Archive for category game design
The audience alike
Posted by Adriaan in game design on May 2, 2010
Why are we making games for an audience? Can’t we make games for ourselves?
What if a demographic group, for which we have so many trouble creating awesome games, would make games just for themselves? A female group of game designers, artist and programmers that would create a game for just them – what would come out? As far as I know, this has never been tried before, I guess the game industry still remains a men’s world. But beside the female games discussion, what if a group of people that all love kite surfing would make a game to do just that? Or people with a dog fetish? Oh, I don’t want to think about that…
Anyway, if such group would make a game they love, a game in which they can share their love for the subject with others, where the fun of that group is transfered to any player, wouldn’t that be the ultimate hit? Hell yes!!!
I have a close to home example, one that shows that this theory can indeed apply. This years Global Game Jam, I participated with a team of which most members work or have worked at W!games, a game studio in Amsterdam. We all knew what it took to make a game and went into the project with the mindset to create a super awesome game. We threw in all the elements that the game we wanted to create would have and came to a concept really fast… All in all, it was the best process I had ever participated in, it went excellent. In the end, we had a game that was not far from the exact thing we had in mind and we all loved it. Because it was only created in 48 hours, we did not have the time to make it very accessible for other players, but after a few games, every player would get it and like it. Those players are the audience alike.
Development phases? No thanks.
Posted by Adriaan in game design on February 11, 2010
Working with development phases when creating a game is not going to clear up your process. In almost any case it shifts focus from what is truly important to the game.
At the end of the day, it’s about getting your game on the table. It must be well thought through, look good and must play good. I think development phases can mean a great deal if you wish to achieve that and phases can help you and your team to focus on what the phase is for. But then again, than it is not about your game anymore, it is about completing the phases and completing the process.
I believe that if you focus on the steps that must be taken in order to create the game, there is no confusion and you will never be ‘stuck’ in a previous phase. I have never done a project in which the design document was completely written and final the moment the production phase started – another problem of development phases is that there is always an overlap. And that is not going to clear things out.
This is what generally goes wrong with student games – school requires the game to be created by clear phases that must all be completed before the other. The problem is that for most students, this suggests that when you are in the production phase, you don’t have to work on your concept anymore. And beside that, writing complete design documents based on assumptions is never a good idea – the same goes for planning. This is the reason why most student games are either crappy or not finished.
You must be thinking about SCRUM now, but that is on a whole different level – SCRUM does not let you look into the the coming months, only into a week or so. Thats why I like the word ‘milestone’ – milestones don’t need names, they only exist when a certain level of production is (or is going to be) achieved and they are great motivational boosts when you are near or at one. Now, take it from here.
World of Warcraft as a serious game
Posted by Adriaan in game design on November 18, 2009
Can you imagine the most successful entertainment game ever, created by Blizzard, being a serious game? Well, I can. If you believe that World of Warcraft is purely about entertainment, you should stop reading here.
I have a confession to make – and it is a confession because I am ashamed of it. When I started playing World of Warcraft when I was 14, I immediately became an addict. My life became World of Warcraft 24/7, when I wasn’t playing it I was thinking it, when the servers were offline I was watching movies of it, I spend a minimum amount of time with my friends and worst of all – and the reason I quit – I felt bad that I was socially underdeveloped compared to other kids of my age. In other words, I had no girlfriend. And the moment I quit, I knew that I threw away the two years of my life that I played the game.
But now that I have grown up (a little), I have started to see things from a different perspective. These years might have not been as useless as I thought, I think I even have learned a great deal from this game! And lets start with just one of these: world economy. I will need to explain the economy in order to let you understand my point, so here comes the intense reading:
In a way, the world economy in World of Warcraft (WoW) is exactly same as the economy in our world. In WoW, money is rewarded after a player has killed a unit in the game world. A player can not only use this money to buy items that are necessary in order to advance through the game, he can also buy items that make the player more powerful. This can be done through an ‘auction house’, a marketplace in which players can purchase items by bidding on it or buy them out of the auction house for a higher price. Items are also dropped by units in the game, and because of their scarcity, these items could have a great value in the auction house. Players often hunt loads of units down in order to find valuable items that they can sell in the auction house, it is exactly like demand and supply.
Players also have the ability to choose between ‘professions’ that enable the player to craft different kinds of items, but because a player is never able to craft all the different kinds of items, another economy arises: players offering services to each other for small fees.
And then there is the underground market, which goes far beyond the game itself: buying in-game currency with real-world currency. Beside the Japanese companies ‘grinding’ (repeatedly killing the same enemies) for money and selling it in real world to real people and trading the money in-game, people even bought 3rd party software that would play the game for them and make sure the player would have a constant flow of income. Even today, years after the release of the first copies of WoW, Blizzard is still trying to ban all of these companies and programs.
If a player wants to become a strong and powerful player, he must know this complex system from the in- and outside to use it in a efficient way and to take an advantage out of it. And from my experience, almost all player in WoW know the drill.
Now that you know how the world economy of WoW works, I don’t think I have to tell you in what way it looks like our economy. Almost every part of the economy in WoW can apply to a part of the economy in our world. From the constant flow of money that players receive from their actions to the scarcity of items, from analyzing market behavior to selling your services, all these things can be translated directly to real-life examples.
But economy is not all. World of Warcraft contains one of the strongest forms of communities I have ever experienced. These so called ‘guilds’ are organized groups of people with hierarchies that have a shared goal, which can vary from ‘having fun’ to ‘raiding dungeons’ in order to become stronger as a whole. These communities demand things from players that no other game has ever achieved, including time, money for website hosting, taking effort to recruit other players, creating fair hierarchies and rewarding players for loyalty. Joining a guild is very much like a job interview, extremely difficult when you don’t have the experience, very easy if you have the right friends.
And another thing is the Player vs. Player (PvP) combat system. Players can team up with 1, 2 or 4 other players and be part of an ongoing competition between each other. In order reach the top in these competitions, you need a really strong team with an insane amount of experience. How to create and organize such a strong team is a tremendous effort.
There is so much to learn from World of Warcraft, dare I say more than any other serious game has ever learned anyone. And I believe World of Warcraft is not the only game that is teaching so many people. Games have the great ability to show players how certain systems work. If only the serious games market would focus on this fact instead of creating ‘educative’ games.
Goals and vision
Posted by Adriaan in game design on November 18, 2009
This article is about having a goal and a vision for your games and how that influences you as a game designer. Having goals and a vision for your game can have a huge impact on your final product. Why are these useful? It gives the game a direction and adds constraints to the product if used well. How to create these goals and visions is a tough and long process, it requires a great deal of research in what you like to do and in what you can do… So will they pay-off?
First of all, is there a difference between a vision and a goal? I think there is, and it can be found in the fact that a vision is much more general and can be interpreted in many, many ways. This is what sets the direction to your designs. The goal, on the other hand, is what narrows your vision, adds constraints to them. For example, if the vision of your next game would be ‘to create a multiplayer game with high dependency on each other’ it would be very broad. The concept could be used in a whole lot of of totally different games. To narrow it down, your goals could be ‘to create a story-intense game’, ‘to give the player interesting destructive choices’, ‘to let the player fully customize the characters’, etc.
Bear in mind that a game does not need a vision and a goal, but it does make it a lot easier for the team and the designers to have such for your game. Why, you ask? Let’s start with a direction for your game:
Imagine yourself working in a big team: everyone has his responsibilities for the parts that have to be done. Most of these parts require you to temporarily ‘narrow’ your vision, and a dangerous pitfall is forget what the product that you are working on has to achieve – and maybe you come up with things that do not fit that idea. A general vision or goal can bring you back to the level which tells you what you want to achieve. And this doesn’t just count for individuals, but for smaller parts of a team too. The different departments in a game studio, for example, are often specialized and focused on one aspect of the game, and what brings all these different focus points together is the direction and the vision of the complete game.
What this last thing means for a game studio is that everybody has his expectations of the final game, and this can be positive or negative for your final product. Positive if the vision of the game inspires the studio and is a little ambitious but achievable, negative if your vision is not challenging your studio in any way.
So having a direction for your game can help a lot, but how can constraints help you or your team to create better games?
A good example would be the indie games industry. Independent game studios have a sh*tload of constraints: time, money, resources, no business relations, marketing skills, you name it. But still every month, indie game developers manage to create games that reach the mainstream audience and sell thousands of them, some of them comparable to AAA titles. So how do they do it? How do they manage to create wonderful games with so much constraints?
I think the answer lies in the solutions of these problems: studios must come up with creative solutions to do ‘more with less’, to use everything they have got in the most optimal way. And that optimal way does not have to be the most straight forward way. Although constraints might sound like an inability at first, if you think again, it can also be used the other way around too: constraints can be used to help you focus on what is really, really, really important for your game. If you have no time and no money, but still want to make a great game, it has to be cheap and easy – and now that you know that you can use this inability to create a better game, you could even see it as an enormous challenge!
Once you realize that constraints can also help you instead of just blocking you, it’s like a new dimension opening to you. Now that you know where to focus on, you can see the bigger picture much easier and directly know what you can and can not do. If something doesn’t fully support your vision, leave it out! If something blurs the vision of your game, leave it out! If an adorable extra feature takes too much time for your programmers to make, leave – it – out!
The goals and vision of your game can simply be tools that you can use in your team. These tools give your team a direction and constraints. And if used well, these two small things might make the difference between being successful or not. So think about it: do you want to be successful?
Team play
Posted by Adriaan in game design on September 23, 2009
It is this one magical experience that drives players to play games for days, months or even years. It is the most proved and addicting aspects of games. What is this ‘team play’ and how is it used in games? What makes team play such a powerful game element?
Imagine yourself setting a goal that is far beyond your capabilities. You can either try to accomplish that goal and fail or… you could ask for others to help you. Every person that is going to help you reach your goal will extend the capabilities of you and your group of people we call a team. So to work as a team basically means to use the extended capabilities of every individual. Every individual must act on the behalf of the team or else the capabilities won’t add up to the people who do. If the full capability of the team is required to reach a goal, you need real team work, something that is not as easy as it may seem and something that needs a lot of preparation and organization. This part of team play is what we call team strategy or tactics.
In many recent video games, this last thing is where most games are based on. Think of an MMO like World of Warcraft where 25 individuals team up to defeat dungeons, or Left4Dead where 4 players all take a role in defending themselves and their teammates. Or think of almost any team sport – soccer, baseball… even tennis with 4 people is mostly based on strategical positioning and shooting.
Is there a difference between teamwork and team play? Is there a difference between working together and playing together? Which term you could use would depend on the context, on the goal of the team and whether that goal is brought to the team with a cooperative mind or setting. Both terms suggest interactivity between the team members. Team play would suggest that the team members have fun doing their part of the work that has been done, but why can’t team work be fun?
Anyway, we can conclude that the goal is what makes team play so powerful, impossible as an individual but possible as a team. The accomplishment of difficult tactics or strategies only add to the reward of achieving the impossible. Even if there are no explicit tactics, is can be a huge reward for the team members to accomplish implicit tactics. But are there also other factors that strengthen that sense of being part of a team?
If you have ever been part of a (successful) team, you would know that there is always this one team member that is better at what he does than everyone else in the team. I would like to call these people team heroes. These people inspire others to do their own task better, whether that task is the same or completely different. Beside respecting each person’s individual capabilities, strong team members also trust in each other in acting with their full capability.
So to wrap this up, a team is easily created by gathering some people together and giving them the same goal, but for a stronger sense of team play, a lot more is needed. Tactics make sure the process of achieving the goal is done organized, team heroes inspire team mates to do their work (better) and team members being dependent on one another will create trust in all the team members.
Achieving the impossible is possible. You just can’t do it by yourself.
Expectations
Posted by Adriaan in game design on September 17, 2009
In a previous post I talked briefly about how the experience and expectations of players influenced game designers and game developers, to create games for the people who were already familiar with other games and their habits. But there is another problem: what about the expectations of the designers themselves?
Designers have been playing games too. Disappearing bodies, health bars, WASD controls, all of these things are elements of games that designers often fall back too. And there are tons of them. Pick up any random shooter and you will find at least 20 of these cases that would not be believable in the ‘real world’. And let’s be honest; I can’t do it either.
But it is not just the designer himself who causes this. There are programmers who tell you what they are capable of (or everything they are not capable of), producers, investors and marketeers that ask you to come up with cheap solutions so that the job can be done faster and there are gamers who will always expect a certain level of familiarity. In only a few cases, designers have almost absolute freedom in what they design – too bad that in these cases, designers create what players want and that is, unfortunately, mostly what they expect.
So what is it for me? Is there a way to overcome these game habits and create something that is more believe able than any other recent video game? Let’s hope so…
NLGD Festival of Games 09 – Highlights
Posted by Adriaan in game design, game industry on June 23, 2009
The dutch Festival of Games this 2009 had quite some interesting keynotes. Here are the highlights of the most interesting keynotes and what I learned from these… and others!
NOTE: I haven’t been to all presentations because most of them run simultaneously, therefore I might have missed some interesting ones… Hmpf!
Evert Hoogendoorn – Exploring games as Performance
During this presentation, Evert told us about his vision of games: games are not only about fun, games are about aesthetics, about exploration, curiosity, social needs, etc. Players can even be your game, where the behavior of a player can be seen as the input. What this means is that theater performances can also be games, and what Evert shows us next are some examples of performances as games: an hotel where people book a room that has a roof with a mirror in which you can see other people, looking at you and staring at other people, with no idea of who is an actor, with people climbing over the walls going from room to room… Or another example where a few players go out to the streets and try to connect two objects with people, holding hands, where random people from the streets have to close the line in order to get those objects connected.
These examples show that performances can be a game. Evert ends by saying that analyzing human behavior can learn us how to create these aesthetics and make fantastic performances; as games!
Jeremy Bernstein – Procedural Rhetoric
Although the name of his presentation is rather unknown and confusing (it refers to games as persuasive coded models with a set of potential outcomes), the point he was making in his presentation was rather clear: mechanics can create emotions. He talked about Battlestar Galactica, the board game, which had mechanics that created strong emotions for him and the people he played with. With mechanics like lack of resources, not knowing who your ally or enemy is, being in the minority AND having to sacrifice human lives even though there are already so few of them, the game created feelings such as despair and paranoia. In Left4Dead, mechanics such as lack of ammo and lack of health and being able to give these resources to each other created a feeling of dependency. In Dead Space, a player needs to pull his weapon before he can shoot, and because Dead Space is a horror game and enemies can surprise you any second, you keep your gun constantly pulled and this results in a player feeling more tension than any other shooter. Other examples Jeremy named included mechanics that created feelings such as hope, pressure, fear, etc.
He ended his presentation by asking us, “Can we create mechanics that make us feel Love? Joy? Etc.” and we all knew his answer was ‘YES!’, but how, that remains the question…
Jonathan Samel Baskin – From Branded Games to Games as Brand
Jonathan began his presentation with his view of brands and advergames. Brands are broken: people don’t believe in the lies and stereotypes brands are trying to tell us and advergames aren’t going to help that because they tell us the same story with the same low persuasion. So why not brands as games? No manuals – games to learn how to use their products. No more static profiles – more interactivity between brand information and its users. A brand as a game easily has a story that makes the users think of the brand and let the brand make sense, e.g. a tie with a blue label costs more than a tie with a red label. Games can make people loyal, e.g. ‘collect Douwe Egberts points for rewards’. Gamers can make people learn about terms and rules that so far almost nobody is reading, e.g. games can let people understand differences in insurances, for example.
Jonathan ends by almost begging us to pick this up, because “Tomorrow’s brands will be games!”
Elan Lee – Playing with Reality
Elan starts by stating games are like a magnet: they can pull, push or charge people. When you consider these three things in your game design, you can create games that would appeal to almost anyone. The following movie explains what Elan means exactly with pull, push and charge.
The rest of his presentation is mainly about his successful games and how they eventually worked out. The only design tip he gave was that rewarding players randomly and in public is the best reward you can give your player. During the question round, Elan admitted that not all of his games and experiments worked, but for game designers it is all about not giving up. Charging people is mainly done by making a catching game in which people have the space to be creative but also giving you input on things that did not work in your game. You never know where your game ends.
Elan ends with showing us his favorite video on the entire Internet. This is a metaphor for how we game designers should never stop trying.
…and the rest
One thing I noticed at the Festival of Games 09 was the developers trend of finding and making new input devises to expand the gaming market. Small game companies such as Soepel, Monobanda, Monodomo and Fourcelabs showed new ways of interacting with their systems. Other keynotes such as Adrian Hon’s keynote about stories in games were highly biased and not very informative, Adrian saying that people don’t know what good stories are and mixing stories and interaction is hard (oh really?). He did have some good points of how to improve the stories in our games: not letting the technical barrier influence your story, not letting the players make the story (because it’s (almost) never going to be ‘the best’), getting the interface out of the way to let the player focus more, etc.
A more scientific keynote was about what causes eye strain. The conclusion was that you can reduce eye strain by using colors that appear a lot in nature, use less busy images (images with a high spacial frequency), avoid flickering, do not use high contrast and avoid repetitive patterns. What was also interesting was the research about text and readability, where the speaker showed us that some fonts read much faster than others because of the amount of vertical space they use, and that text with a colored filter is read 25% faster because of the contrast between the characters and the background. Game designers can use this information and apply it to their games to make the eyes less busy and let the experience of the game be more the way you want it.
A few keynotes were about the game industry, but they all concluded something like this: The game industry is changing and it’s audience is growing rapidly. The companies that are already big are going to get bigger and there are going to be even more smaller companies then ever before. If your company has a good business model and you have a small core team, your company is totally going to rock!
Japan also sent some people to the Netherlands, with a guy from the latest Naruto development team explaining why his game was so awesome and how well they though of everything and stuff… In Japanese. And 70% of their team are artists. And a very friendly guy from a university in Japan where they train their students to be production slaves. And yeah, ‘design’ is not what they study there, it’s just art or programming.
And then there was this guy from Jagex, saying something like ‘we’re just doing stuff and we’ll see how it all works out for us‘. And some guys from Little Chicken actually hacking some game during their presentation, screaming for better ways to protect our flash games.
And the project fair and career fair… Some universities still don’t know how to make good games… That IPhone app built in 15 weeks? (Whahahahahaha)
And I got free lunch every day. How awesome!
I had a fantastic time and it was definitely worth the investment! See you at FoG2010!
Games are only fun when they are built
Posted by Adriaan in game design on June 16, 2009
I’ve been so ignorant! I should fill the rest of this entry with prototypes, since all the ideas in my head aren’t fun!
prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype……
Feeling
Posted by Adriaan in game design on June 4, 2009
I’ve just finished watching a 15 minute movie of Flower. With my mouth open and watery eyes. Even though I do not own a PS3 (and this is the first time I regret it so much) the movie was so beautiful that I could instantly imagine how I would feel like playing it. Even though I did not play it, flower is already the best game experience I have had so far. And all that because of that feeling.
I’ve come to a point where I am realizing what kind of designer I want to be, maybe I should say again. Flower was so strong, so beautiful, that it inspired me to become a game designer that really creates experiences, experiences that can only emerge from the strong feelings games can (apparently) create. And now I can take flower as the example of how that should work out.
So, feeling. How did flower create this feeling for me? And what feeling did it create?
Maybe a good start is to state the obvious: Flower is elegant in style, easy to control and a player has total freedom. The grass and flowers look alive and are animated in a certain dreamy way, not far from realistic. But if I think again, I felt like I was the wind, or actually the flower parts carried by the wind. I felt like I was actually flying myself, and it felt so good going through the grass, hearing all those pieces of grass hitting each other. It was so peacefully… I forgot everything around me for a moment, not even realising that my sister, who was sitting next to me, was laughing at me. I would call that perfect place as the world in flower heaven, if I wouldn’t know better.
The desire to be those flowers, fly through the grass, being taken by the quiet sound of nature, being free… Maybe I’ll try to figure out what makes me feel this way later, I’m so much more in the mood now to play the game first before saying anything else…







