graphics if I want to improve the project i future. I decided to go back to basics and just attempt to get a full game made without worrying about coming up with a design i am passionate about... effectively, despite being what I would class as an intermediate level programmer, this is my equivalent of doing tetris for a first comlpete project as while it is not the most stimulating of games, it does appeal more than Tetris while not being too complex.

I have most of the game structure in place, I have a rudimentary AI system, can play mp3 files for sounds on demand, I'm putting in a scripted, extensible UI and the physics is just advanced enough to accurately represent air hockey, the graphics look half decent with particle effects and 3d models for the pucks, shuffler and arena, I can keep track of the score and can have the player pick up powerups that currently have some simple effect and overall it's not too far off being a completed game.

My problem however is one of a lack of enthusiasm for the project. Unfortunately, all the genres I love tend to be very complex to create a game for and while I am excellent at coming up with ideas for more complex games, I struggle sometimes with designs for smaller simple games. I have played a lot of innovative small games such as Ragdoll Masters, Wik and the Fable of Souls, The Blob (current on the GD IOTD forum) and many more, and find myself unable to dream up a design that works so well as any of these. I get very torn between my goals as a designer. I would like to be able to tell a story of some sort to the player, I would like to have the player be able to express themself through their character, I would like the player to be able to express themself through their actions (perhaps say by choosing their own set of skills if the game were an RPG, or choosing a deck if it were a CCG, though this is open to more simplistic games too), I would also possibly like the player to be able to take something away from the game such as a story, picture or video of an experience they had. I would also like the player to have fun above all else. The problem is these goals sometimes feel like they conflict with one another as the most fun games I have played aren't always the most meaningful games and vice versa, each experience is different, but my instinct is telling me I want both facets in my idea, hence my last post about gritty games vs cutesy games... I'm torn!

I am struggling to decide whether to persue to complete my project that I am not too enthusiastic about, just in order to have the programming experience of having completed a full game, or whether to keep searching for the inspiration for a small game that really drives me to see it through to completion.

I think part of my problem is that I am trying to be too innovative and can't settle on an idea unless it is almost 100% original, and in trying to be innovative, the goal of innovation becomes that much harder to achieve, but to this end I askt he question of myself that perhaps I am approaching my design methods in a way that doesn't work for me and perhaps I need to look at the problem from another angle.

I agree with your design principle of instinct and combining the technical constraints into the design. For example, I know that (on my own at least) I wont be creating anything even close to games like Oblivion or (insert any other complex game here), so that instantly places a technical constraint on the game that I have to be mindful of in my design and it is in my mind just as important as deciding on a goal.

I also tend to play the idea through in my head a lot, I can visualise my game designs very clearly, and so I often tend to shoot down my own ideas as in my mental playground, I discover things that I think will not be fun, or just wouldn't work. This has caused me to restart my projects numerous times andis the main reason I have little to show for my work. I want to change this and get on the road to success for a change!

So I guess the nature of this post is really to try and work out where I'm going wrong and try to put it right, so it will probably look quite disjointed as I'm trying to figure it out for myself, but I would be very thankful for any further replies ;)

Many thanks,

Steve

I think you should start with your Idea.

Write it down, brainstorm a bit and write down every feature you could imagine. Later you sort these features.
- Must Have
- nice to have / to complex for the beginning
- bad idea


Then design a small game out of it.

Then start coding it with nothing special. No additional features just the things that you wrote up.

While coding your basic game you will have many additional ideas and features. Add them to your list. But do not start with them until your done with your first mile stone.


Try to code everything very "open" to implement some features later.


This is not the best way to design a Game, but i think it is the best way to

- Learn some disciplin
- and see something in return.

While coding your basic-game you should always focus on your main target. Do not change your game design heavily until your done with it.


When your done with that, create yourself another milestone. Maybe the Top3 "must have" additional features.


Good luck :)

It seems that an important part of the definition of goal in this article which your own goal lacks is "what emotions to I want to make the player feel?" If it's a story-based game, the theme/moral of the game would probably also be included here.

Heh, then I am probably the last person on GameDev.Net who should be advising you on what you should be doing. For the last year I've been plagued with a similar problem; trying to divine a good design for a game that captures my interest, only to get overzealous, throw in heaps of features and backstory and realise that it would take me several years to complete. I'm still to find a suitable solution that I can recommend.

My present approach is to just pick a game type, throw in a few elements that I've locked down as unchangable (including making the game vaguely 4E5 compatible), not worry too much about the design details, and pledged myself to see the game through to completion no matter what. I'm only a couple of weeks in and designing the basic architecture of the engine, so I can't tell you if this plan is a good one yet [smile]

My recommendation is if you have almost finished your 3D air hockey game I'd see it through to completion: maybe cut a few features but definitely leave it in a playable and reasonably fun state. That way you can count it as an accomplishment which will help with motivation on your next game.

I also think I know what mean about the "innovatation" problem; I've always wanted to a totally new type of game, but it's hard to think of something that is truly innovative, small enough to complete and entertaining. I've got a few tricks of my own that I've been using: picking something really simple like "make a game about throwing snowballs" or my present plan of "make a game about a penguin that also somehow fits with 4E5" and see where that leads, but I given my present track record of restarts I haven't really hit about a golden technique yet myself. On the bright side though, every idea that you proved broken in your mind did save you several months of development time [grin].

To be honest, I think the article is heavily based on how a few very specifically nerdy game designers think. Many people are well better off on their toes. If you have a rough idea of where you're going with your game, then start designing it. Heck, start building it. 80% of it is going to change by the time you get done anyway.

As for goals, my favorite games of all time had pathetic goals. Or no goals at all, other than to reach the end of the game. I play for an experience. To get lost in a game, not to win it. So that's what I want to give to players.

Quote:

Original post by Kest As for goals, my favorite games of all time had pathetic goals. Or no goals at all, other than to reach the end of the game. I play for an experience. To get lost in a game, not to win it. So that's what I want to give to players.

The goal could be
"Attrackt the gamer with many different features. The player should have always something intressting to do."

Ok the game may be endless, but your "Design Goal" is to make the game fun to play.

Quote:

Original post by Trinavarta The goal could be "Attrackt the gamer with many different features. The player should have always something intressting to do." Ok the game may be endless, but your "Design Goal" is to make the game fun to play.

Well you could, but it's not a very useful goal when you have to make decisions on what features to include or cut, as Chris Crawford explains in that article linked by Meph (I'm in agreement with him on that one [grin]).

Quote:

Original post by Trinavarta Quote: Original post by Kest As for goals, my favorite games of all time had pathetic goals. Or no goals at all, other than to reach the end of the game. I play for an experience. To get lost in a game, not to win it. So that's what I want to give to players. The goal could be "Attrackt the gamer with many different features. The player should have always something intressting to do." Ok the game may be endless, but your "Design Goal" is to make the game fun to play.

Oh. Designer goals. My mistake. Yeah, these are pretty important. In fact, I'm not sure I can understand why anyone without them would be designing a video game in the first place. That's like desiring to give a speech with nothing to say. Singing without a song.