My Message close
GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
May 21, 2013
 
Treyarch / Activision
Sr. UX Designer
 
Vicarious Visions / Activision
Senior UI Artist-Vicarious Visions
 
Tarsier Studios
Design Director
 
Trendy Entertainment
Marketing Producer
 
Visual Concepts
Game Build Engineer - 2K Sports
 
The Workshop
Character Artist
spacer
Blogs

  Gestalt Game Design
by Douglas Lynn on 05/25/11 10:02:00 pm   Featured Blogs
4 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

Often in the course of my college studies (particularly in the early years), I would find myself forced to analyze my favorite games in detail.  The deeper I looked, the less interested I became in my favorite games.  But at the same time, I noticed elements in these games I couldn't quite define.  There were pieces that didn't quite fit into a category of the design process.

I eventually came to realize that my favorite games all have something in common.  It’s not necessarily brilliant game design, though many are quite clever.  It’s not necessarily beautiful artwork, though many are stunning to look at.  It’s not really any one specific element of the game structure.  What seems to turn a well-made game into a game I remember forever is the way a game feels.  The design, programming, artwork, sound, and writing all come together to form a cohesive whole, and this whole generates a particular feel – an aura, ambience, or mood.  It’s something highly subjective and not entirely tangible.  Great games have a tendency to just feel right.

It’s what I like to call “Gestalt Game Design”.  The whole package is greater than the sum of its parts.  It’s about more than simply having all of the best elements in your game; it’s more about ensuring that those elements blend together naturally and seamlessly.

Imagine you could take the winners of the Game Developers’ Choice Awards in Design, Technology, Art, Writing, and Audio, extract those winning elements from each, and combine them into a single game.  Simple math would suggest that you’ve just created the Game of the Year winner.  You have a well-designed game with nice visuals that runs brilliantly, sounds great, and tells an impressive story.  Gold.

Here’s the real question, though: how well do these elements support each other?  Does the artwork complement the design and help drive the player along?  Does the story fit in with the types of mechanics being used?  Does the way the interface runs match the way it looks?  The various pieces that go into a game’s creation link together in an amazing number of ways.  Accounting for these connections wherever possible can take a game to the next level. 

The mathematically perfect game above has the potential to get some fine review scores, but it’s not automatically a great game.  Cohesion is what transforms a game with great design, programming, art, and writing into, simply, a great game.  These are the games we remember.  These are the games that spread not just by good press, but by word of mouth.

Now is the time when I would normally start listing a few examples of games that “feel right”.  However, as I mentioned earlier, this sensation is highly subjective.  It depends on the type of game you feel like playing at a given time – what kind of sensation you’re looking for.  Even listing games that often feel “right” to me isn’t quite appropriate because explaining why they feel right isn’t entirely possible.  They just…do.

Great games, of course, don’t just spring out of the ether.  Games are made by people.  A seamless game is a good indicator of a well-oiled machine at the helm – team members who are not only masters of what they do, but who also have an understanding of what those around them do.  Members of such a team see the connections between their various disciplines.  They communicate on a regular basis to ensure that everyone understands and works towards the same goals.

That’s the nature of Gestalt Game Design.  We often think of the development team as a collection of smaller groups with separate responsibilities.  While it’s obviously true that programmers have different tasks to complete than artists, they all have the responsibility of working towards generating the same game with a particular feel.  It’s not just a matter of designers creating and balancing game mechanics, artists generating visual assets, and programmers coding functionality, but about everyone – everyone – working to capture and portray that unique vibe that makes the game something all its own.

So exactly where does the image of a game’s “feel” come from?  As with the initial idea for the game’s functionality, the idea for a game’s feel originates with the designer.  Designers have a duty to provide the initial vision for how a game should feel.  Like everything else in the game, the game’s feel shifts as the circumstances of development change.  As old ideas are tossed aside and replaced with new ones, a new game emerges with its own unique style.  The key is to continually see that no matter what the change, the entire team remains on the same page.

Being in tune with the rest of the team is dependent on thinking outside the confines of your particular discipline.  Part of this thinking comes from knowledge and skills in multiple subjects.  More importantly and basically, however, it comes down to communication.  Collaboration.  That melding of parts into a whole can’t occur without team members sitting down and working through problems together.  “The design works, but does it work with the artistic style we’re using?  Let’s figure out how to do it.”

I’ll take a great game over a great design any day (but there’s no reason I can’t have both).

As a designer, I tend to focus on where a designer stands in relation to the rest of the development team.  In the coming weeks, I plan to continue the discussion on Gestalt Game Design by analyzing the process of thinking outside of one’s discipline.  I’ll be discussing the process from a design standpoint – what designers should know about their colleagues – based on past experience (or in some cases, a lack thereof).  I hope you’ll bear with me through that.

In the meantime, though, that will be all.

Keep having fun.

 
 
Comments

Nick Harris
profile image
I think a game's "feel" comes from its interface. Whether (or not) there is a HUD, or how much User-Centred Design has gone into ensuring the gamepad (and its control layout) is ergonomic should always be the top priority of any project. It is all too easy to let this aspect of the design become an afterthought, or at best be in a constant state of revision as the rest of the game forces changes upon it.



Too many games suffer from awkward, inarticulate, controls. This makes you feel inept, clumsy, disabled - when in fact the game should deliberately work to overcome these limitations and actively empower you, then rebalance the game with more and/or stiffer opponents. Goldeneye 007 on the N64 does this.



Too many games overload the screen with unnecessary detail. Medal of Honor lets you remove all HUD elements and not need an unrealistic "personal radar" breaking your immersion because in its Hardcore Clean Sweep mode you don't have to worry about opponents ever respawning behind you. Essentially, it allows you to adapt the game's rules to suit an interface that yields far greater suspension of disbelief.



As every part of a 'Gestalt' potentially constrains every other, it is evident that one should fix the design of the interface first and have that force compromises on the remaining aspects of the design. Indeed, it does trouble me that there is a strong trend within the industry to prioritise Story over everything else and almost overlook the importance of Ergonomics completely. Activision appear to be set to do this again with MW3, a game in which the Story determines the choice of globe-trotting locales, which then determines scenic levels with recognisable landmarks (presumably to spectacularly blow-up), but through which there tends to only be a single pre-determined path in order to ensure all the incidental "Cinematic set pieces" are encountered in the correct order. This lack of choice is dispiriting as it used to be the unique foundation of the medium, I suppose given a choice between Choice and Graphics the latter will always win out as the Marketing Dept. of the Publisher pushes for something that can be effectively hyped in either a static screenshot or carefully contrived developer walkthrough. Sometimes the consumer never gets a demo to assess the actual game's intrinsic "feel", although they will have been bombarded with character and story details for months before hand and made to feel that its release is such an epochal event that they will never catch up with all of their "friends" rank progression unless they pre-order it (sight unseen) too.



The Story really shouldn't be the primary constraint, but as can be seen from the promotional material for MW3 it shapes the sombre, yet frenetic, audio visual component of the game. It is inaccurate to merely write it off as being "all brown and grey" as it monochromatic aesthetics makes effective use of spot colour (e.g. red fire, green LZ-designation smoke, amber traffic lights), whilst conveniently keeping its backgrounds to suit the camouflage of its characters. This is necessary for balance, as a game like Halo can only get away with placing bright red cyborgs in lush green valleys because they have electro-static shields to repel initial weapon fire. So, again, every choice constrains every other.



What would be nice is a reversal of this trend. Even the abandonment of Story altogether. Although, there are ways of "having your cake and eating it too" which involve procedurally-generating psychologically-profiled NPC-proposed missions which conform (not to a predetermined Story), but an underlying Theme. For this to properly work a player would need to be rewarded for the quality of their role-play and have multiple characters at their disposal, liberating them to play characters that suffered heroic deaths, or received their comeuppance as dastardly villains - thereby, finally escaping the hackneyed video game trope of GAME OVER.

Todd Ruggley
profile image
I am not anti-story or anything but I entirely agree with what you said about Story abandonment. There are too many possibilities for Designers not to have tried them yet.

Nick Harris
profile image
Obviously, there are a great many games whose level design and art direction are their pre-scripted Story made manifest. I acknowledge that there are limits to procedural generation.



However, when so many games have "go anywhere" open worlds (like GTA IV), why do they ruin the player's freedom of choice with a fixed Story that dictates a collection of interlinked missions?



That said, total non-linearity is actually a bad thing as this "sandbox" doesn't seek to compel the player towards an interesting goal. By throwing out a set of opt-in missions and gradually tightening up their commitment to their proper completion, with some meta-game related to how well they role-play their current avatar, stories can emerge that coherently represent the theme.



Scripts would still need to be written, but the "author" would be spending their time writing about a prop or an actor and all their potential inter-relationships that the generative system could dynamically bind together in numerous ways. The trick here is to not make the mistake of making the system all "player centric", but a biased simulation of NPCs where one of them happens to be directly controlled by you (but within the expected confines of your evolving role and the predictable constraints of your current mission).



This is all very complex to do and will require new development tools...

Tora Teig
profile image
Very true. And because feelings are so abstract, very hard to achieve. I just couldn't agree more with you, don't have anything else to add but that! :D Thank you!


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech