|
As game designers, we have a very natural, powerful, and rewarding tendency to design the shit out of things.
We usually have an equally powerful compulsion (as I'm sure most of your significant others will testify to) to share our creations with our audience and/or our families, that guy at the store, etc. Enthusiastic, passionate design is the fuel for our creative cars, and should be encouraged and embraced and protected.
HOWEVER. You know how you feel when you ask That Guy how the new Star Trek movie was, and pretty soon they are explaining to you the finer points of starship construction and interstellar treaties? And you were mainly just interested in whether or not it was a good Star Trek movie?
Guess what: your game, that you just made, and which actually got pretty good reviews...is That Guy. Your player just wanted to know if it was awesome when the good guy beat the bad guy, and your game sat there and listed off serial numbers and magazine capacities and planetary designations.
Not only is it annoying as all hell, but it is greedy. Your game is taking all my fun and hoarding it all like a fat, sloppy, cheeto-mouthed dragon. All the fun that you had while making this game, inventing this huge beautiful amazing universe...you just stole all that fun from me by predefining and forcing me to ingest every bit of that information before I'm allowed to finish the game. It is pedantic and greedy and embarrasing.
So, what's the solution? Just make a shallow game? Don't invent all the detail and atmosphere and history that is so much fun to invent? Eschew it all and just focus on gameplay? Obviously that sucks too.
Well, it's better than a lengthy, over-detailed manifesto, but it's still not great. No fun for the designer, and unfortunately, people have an intuitive sense for...depth, or something. They can usually tell if you've just created a shiny facade out of papier mache, dreams, and Red Bull.
I say go ahead and invent everything. Write up a binder, buy a new hard drive, create until your eyes bleed and your head pounds and your fingers cramp. But for our sake, for everyone's sake, keep that shit to yourself.
Only share the top 10% of what you wrote down or made up and stored away in your twisted brain. Share the top 5% even. Share the parts that might actually be better than what the player can invent on their own.
Give us just enough to set off our imaginations and join you in the fun of filling up your universe. Give us hints and winks and nods and nudges and keep your damn mouth shut.
Finally, if you want to check out some generous games, that slap greed and pretention in the face and don't apologize for it, these are my recommendations (these are all freeware examples):
stdbits by Mark Johns
God Came To The Cave by Cactus
Aether by Edmund McMillen & Tyler Glaiel
Knytt by Nifflas
|
Whenever I feel force-feed, it's usually caused by info dumps, not tutorials.
I read over your blog and I have to say I agree on the points of ensuring simplicity of game design, but I disagree on your concept of simplifying a games immersive content. Before I go further by "simplicity of game design" I mean the concepts of usability as defined in interface design. Where a games kinesthic feel follows natural mapping and the ability to complete complex tasks is easy. Like going cover to cover in Epic Games' "Gears of War" through the use of the "A" button and a natural mapped direction on the analogue stick.
However I disagree that forcing players "to ingest every bit of that information before I'm allowed to finish the game" is as you put it "pedantic and greedy and embarrasing". The use of detail in games, literature, film and other mediums is extremely necessary to allow the story-telling process to work successfully. I believe upon games interactive nature the use of "written logs, audio logs, complex character development and so on" is entirely necessary to create a great game. Games are interactive experiences and while certain games do not require the background information to create an immerisve world others definitely do.
For example image playing an RPG where there is no story, character development, information on where you are or why you are playing. Without this context the game is no longer an RPG but rather just a series of senseless fights and mindless wondering. It is the detail the game developers put into their worlds that makes games great, and the concept of simplifying this complexity, I find incorrect.
However I'd be interested to continue this debate with you. I'm sure I may of misinterpreted some of your points, or you did not include certain ideas and exceptions to your theory of "Greedy Game Designers".
The only thing I would put out there as a clarification or something is to NOT think of it as simplifying the content. Reducing, yes; simplying, no! This process of going through and culling the chaff and the fat and the nonsense and then dedicating serious time to polishing up the few gems we've managed to grind out...that is not a simple process. It requires empathy and ingenuity and humility (and kleenex testing) to decide what deserves to make the cut, and it takes an inordinate amount of technical skill and patience and perseverance to raise the remaining parts up to the right level.
Reducing, yes. Simplifying, no!
I think Half Life 2 is a great example of a game that exemplifies "generous" game design, but still has loads of detail and character development and culture and atmosphere and all that good stuff.
I think we are both on the same page now. I also agree that "Reducing" is a good way of putting your theory. If anything I think the articles name should be changed to "Upset Game Designers", describing the need for designers to "reduce" their idea = D
I assumed when reading that you wanted the simplification of detail in games but after reading that you think "Half Life 2" was a "Generous" game, I was obviously wrong. Either way interesting article. Keep writing and I look forward to more.
Something I might add though, something that seems to be killing the gaming experience for me with most contemporary games I play: lack of opportunity cost choices. I think a lot of designers have caught the "I can have my cake and eat it too" mentality that plagues (at least U.S. society) right now. The reason it's a problem is because it waters the game you make down to mediocrity. It is a much compelling experience if I have to make a choice and rule out other choices. It also adds replay value. It can be applied to anything from "if I have the rocket launcher, I cannot have the machine gun, the sniper rifle, or the shotgun, just the rocket launcher" to disallowing interaction with an entire portion of story/level design if the player makes a different choice.
I'm reminded of Ken Levine's 08 GDC talk, the title says it all: "Nobody cares about your stupid story"