It's Time I Really Learn How To Design Games

ID:99212
 
Jul 25 2010, 8:52 pm (Edited on Jul 26 2010, 9:17 am)
Though not from lack of trying, progress on Project Cryoship has been slow. For hours I've wracked my brain, but I've yet to come to a consensus, a spark to excite the inner muse to push forward knowing I have a potential to make the awesome real.

As IainPeregrine can attest from looking the code I sent him for the GSDC'10, I've a good grasp of how to code in DM. As far as being a game developer is concerned, the programming hurdle is more or less settled. I don't even have a very hard time being motivated to program - programming is a lot of fun...


If you're a game designer, apparently this is in your jurisdiction.
... if you know what the hell you're building, and there's the trouble: I don't. Sure, a few days ago I mentioned what would be a nice setting, but that's not a game, I'm still working out those details. Working out those details, well, that's where being a game designer comes in, and it's time to face facts: I'm not good enough to see it through yet.

I could make a simple RPG in BYOND in mere minutes - it's practically one right of the box. I could make a simple RTS or tower defense game in BYOND in a few hours - the click support is there, I've already got a pathing library and a good grasp on process management, no sweat. Many BYOND games do just this, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, I don't want to make either of those things. I want to make something new because that's more interesting to me.

That's a whole lot more complicated. Instead of copying an existing design and tweaking it to satisfaction, I need to understand how games work in a far more intimate manner. In terms game creation, I'm not looking to be a carpenter, I'm looking to be a architect. To these ends, I need to learn a whole new skill set.

I've got a really nice book on game design to read, so nice it makes game design seem harder than before you started reading it. Where creativity comes to play that's actually a good thing: it means you've let go of impeding preconceived notions without inheriting easy shortcuts. I think I'll sit down and actually read this book from cover to cover (well, skipping parts that I'm not interested in) as a first step.
Jul 25 2010, 9:41 pm
or is it that designing interesting games is really challenging and explains why we don't see it very often?

ts
Jul 25 2010, 9:44 pm
Indeed, it's hit me many-a-time that this is a pretty big reason why we see so many clones!
Jul 25 2010, 9:46 pm
Geldonyetich wrote:
Indeed, it's hit me many-a-time that this is a pretty big reason why we see so many clones!

and why we see so many games that could have been so great had they <insert key feature choice here>.
Jul 25 2010, 10:13 pm
I could make a standard RPG in BYOND in mere minutes - it's practically one right of the box. I could make a standard RTS or tower defense game in BYOND in a few hours - the click support is there, I've already got a pathing library and a good grasp on process management, no sweat. Many BYOND games do just this, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, I don't want to make either of those things. I want to make something new and interesting.

I'd rather see people plopping out generic games than designing something far too unique to ever be created. At least once you have the generic portion down you can build on that.
Jul 25 2010, 10:17 pm
Vermolius wrote:
I'd rather see people plopping out generic games than designing something far too unique to ever be created. At least once you have the generic portion down you can build on that.

I'd rather see a generic game than vaporware too. However, wanton fellow that I am, I'm going to see if I can pull off a non-generic game that's released. ;)
Jul 25 2010, 10:20 pm
Uniqueness and Originality are overrated on BYOND. What's underrated on BYOND is Quality.
Jul 25 2010, 10:23 pm
Geldonyetich wrote:
I'd rather see a generic game than vaporware too.

I'm not certain if you're being insulting there or not.

However, wanton fellow that I am, I'm going to see if I can pull off a non-generic game that's released. ;)

I'll be rootin' for ya.
Jul 25 2010, 10:25 pm
Vermolius wrote:
Geldonyetich wrote:
I'd rather see a generic game than vaporware too.

I'm not certain if you're being insulting there or not.

Jesting, perhaps, but not insulting. ;)

D4RK3 54B3R wrote:
Uniqueness and Originality are overrated on BYOND. What's underrated on BYOND is Quality.

I'm a proponent of good craftmanship as well (skill and time dedicated to refinement permitting).
Jul 25 2010, 10:42 pm
@Vermolius: Right, like Geldonyetich can insult anyone over vaporware... Now back to avoiding two more of my unfinished projects by watching videos. ;)
Jul 25 2010, 11:01 pm
ACWraith wrote:
@Vermolius: Right, like Geldonyetich can insult anyone over vaporware... Now back to avoiding two more of my unfinished projects by watching videos. ;)

That's why I was so wary of calling it an insult.. :P I suppose I'm just being sensitive.
Jul 26 2010, 12:19 am
Talk to me and i'll send you some ebooks on game design. I got them for free :)
Jul 26 2010, 5:37 am
One thing I have learned over the years. If you want to make something truly unique you have to be good enough to do this.

You're only lying to yourself when you say you already are, but cannot even put out a simple, generic project.

If you want to be an architect and cannot even build a shed, stop fooling yourself into thinking you can make a castle.
Jul 26 2010, 6:07 am
Originality can make a game more fun (why play a new game that's exactly like an existing game?), but the game doesn't have to be 100% original to be fun. When people call a game "original" it isn't 100% original or even 50% original.

Tower defense games are spinoff of RTS games. You have a variety of units which can be upgraded and automatically attack their enemies. Rough estimate: 90% of the game is just like an RTS. Back when the concept was fairly new the original 10% of the game made them seem amazingly original.

Pokemon is another example. It's a small twist on traditional console RPGs. Instead of acquiring party members through plot advancement (or merely starting the game with your complete party), you collect them.

Take a game that you like and put a new spin on it. Change something you didn't like about the game. Maybe you always hated enemies in Super Mario Bros. and thought the levels should just be a race against the clock. It's a slight twist on a popular genre, but I don't know of many action/platform/racing games out there. You can start with the most unoriginal idea, make a few changes, and end up with something original.
Jul 26 2010, 8:51 am
I'm actually pretty impressed with ACWraith. That guy's got quite a few geninely original games under his belt!

The Magic Man wrote:
If you want to be an architect and cannot even build a shed, stop fooling yourself into thinking you can make a castle.

Thus, why I feel it time to learn. Granted, I'm not a bad designer at the moment, just apparently not good enough to come to a mental concensus on how to proceed on this project. What I probably need to develop most of us all is a core development philosophy. It's not all about flow for me, I need to nail exactly what it is I'm trying to make here.

Forum_account wrote:
Take a game that you like and put a new spin on it. Change something you didn't like about the game. Maybe you always hated enemies in Super Mario Bros. and thought the levels should just be a race against the clock. It's a slight twist on a popular genre, but I don't know of many action/platform/racing games out there. You can start with the most unoriginal idea, make a few changes, and end up with something original.

There's nothing wrong with this approach. It's just doesn't jive with what I feel motivated to do.
Jul 26 2010, 8:55 am
I must also report that making a "clone" doesn't make it any easier to make. To say that you could make a cloned tower defense game with any quality in just a few hours seems like an unrealistic view of things. It took me a couple months to get "TD: Clone Wars" thought of, built, and published. Granted, this was before I had a solid understanding of the 4.0 interface updates. Anyway, creating a clone doesn't mean you get to leave out quality. In fact, it's nearly the opposite. Most clones tend to add a couple new features and a lot more polish than the originals. That's the only reason we even bother with them at all.

(slightly offended) ts
Jul 26 2010, 9:06 am (Edited on Jul 26 2010, 10:21 am)
I don't mean to suggest that making a clone is an effortless endeavor.

In fact, I'd actually disagree with how you'd say "most clones tend to add a few new features and a lot more polish than the original" because in my impression it's more like "most clones failed to understand why the original was entertaining and ended up producing an inferior knock-off." You can see examples of this through the entire gaming world, whether it be a substandard Diablo clone, an MMORPG with aspirations to be EverQuest (being World of Warcraft is currently in style) but without nearly the same amount of appeal as the original, and so on - it seems for every good game there's hundreds of crappy imitators.

Don't take this as an insult, but rather praise: if your goal is making a clone better than the original, then that actually takes a considerable amount of talent, time, and effort. If you can pull that off, you should be commended.

However, that said, it's easier to make a game if you've already played a game like it before. This isn't a grandiose proclamation of game design superiority, but rather common sense: it's harder to create something when you've yet to see a working prototype of it.
Jul 26 2010, 11:45 am
I've read the book. GREAT STUFF.

Jul 26 2010, 12:10 pm
Geldonyetich wrote:
I don't mean to suggest that making a clone is an effortless endeavor.

In fact, I'd actually disagree with how you'd say "most clones tend to add a few new features and a lot more polish than the original" because in my impression it's more like "most clones failed to understand why the original was entertaining and ended up producing an inferior knock-off."

When we say clones, we each think of one thing or another so its hard to sync our thoughts and both views may be correct. The one thing clones have going against them is the lack of "wow". 80% of the game is already familiar to the player with the other 15% being looks, and 5% being new and/or altered features.

I think this is an important thing to consider and I suspect we could derive at an actual recommendation if it doesn't already exist.

Every time you clone a feature in a game, you take away a certain percentage of wow from your game. If you add up all your cloned (very familiar) parts and find you are above X% (say 60%) of cloned features, your game will most likely be a dud.

Should the recommendation be something as simple as a 40/60 split where 40% is new unseen experiences? Do you think more or less? Can we put a loose number on it? You may have to factor in when you release which could be before, at start, high point, tail end, or after this genres popularity wave.

If possible, what would the split be for a space RTS?

Ships/Planets/FTL/Colonization/Fleets/War/Mining/Aliens/Star fields

Seems like you jump right to 60% of unoriginal content in a well known genre. The design becomes more about figuring out if you have a solid 40% or not.

A good designer might also be able to mask cloned features so well that they come off as original. A good design practice might be to analyze your known 60% and see if you can't "mask" it enough to make it feel like a new feature.

One example might be taking your RTS unit selection rect and turning it into a ring of burning fire. The user is pleased with the new special effect on an age old feature. Doing things like this can help you get closer to the good split even if it's just smoke and mirrors.

ts
Jul 26 2010, 12:49 pm (Edited on Jul 26 2010, 1:51 pm)
Words are indeed tricky things to use to sync thoughts.

You're saying "wow factor" is what a clone loses, and this is a term I'd use to refer specifically to the amazement of encountering a new and exciting thing. Losing "wow factor" is not what bothers me so much about clones, but rather something kind of similar: losing "gameplay novelty."

The thing is, when I play a game for a long time, I get bored of that type of game. If your game is 80% another game I'm already bored of, I'm already 80% bored of your game before I've even started playing it. Maybe I'll play it anyway, if the other 20% (whether it's "looks" (dressing) or new and/or altered features) entices me enough. However, by the time I've exhausted that 20%, of the 80% of the game I was already completely bored of, I will have found levels of boredom exceeding completely bored. The result will not be pleasant.

We encounter this in MMORPGs a lot, the player playing a game they're already bored of (perhaps out of obligations to friends or to get to the next level where they hope the fun is at) only to discover that the severity of their boredom is replaced with great unpleasantness, we call it, "the grind." Some people spend hundreds of dollars on third party gold farmers specifically to avoid it.

I'm an old, old gamer. This "lesser clone syndrome" has happened to me many, many, many times. It started as a minor annoyance. It progressed through a stage of raging against clones in general. Now, it's a core phobia. Clones are Chinese water torture for me, each little drop doesn't hurt at all, but being bound by a gamer lifestyle and forced to endure several such drops delivered unpredictably over time to my frontal lobe is nonetheless capable of delivering substantial mental distress.

I can't make a clone: the idea I would subject myself to what I've been subjected to against my will time and time again genuinely terrifies me, at least insofar as this low-level phobia I've developed is activated. Many of my projects have died because the threat of this has made itself evident in the current state of what I was working on.

Fortunately, I don't think, "Ships/Planets/FTL/Colonization/Fleets/War/Mining/Aliens/Star fields" is necessarily an automatic 60% imitation. These are merely the common elements, stereotypical actors in the play, how those elements can play out can be made entirely different than anything we've ever seen. It just takes a bit more work than copying the tried-and-true.