You have a really cynical view of artists though.

In case it wasn't obvious, I posted the image as a comment on your 'ideas guy as an artist' stance, rather than a comment on artists in general.

As for the 'real meaning' of the image, (which was created by an artist, presumably) that, like all art, is open to interpretation.

On the subject of artists, have you ever watched an artist at work? Because they don't always get things right first time. They prototype, iterate etc. just like developers.

I did mean an ideas guy who is also the lead game designer, I don't see why he shouldn't be considered an artist.

Yes, artist don't always get it right on the first try, but they try to get it right without getting too distracted from what they were originally trying to convey.

As for a game designer having to eb able to collaborate, of course that's an important skill. But if you as a programmer suggest a game mechanic and he doesn't see howm it fits in his design, why would it be a bad thing if he doesn't want to change it? There's a difference between being a diva and knowing what you want your game to be.

Nobody is suggesting this. A critical skill for a lead game designer is knowing which ideas and changes to incorporate and which to leave out, and when to remove ideas that sounded good but that aren't working out.

The main thing we are suggesting is that the lead game designer must be willing and able to apply the same process equally to their own ideas and those of others.

Game design doesn't have to be a democracy, and it probably shouldn't be. A benevolent dictator will work fine.

I fully agree with you there, the only thing we have slightly different opinions on is to which extent a game designer should deviate from his original idea to optimize it.

And to which degree his original idea is worth anything. (I do think it's only worth anything in the hands of a capable and passionate designer with the possibility of actually making it.)

Buster2000, on 13 May 2013 - 01:01, said:
It would probably be a good guess that chess was actually an iterative process and the rules were not created first but evolved over several years and in several different directions in different countries.

pretty much correct. Chess started out in 6th-century India as a game called Chaturanga, which is the ultimate ancestor of all chess-like games (such as Shogi in Japan). Various changes occured over the years (the movement patterns of the queen and bishops, the addition of castling and en passant capture, the ability of pawns to move two spaces on their first movement), and the modern chess ruleset appears around the 15th century. (Modern chess tactics, on the other hand, don't appear until the late 19th century.)

Of course, modern chess is probably the least-changed descendant of Chaturanga, along with Makruk - although it's worth noting that the queen in chess is the single strongest piece in any Chaturanga descendant - as others change the starting layout, add more pieces, or change the board size.

It depends. It is good to hold on to your vision dispote feedback from the team. Only if it is about choices. Espacily conflicting ones.
Example. Aktion horror vs survival horror. If you initial vision was one or the other. Team member put there preference in.
So some time its good to be more dictator.
But wenn team members see a flaw instead a choice. And you stick to it like dictator then it hurt your game.

Because a idea guy with a realy super godlike idea is so rare. But lots of idea guy think they have gold. But they realy have not.
So there is this problem of arogance vs openness for positive critism. And on top of it people who want to bent your game vision to there preference.

Next example CoD. To Quick scope or not to quickscope is preference.

Some comment on bad UI design. Like X series. That no choice but a flaw.
Or mixing micro managment with fast aktion.

I work for an idea guy. He did quite a bit of design and development on his first idea and was successful. Now, he hires designers and developers to flesh out his ideas.

It's a good job.

How much are the initial ideas worth? Revenue minus the cost of development. Some are more valuable than others.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned 'idea guys' like Blow, Molyneaux, Fish...

I think the quality of Braid and Fez comes from the fundamental ideas that preceded development. Great ideas.

Perhaps relevant...Ed Catmull (Pixar) on collective creativity:

http://www.resourceful-humans.com/Documents/Catmull-CollectiveCreativity.pdf

First paragraph:

A few years ago, I had lunch with the head of a major motion picture studio, who declared that his central problem was not finding good people—it was finding good ideas. Since then, when giving talks, I’ve asked audiences whether they agree with him. Almost always there’s a 50/50 split, which has astounded me because I couldn’t disagree more with the studio executive. His belief is rooted in a misguided view of creativity that exaggerates the importance of the initial idea in creating an original product. And it reflects a profound misunderstanding of how to manage the large risks inherent in producing breakthroughs.

starting from an idea that has been thought out to great extent and will thus require less iteration will result in a product with more integrity

You should not assume that an idea that has been thought out to a great extent will require less iteration. In all likelihood, it will have little to no impact on the number of iterations required during implementation. It may even, in fact, have a negative impact on the number of iterations.

I think he should, depending on the type of idea, refine it as much as he can without even taking steps to developing it. And when he feels he has done all he can to make it perfect in his mind, he can start on implementing.

Have you heard the quote from a 19th century German military officer, "No plan survives contact with the enemy."? A corollary to this topic would be, "No Design Document survives contact with implementation." (Design Document = extensive idea)

All that time spent making it perfect in your mind is largely wasted effort. The implementation WILL riddle what appeared to be a perfect idea with all assortment of holes, flaws, and kinks. The greatest game designers in the world will not be able to create a Design Document that does not require a significant number of iterations to refine into a high quality game, both mechanically and aesthetically. So why put so much time into refining the idea itself? Get the idea 'good enough' and then work on refining the idea at the same time you refine the implementation. That is quite simply the most efficient and effective method of developing a game. Your concept of ideal just isn't ideal at all.

In fact, if you watch just about any classical artist (painter, sculptor, composer, etc.) work, you'll see they work in a highly iterative process as well. The painter starts with a rough layout of what he's envisioned in his mind, using broad strokes with a focus on overall composition of the scene as a whole, then iteratively introduces more and more details, likely revising portions of the painting at various stages when (not if) those portions of his vision don't play out on the canvas the way he saw them in his mind.

a lot of people seem to object to the game designer being the true artist at work in game design

And you seem to object to the idea that game development teams are typically full of a bunch of 'true artists' (at least, no less true then the game designer), whether those team members be programmers, artists, or designers. Artists, by their nature, want to express their creativity. Let me repeat that. Artists, by their nature, want to express their creativity. Very few, if any, artists have a singularly focused interest in expressing other peoples creativity. Your ideal Game Designer would have a hard time indeed finding a team to work on his idea.

In fact, if you watch just about any classical artist (painter, sculptor, composer, etc.) work, you'll see they work in a highly iterative process as well. The painter starts with a rough layout of what he's envisioned in his mind, using broad strokes with a focus on overall composition of the scene as a whole, then iteratively introduces more and more details, likely revising portions of the painting at various stages when (not if) those portions of his vision don't play out on the canvas the way he saw them in his mind.

While it is certainly true that you can produce a painting in a free and almost improvisational manner and make up the details as you go, this is not how the Old Master painters created most of their works. Perhaps you don't quite understand the scale of their paintings or the techniques they used. Take for example, Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" - it is a painting on a massive scale. Before he applied a single stroke of paint, he had already worked out just about every single detail of the painting with the use of many pencil sketches and colour studies. He would have then created a final pencil draft with all of the details in place (except, perhaps for mechanical details such as textures of cloth. But even then, he would have worked these details out in his head at this point) He would then transfer this drawing onto the large canvas, up-scaling it in the process. Then, and only then would he begin to apply the paint, but still working from that final pencil draft he created earlier. Also, for the painting process itself he would have used something similar to the

">Flemish technique for applying the oil paints. With this technique he would have built the painting up in layers, letting the paint dry in-between layers before applying a new layer. Due to the long drying time of oil paints, this process can take several months, or even years. During this painting process there is almost no room to make changes to the composition of the painting (unless, of course, the paint is scrapped off, but even a small correction would tack on a few months to the process). This development process varied little between the Old Masters.

I believe that people working in game development could take a lesson from this process - and possibly give something like it a try. The concept of the game should be worked out, prototyped, and refined until all of the mechanics become finalized (this prototype is essentially the "pencil draft"). This would preferably done by the game designer alone (though probably with play testers for some feedback). Only after this process would the game be taken to the studio, where the production team of artists, programmers, and composers, and QA staff should come in to create the final product (the "painting").

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned 'idea guys' like Blow, Molyneaux, Fish...

Right from the start of the topic we drew a distinction between "idea guys" and actual designers, and these people do not fall into the "idea guy" category -- nor do they stubbornly stick to the design they had up front, but instead spend time iterating and improving upon their ideas.

They're actually fantastic examples of how an initial idea only gains value as it is refined and implemented.

(Posted from mobile.)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned 'idea guys' like Blow, Molyneaux, Fish...

Right from the start of the topic we drew a distinction between "idea guys" and actual designers, and these people do not fall into the "idea guy" category -- nor do they stubbornly stick to the design they had up front, but instead spend time iterating and improving upon their ideas.

They're actually fantastic examples of how an initial idea only gains value as it is refined and implemented.

Indeed. And I think some people in this thread don't realize how much these "initial ideas" changed as they were refined. Fez was rewritten and drastically changed at least 3 times. Braid had some features modified, and was actually built upon by several past ideas (so the initial idea(s) for Braid was really a conglomeration of several past, semi-refined ideas), and the story (and especially its presentation) was carefully refined from its initial basic idea.

Super Meat Boy never had a design document. Minecraft never had a design document. Braid never had a design document. They were initial ideas that were refined as they were implemented.

These games show that it's not just an initial idea that makes a game good. It's good refinement of the initial idea and implementation of it that make a good game. The initial ideas are so far from complete and final it's silly to say it's the initial idea that gives the game worth.

It's the implementation of that idea that gives it worth. It's the refinement of that idea that gives it worth. But initially, in the idea's infancy... no.

Yes, artist don't always get it right on the first try, but they try to get it right without getting too distracted from what they were originally trying to convey.

Do they? And nobody else does? You're making vague, unfounded and basically meaningless statements here.

I fully agree with you there, the only thing we have slightly different opinions on is to which extent a game designer should deviate from his original idea to optimize it.

Most of us think the lead game designer should deviate as much or as little from his original idea as he feels is required to make the game that best achieves the desired goal, whether that's making money, being some wonderful meaningful artistic statement, or simply being fun. Or more likely, some combination of all of the above.

You seem to be in favour of imposing some limits on game designer's ability to tweak the design, supposedly because you fear that if he's allowed to change it, programmers and artists and other meddlers will corrupt his grand vision. Sorry, but that's just silly, for a number of reasons.

I believe that people working in game development could take a lesson from this process - and possibly give something like it a try. The concept of the game should be worked out, prototyped, and refined until all of the mechanics become finalized (this prototype is essentially the "pencil draft"). This would preferably done by the game designer alone (though probably with play testers for some feedback). Only after this process would the game be taken to the studio, where the production team of artists, programmers, and composers, and QA staff should come in to create the final product (the "painting").

This is a wasteful and time consuming process. Many Game Designers are not programmers and would struggle to create suitable prototypes on their own. Even those that are programmers would struggle to create prototypes for non-trivial designs alone, in a reasonable time frame.

It also strongly implies a waterfall style approach to the final game development, which is a very limiting and rigid approach. Sure, perhaps that's the idea - but unfortunately in practice it's proven not to be a great approach to developing software. Things go wrong, some things take longer than expected, and waterfall style development processes are extremely bad at compensating for slippage.

Games can already take a lot of time and money to create. What do you think we would gain from this rigid process that merits increasing this time and cost - and increased uncertainty in terms of overall budgeting and timescales that come with such an inflexible approach to development - even further?