Designers work through a process.
"Being Process-oriented, not product-driven, is the most important and difficult skill for a designer to develop" Says Matthew Frederick in his book, 101 Things I learned in Architecture School. Of course, he's talking about design architecture, and since I primarily design levels, it isn't very far from what I'm doing. So the central message that design is about learning how to manage the process, rather than just focusing on the final idea.
The Stages of the Design Process
All game design starts with discovery.
That early exciting phase of prototyping and fast failing, where ideas come hard and fast, and fail just as often. The fun here is the theoretical possibilities of what could be fun, trying it out, and getting others to comment.
It's often what everything thinks designers just do. Sit around and think about ideas. It's often what junior designers think they should be doing, discovering new ideas and "innovating!!" to find new forms of fun.
So all game design starts with discovery, but that is really only the first step in the process.
Rationality is the harder work, the sitting down and the thinking of how and why something is fun, the application of knowledge and craft in analysing why the prototyped worked, or why it failed. The breakdown of how to that what has been discovered and create systems and logic for it. This is not work designers should just pass off to coders, or technical designers, it's work that we should sit and figure out.
Personally, it's the part of the process I enjoy the most.
And then, when I have some idea of the Lego pieces I have to play with, I start making more stuff. The actual production and refinement comes when I have strong confidence of the ways in which the design gets evoked as gameplay. Most production is much like this, the template has been defined, the game lays out with some clarity, and now we just roll up our sleeves, get cracking on the coding, scripting, blocking out and just make the game.
Then we run into problems, of course.
The trick is that this process isn't linear. Rationality doesn't immediately beget production. Discovery does't always beget rationality. The process is fluid. The act of rationality can lead to realizing that more exploration is needed, more prototypes to test. Producing a bunch of levels can lead to breakthroughs, fun ideas that come from working the system that needs a quick prototype to prove.
What the process indicates though, is that designers should take their ideation through it, and recognize where in the process their idea is so they can identify the right problems to solve, before we commit to polishing an idea, less we end up polishing a bad idea.
Feature -> System -> Number
I break down my problem solving process as thus.
A Feature problem is if its the idea that isn't working. I'll need to change the idea. Ideas are the big ones, the ones that mostly what players are reacting to or understanding as a feature.
A System problem is uncovered during playtest. Is it some combination of mechanical interactions that causing the issue.
In truth, from experience, the vast majority of problems arise from system interaction problems, but they are hard to recognize. It requires designers to really grok how the game is build and how all the mechanics in the game are interacting with one another.
Number problems are balance problems, issues that can be resolved by tweaking a few numbers, tuning the available knobs and levers to get the right experience.
And finally clarity; is it even something players are aware of? Is it something we need them to be really aware of? How we test that? How do we assess whether the problem is a feature, system or number problem if the player themselves aren't entirely aware of how that part of the game is affecting their play.
My methods are somewhat based on the MDA Framework that's peddled around as a game design philosophy among certain circles, using it to find out just where the problems lie from a Player and Designer perspective.
Feature problems are aesthetic problems, does the feature evoke the right set of emotions conceptually. If the aesthetic isn't reached, is it because the concept isn't clear, so I thus should work on the feature clarity.
System problems are dynamic problems, are the dynamics fun to interact with? Is the dynamic interacting with something else that causing player frustration. What are systems interacting with the feature that's causing these issues?
Number problems are mechanical problems, they are because the variables aren't set to the right numbers. Are the players frustration manageable by tweaking, tuning the variables.
Like above one problem impacts the perception of the other. Bad numbers makes system problems worse. System problems don't evoke the right aesthetic for the feature. Yet number problems are far easier to solve that feature problems, which are also far easier to solve that System problems.
System problems are often overlooked, and under-appreciated in just how they can shape the fundamental feeling of playing the game. The goal is to narrow the set of problems down to solve to just number problems, by identifying how the systems interact and thus, how the numbers can really affect the end aesthetic.
So I approach it with yet another process.
The Problem solving Process.
To one again, remind myself that Design is about communicating emotions, a sense of interactive play, and to evoke an experience for the play.
Currently Playing
Horizon: Forbidden West & Elden Ring
I started this post playing Horizon: Forbidden West, but stalled out when Elden Ring called. Comparatively, both games could not be more different examples of the AAA Open World Genre.
Horizon:FW seems like a typical Western AAA production, all polished narrative experience upon an expansive canvas of activities, icons, and stories. It's a polished example of every other western open world game we've seen before, a solid core combat loop, a heavy emphasis of a central character, a plethora of icons indicating gameplay activities, and a dizzying array of quests, repetitive of otherwise. Elden Ring, on the other hand, is a prime example of an Auteur AAA production. For those who are already familiar with FromSoft style of SoulsBorne (I'm a huge fan), it's an extension of their ethos of design. Opaque, maximalist, deliberate, stingy with clarity, but generous with the sense of discovery. It's absolutely a specific taste for a specific audience type.
Of the two, I of course love Elden Ring more. I could gush endlessly about just how the world is constructed and presented simply from a level design aesthetic. I somewhat like Horizon, (the first game was a favourite so many years ago), but it feels like it doesn't really do anything new for the genre. Elden Ring shows what possible when one breaks convention.
Kommentare