While I see the value in good documentation, I still won't hire a guy who can only do documentation but nothing else.
This is a fair point, and really why I'm looking at ways to prove ability beyond writing documentation. This thread has already given me some ideas, so it is turning out well.
Well, from what i know, Level Designer and Game Designer are 2 different roles, especially for triple-A titles. Mods, maps and prototypes are the best stuff to show LD's capability. As for "pure" designer like GD, I do believe that shipped projects you previously worked on can prove your value.
Sometimes people tend to promote their own employees instead of hiring a game designer from the outside. Things might be a lot different for MMO and casual games.
Correct me if I am wrong.
In a Triple-A title I would definitely agree that a level designer is usually different from the game designer, but I think from an indie standpoint (or a smaller team) the most likely person to be level designing is going to be the Game Designer. The artist is going to be busy developing assets, and the programmer busy with coding. Even if not, depending on the editor you can introduce new gameplay through level design (Grifball in Halo is an example of this), and development of a well structured level should demonstrate an ability to consider balanced gameplay mechanics throughout design.
that particular line of discussion is to be discontinued
Appreciated.
Another thing you might consider as an aspiring designer is starting a blog, containing updates about:
- Projects you're working on. Post updates about your Game Maker prototypes, the board games you're making, etc.
- Ideas you have for new games, or for changes to existing games.
- Ideas you have for different game mechanics -- not necessarily within an actual game, but simply as building blocks that could be used in combination with others to make a game.
- Your thoughts on game design theory, and/or logic (perhaps even scientific) methods of approaching design.
- Analysis of existing games, looking at what has been done well, what could be improved, what shouldn't be done, etc.
This would help to show a number of things including your writing and communications skills, your dedication (by sticking to regular or semi-regular posting) and some of your ideas, and if built up over time may provide a worthwhile link to show prospective team-members.
Hope that's helpful! ![smile.png](http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png)
I had thought vaguely about starting a blog, and it is possibly something I will do in the future. The topics you've listed could make for interesting writing I think. At least I'm not (or not entirely) one of those that wants to keep their 'super-secret-ultra-amazing-genre-changing-awesome-mechanic' to themselves.
Might not be entirely related, but a girl I know works in HCI (Human Computer Interaction) and she specifies user interfaces and how a user will navigate the system; she does a bit of coding in her job, even though it is really pure design she is doing. I'm not sure if Game Design involves specifying the way a game looks and the way the user interacts with it, but if it does, then I'd assume that understanding the code would definately allow a higher degree of understanding of how the system would and should work.
Typically speaking, design documents and high-concepts would include UI design and concepts on player interaction.
For a designer, I see programming knowledge as a double-edged sword.
It can help you understand how your game would work, how it can be made, how the UI will interact with other pieces of the program. This in turn, helps you convey your ideas to the programming team. This is all positive from a logistical point of view.
From a creative point of view, this can be a hinderance more than anything else. Because you know what works for you, and how you would implement it, you instictually are confined to that line of thought. I outlined this with my little gun scenario in a previous post in this thread.
Game design should be about what is fun, and making it work. Not what works, and making it fun. Or that's what I think anyway.