Over the weeks that I've been back I've left my blog collecting dust so consequently I have several topics that I would like to cover. I'll be methodical and start with what I missed first.
The first is a reading from the book 'Casual Game Design' by Gregory Trefry regarding the responsibilities of a Game Designer. This section of the book acted, in a sense, as a list of commandments that should be considered when designing games. Trefry spoke in fair detail about consideration for the player and general rules relating to design however I've condensed the content down into less elaborate smaller sentences.
Listen to your team/players. Prototype. Don't be afraid of chucking out ideas that don't work.
These were the more general ideas relating to design that trefry touched upon, all of which make sense. I think the hardest to achieve out of all of these for me is the third. It can be quite difficult sometimes to abandon an idea that you feel so sure will contribute positively to the game, even when initial playtests insist that it won't. This is something that Trefry touches upon later in the book, however he suggests that iterating an idea sometimes loses to persistence in refining one. He does also mention that having the experience to make those kinds of calls is pretty vital, so for now for me iterative design proccess is the way forward.
Trefry then goes on to discuss level design.
Take into account player learning curves and skill levels. Be empathetic. Don't make it too hard. Ease the players into the game. Don't forget to challenge the player. Build levels around a core concept. Give players room to explore. Vary levels. Refine, play, refine. Playtest.
Alot of these may seem fairly obvious but all of the above are worth remembering. For me the most important two here are 'Don't forget to challenge the player. Build levels around a core concept.' Without being pedantic about the definition of 'challenge', a game with no challenge has the potential to become a very boring game. Players like to be challenged, some more than others however in every game there are different magnitudes of a struggle.
From experience, having a core concept in a project can make or break your success in terms of producing a well polished final piece. This is an essential factor to consider, not in just game design but in every arts based subject. At time in the past I've been talking to people about ideas for a project or ideas for final pieces and just thought 'Why?'. I like to think I'm fairly open minded but sometimes I'll hear of a concept that was produced on no more than personal preference without any regard to how it's justified, and can't help but think '....that's stupid...'. It's probably bad of me to say that but, honestly, I'm sure you can think of a few games, art peices, campaigns that are, without dancing around it, shit. I know I've been guilty of it in the past at times, and know how hard it is to try and scrape together any arguements that will help explain why I'm doing something. So as a summary, by coming up with a sound idea/concept, it makes the rest of the project alot easier in all aspects.
The rest of the article included ideas about exploration of mechanics. Not being repetitive. Progression of difficulty. Practice iteration on small games, then get bigger.
I know that not all games stick to these guidelines however I think Trefry writes these with the assumption that the reader/game designer has some eye for design and the ability to know when and when not to consider these as responsibilties. Overall I thought the reading was a nice general topic to kick start the year with and a nice refresher of my responsibilties as a game designer.
No comments:
Post a Comment