computer game > design, art, audio, levels, code work together to create player experience
technology is evolving fast - issues we don't know about will be solved in 10 years
design is the game - without it there's just data
design evolution lags behind other technological advances ****why****
no shared language of games design
we need to be able to look at, remember, and benefit from our games - mistakes, lessons, etc.
"just fun" or "not much fun" isn't enough
FORMAL ABSTRACT DESIGN TOOLS
Formal - implying precise definition, ability to explain to someone else
Abstract - emphasize the focus on underlying ideas not specific genre constructs
Design - we're the designers
Tools - form the common vocabulary we want to create
cool stuff is not FADT. it violates the need for a formality. it is a vague word defined differently by lots of other people. "+2 giant slaying sword" in rpg is not abstract, it's one game's element. the sword itself is based on a mechanic of a game, which is a good example of a FADT.
analogy - you don't build a house out of tools; you build it with tools - game isn't just about "player power-up curves"
design vocabulary is a tool kit to pick apart games. once design is thought out, you can investigate whether a given tool is used by the game already.
sometimes tools don't work well together, sometimes they'll conflict. the designer wields the tools to make what you want, don't let them run the show
Mario 64 blends apparent open-ended exploration with continual, clear direction along most paths.
major design decision was to have multiple goals in each world. first time a player arrives in a world, they mostly explore the paths and direction available. first star in a world is set up to encourage players to see most of the area.
simple consistent controls and worlds, predictable physics, allow players to make good guesses about what will happen if they try something.
monsters and environments increase in complexity but always build on previous already existing interaction principles.
Mario 64 makes situations discernible
players know what to expect from the world and are made to feel in control of the situation. goals and control are created at multiple scales, from quick low-level "get over the bridge in front of you" to long-term high-level such as "get all the red coins in the world".
intention is the first FADT. accumulating goals, understanding the world, making a plan and then acting on it is a powerful method of getting a player invested and involved.
perceivable consequence is an important tool - players knowing why something went wrong. actions result in direct, visible feedback.
RPGs have mixed consequence. example of direct = because of X, Y has happened. pure form of perceived consequence. example of less direct consequence = player decides to stay at inn, next morning he's ambushed. designers possibly built in this code to the game, but it's not perceivable to the player. to the player it appears random.
"games are not books, games are not movies. In those media, the tools used......are used to manipulate the viewers or readers, to make them feel or react exactly the way the director or author wants them to. I believe the challenge of computer games design is that our most important tools are the ones that empower players to make their own decisions"
intention, perceived consequence, and story.
A very correct statement. The most obvious tool that we can put in the player's hands is the ability for them to make their own decisions, or at least feel like they are. It's something he refers back to a lot in regards to Mario. Although it's a game with a very obvious objective the player is given control as to how they approach the objective and which path they take to get there.
The fact that he refers back to Mario 64 so often speaks wonders for the game itself. It has managed to use the three important tools - intention, perceived consequence, and story - all at once and as he mentioned in the article that's a tough task for any games designer. SquareSoft are another designer that manages to combine these elements in their Final Fantasy games, by using intention and consequence during the combat system, and story and consequence in the actual unfolding of the story.
Thinking of how they can be used is hard. I feel like every game has to contain elements of each of these or it won't feel like a game. For example, as Church says, even fighting games have a story, although it is the player's story rather than a story as we know it.
For it to feel like a game to me, I think that each of these tools has to be in the game in at least some way, whether it being an RPG with a set story that unfolds, or a sport game where the player or the game of football is a story. For a game to be good, players need to understand why things are happening. As discussed in my last post about paidea and ludus, games do combine all these elements. Games can still be games without pieces of all elements, although it's rare to find something that doesn't use a bit of everything.
Good notes and interesting thoughts on the article. Without both these tools i think you can still have a game, (snakes and ladders has no intention) but it is likely to be a very limited one. We will be playing around with more of these types of games when we tackle luck in a few weeks.
ReplyDelete