Hi So.. here's another beginner question :-) really appreciate some response. thank u. Do u use the MDA framework for your game design? Has it been proven as a useful and successful tool? how can i master it and how does it interact with the GDD? Cheers [Edited by - Digital Chaos on August 26, 2009 2:41:51 AM]

By MDA, do you mean "Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics"?

If so, the answer is probably that 90% of people have never heard of it.

I also don't know if there is any sort of explicit framework - I've only ever seen individual features described in terms of the mechanics graph in hindsight, never seen it as applied to an actual game design.

I don't think it or indeed any other game design philosophy was been proven as a useful and successful tool. This is an active area of research with pretty much no real conclusions as yet.

Yes. I was refereeing to "Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics". Sorry for not being clear enough. Thank u for your reply:-)

It surprises me that ~90% of designers never heard of it. As a beginner the idea of MDA kind of makes sense 2 me and seems like it could be a useful tool..

Very sad to hear there's no game design philosophy that has been proven useful& successful.
Has behavioral game design (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010427/hopson_01.htm ) also not yet been proven useful &successful?

What then do u base ur design on? Is it still based on trial and error?

Thanks.

Quote:

What then do u base ur design on? Is it still based on trial and error?

We prefer to call it 'build and repair' or even 'Agile Development', neither of which is quite the same as trial and error.

Build and repair does seem the closest to what we do at work, which is an iterative process starting with a skeleton which is then slowly fleshed out and finally thrown at coders, artists and scripters. (in theory, in reality, they tend to work on it almost as soon as we finish writing each element)

Well, I'm sure (as much as a beginner can be :-) ) u don't just throw features/elements into your game, develop it and only then, after testing , decide whether it's working or not (do u??).

Are u saying that If I were to develop my game, I should start at basic operating phase with minimum features and then after testing decide whether to add more features? How will I be able to direct the game that way? that is, the dynamics of it, the player's interaction, etc.

I'm guessing there must be some kind of logic behind it that makes it "designed". Maybe using some element from behavioral psychology?



Really appreciate your feedback :-)

I just started using the MDA framework in the last few months after participating in a workshop on it at GDC back in March.

The simple answer: yes, and it works pretty well for me.

The more complex answer: I see the MDA framework as a tool in the game designer's toolbox, but it's not a design methodology that can guide or solve every problem. It won't help a designer to fix a game that cannot be played to completion. It won't help a designer to build an intuitive interface. It won't help a designer in making sure the game specifications are within the budgetary and technical capabilities of the development team.

What it can do is help in making better creative decisions by forcing the designer to focus on the end-user experience. It helps the designer consider the ramifications of even the tiniest design change. While I've used it in the way I was taught to use it (observe whether new design iterations more closely match the feeling the designer wants to create for the player), I've also used it to take an idea for an interesting mechanic and figure out the appropriate type of game for such a mechanic.

As far as proof of effectiveness: Kylotan is right that there really isn't any strong empirical evidence showing the effectiveness of using the MDA framework. All I know is that the designers who ran the workshop are proponents of it and they've worked on a number of successful games.

How can you master it? Use it! Try to revise a simple game like a traditional card game, a simple casual game, or a old-school arcade game. Or take some cards or playing pieces from board games you have and make up your own simple game.

How does it "interact" with the GDD? That's not really a good question. While one might use it to rationalize a design choice in the document, the MDA framework is really more about the actual design process rather than the process of documenting the design.

BTW: for those who are in the 90% who have never heard of it, Marc LeBlanc's website is a pretty good starting point.

Quote:

Original post by Digital Chaos Well, I'm sure (as much as a beginner can be :-) ) u don't just throw features/elements into your game, develop it and only then, after testing , decide whether it's working or not (do u??).

Unfortunately I think that is what most people do, yes!

Usually you take a system you saw working elsewhere, tweak it to be more the way you want it, implement it, test it, and then repeat the tweaking. If that sounds primitive, that's because it is.

Quote:

I'm guessing there must be some kind of logic behind it that makes it "designed". Maybe using some element from behavioral psychology?

The design comes from choosing which ideas to implement, and the parameters of their implementation. I doubt most designers except the very best pay much attention to behavioural psychology either. You have to understand that game design is a very young discipline with very little in the way of formal methods or research or education behind it.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan Quote: Original post by Digital Chaos Well, I'm sure (as much as a beginner can be :-) ) u don't just throw features/elements into your game, develop it and only then, after testing , decide whether it's working or not (do u??). Unfortunately I think that is what most people do, yes! Usually you take a system you saw working elsewhere, tweak it to be more the way you want it, implement it, test it, and then repeat the tweaking. If that sounds primitive, that's because it is.

I won't defend the system, but in many professional studios you see publishers telling you "this is what I like about your previous games, so make more of the same". Changes are just a series of small tweaks to the last game, keeping the ones that the publisher agrees with, and then repeat the cycle until you have a finished game.

Luckily, the project I am on now is not a sequel or derivative of previous games. What I meant by my response was that you can take some unformed ideas and bounce them off other designers and developers in the studio. As you discuss it, the ideas solidify according to a simple 'survival of the fittest' paradigm until you get a framework of mechanics for the game. After that, you flesh it out into an actual design.

Would a formal design framework get in the way of or decrease the chances of emmergent properties within the game or vice-versa?

Quote:

Original post by kseh Would a formal design framework get in the way of or decrease the chances of emmergent properties within the game or vice-versa?

I thought emergent properties within the game were only supposed to be emergent to the player, not the developer. If random crap is popping up in your game, chances are good that random crap will be game-breaking or at least unbalancing.