[What the heck do game designers do, again? DoubleSix (Geometry Wars Galaxies, South Park XBLA) creative director Jim Mummery examines why the designer isn't the "king" or "rock star" of game development - but nonetheless has a vital role to play.]
We work in an industry in which, it would outwardly appear, the designer is king. Only a designer would get their name before the title of the game or have a credit that reads: "A Game By." They are the new rock stars who conjure the entire game fully-formed from their amazing minds all by themselves. All hail the games designer, for without them, surely we would have no games. Right?
Wrong.
But I'm getting ahead of myself -- let’s jump back in time to a strange land.
In The Beginning
In the games industry there was a time, long ago, when games were made by coders – just coders. They knew what worked, how they worked and no one else was needed. They programmed, they made the assets, they built the game. Small pixel stickmen ran and jumped over small pixel spears. The games were simple, times were good.
Then games became successful, and so became competitive, and so it was deemed that they needed to look good. So artists were summoned, artists who could work in the medium of D-Paint and turn pixel stickmen into beautiful animated sprites.
The battle between what looked good and what worked began (and still continues to this day). These coders and artists, both of whom knew how to make games, both of whom had clearly defined roles, worked together (albeit grudgingly) and the world of games became a happy and productive place.
Until games became even more successful and even more competitive and so the games had to become more complex; more in-depth. There was simply much more to do, more code, more art. The coders were too busy, the artists were too busy. Someone was needed to do the odd jobs, the little tasks, putting the pick-ups in the game, spawning enemies, making the coffee…
This little guy worked with the other more talented people, the artists and the coders, he helped them out but more and more, the things that needed changing in the game were the things he was doing. The game looked great and worked great but the publisher didn’t like the little things, like where he had put this enemy or that power-up.
And so the publisher needed him to make changes. The little guy didn’t mind, he could fix that, he would make a difference. He began to feel important -- at least when he wasn’t getting the coffee.
More and more his relationship with the publisher grew, after all they were talking all the time and lo, they coined a term for what they were fixing: gameplay.
Birth Of The Designer
The fateful day came when they found something he couldn’t fix with the simple tools he had been given. Egged on by the publishers, he turned to the others, the ones busy doing the real work and asked for better tools, for more enemy types, for less coffee making. With no time to argue, they gave him what he wanted and when he saw the difference he’d made, he realised what an unadulterated genius he was…
Thus the designer was born.
Okay, so writing fairy tales is an easy way to fill space -- but what’s my point?
As ‘designers’, we came to this party last. Everyone else here has a defined role; we exist only because coders and artists were, for lack of a better term, too busy. Some designers even claim to know games better than anyone else -- but this is obviously a fantasy.
These days, anyone who enters the industry (coder, artist or designer) has had similar game-playing experiences; they all know games and what they like in the games they play.
The big difference is the coder can program (it’s a small word for making worlds) and the artist can draw (not literally -- hell, these days half these guys can’t even sketch, but the stuff they can do in Maya and Max will make your head spin). They would not need us except for the fact someone needs to do the ‘other stuff’.
Luxury Of Time
There is a misunderstanding that a designer is someone who mysteriously understands how games work and knows intuitively what is needed to make them good. All gamers know this on some level -- and we, the game developers, are all gamers.
The only reason designers often have the answers when others don’t is that we have the luxury of time to think about it. That being said, due to the industry’s history and because of the fact that everyone, no matter what their role, understands games, the designer can never be ‘the guy with the knowledge’ -- or, at least not the only guy.
He works with people who, like him, live and breathe games. His role is to support them, not dominate them. To work with them to create games they all want to play, to create a game that belongs to them all. As a result, the designer is the collector of ideas, opinions and feedback. The conduit for what the team believes.
The thing is, listening is harder than not listening; it is easy to walk over anyone with an idea. It takes far more effort to convince them of your way of thinking (in fact it is often impossible) and harder still to know when to climb down and accept theirs.
It is his job to take all their passion and filter it; find which ideas fit together, which don’t, which are ideas that the publisher will buy into and which ones aren’t.
The game does not form complete from out of his tiny mind. It is formed by the varying talents of the team and the by the happy accidents that occur along the way.
So where does that leave us?
Designer, Not Director
First, let’s get rid of the idea of the designer as the director of the game. Games are made by teams – one guy cannot do it alone (with a few brilliant exceptions).
The designer is part of that team and because his job (the scripting, the documentation, tweaking game-play and making the coffee) is reliant on everyone else – it is his job to listen to what they have to say and find a way to make as much of it work as possible.
He is a listener and communicator. His job is the flexible one. His tasks can stretch to fill the available time. Theirs cannot.
Design works best when it’s finding solutions to problems that cannot be resolved elsewhere, solutions that fit within the restrictions created by budget, timescale and the other disciplines.
At its best, design is about technical pragmatism and team co-operation rather than selfish and singular idealism.
A case in point: say our designer needs a new tutorial element for his game. The game has evolved into much more than was originally conceived (thanks mostly to the enthusiastic involvement of the team) but he now has more to teach the player than he did before.
Currently, all he has are load of static screens with images and text but, whilst they are clear and concise, they just don’t get the message across. Players read them but do not take it in. It’s not enough. The game is well into development and there is no time for any major changes.
Ultimately, if he’d thought about it earlier, he’d have asked for a playable tutorial but the game didn’t need one then and, now it does, he doesn’t have the assets to make one.
What does he do? First things first – he has a quick discussion between other members of the team, in this case the other leads, the artist responsible for level building and the coders in charge of the front end and scripting.
Very quickly, everyone agrees that a playable tutorial is the obvious choice. Why didn’t we do that in the first place? Static screens were never a good idea! Our designer looks down into his shoes and mumbles something about how everybody else does it.
Quickly the conversation moves on to what would be needed if a playable tutorial was put into the game.
The level artist is first to point out that if the level requirements are kept simple, he can build it very quickly. So they find a theme the artist is a) interested in and b) he is sure he can build as quickly as possible.
Next, the front end coder is equally enthusiastic and can easily change the front end to accommodate the tutorial level and allow more text to be shown on screen during gameplay.
Lastly, the scripting coder says that as soon as he has a list of requirements, he should easily be able to provide the parameters the designer needs to build the tutorial scripts he needs.
But our designer knows that ideally, tutorials don’t progress until the player has proven they’ve understood the instructions. The gameplay is usually held up until the player does what they’ve been told. Despite everything the team has given him, he won’t have the tools to enforce that kind of control and so will have no way of knowing whether the player has understood the tutorial.
However, the designer knows the game’s scripting system well enough to know how it can be manipulated. If he simply breaks the tutorials up into multiple levels (and therefore multiple tutorials) – all with on-screen instructions – he easily has enough tools to give each tutorial a very focused, very specific, very simple goal that will allow the player to demonstrate what they’ve been taught.
Working in this way, he can script the tutorials so that the player would have to understand the objective of each tutorial to unlock the next one. Each lesson leads neatly onto the next. Since the tutorials are optional, the player is never prevented from playing the game and if they fail the objective they can always replay the tutorials again if they want to.
Problem solved.
To clarify, the idea of the playable tutorial (the obvious solution) could not come from the designer alone since at that point he did not have the tools to make it possible nor could he assume the team had the time to give him those tools.
The solution came from the team as a whole (more specifically from the people who would actually have to do the work) and from the real world constraints laid upon the game at that point in development.
So far, so obvious, right?
Except who is making this game? Is it our designer – the rock-and-roll visionary – or is it actually the entire team working together to make the best game possible? We'll explore this in the next installment.
[Jim Mummery is a small man who cannot code or draw and he lives at the mercy of people who can.]
"There is a misunderstanding that a designer is someone who mysteriously understands how games work and knows intuitively what is needed to make them good. All gamers know this on some level -- and we, the game developers, are all gamers."
I think this is similar to saying anyone can draw. It might be true, but some people through practice have greater skill, so I disagree with this statement. Even if all new developers have similar skill to begin with, in time as a result of professional experience a designer becomes more analytical and learns to put into words the subtleties of what makes a game fun that might not come as naturally to an artist or programmer.
I do agree that a designer should be a conduit for ideas, but Id also like to think that the designer should pick and choose from that pool of ideas, and giving the game a unified vision from what would have otherwise been a bunch of inconsistent ideas from different minds.
I don't think Designers ought be the "rockstars" of games either, but people like John Carmack, and Trip Hawkins have made names for themselves for their non-design work. Maybe we need a little bit less famous designers, but its not completely an exclusive thing.
These are words that need to be widely circulated, especially to college and high school career advisers, to curtail the 'game designer as visionary mastermind' view that future designers need to be rid of. I can't tell you how many forum posts and blog comments I've read where these kids think the role of Game Designer means 'sitting around tossing a ball around thinking up cool ideas' or 'writing cool stories'.
It's long past time to break their hearts; 'I have a really awesome idea' is not the sole job requirement of a game designer and the sooner young designers-in-training learn this, the better off everyone will be. This is one of the bigger issues facing game development from a HR standpoint; getting accurate job descriptions out to educators to ensure the next generation of 'game designers' aren't eagerly anticipating the day when their star is on the Videogame Walk of Fame and Conan O'Brian asks them to appear on his show.
As the fields of game development have specialized, the role of the designer has become absolutely critical. I'm afraid that as much as programmers and artists might have known about making good games in the past, that is no longer necessarily the case.
Many programmers couldn't give a damn about the actual gameplay interactions. They just want to code their sections and be done with it. Artists tend to have many opinions about the gameplay, but typically they just know what they do not like and have few suggestions on how to solve the problems (and many can't even determine the exact nature of their dislike).
For me the role of the designer has been one of taking elements from both programming and art and constructing the game using the pieces given. Many ideas start in the programming and art team, but for them to flourish, a good designer is often required.
I've certainly never considered myself a rockstar, but the things I have created from the pieces given to me by programmers and artists are always much greater than their individual parts. A game without a designer is often one without a soul.
I have never considered myself a rock star and until I learn to play guitar and make a hit album, I never will. I've also never made coffee for anyone. So I guess I failed that part of design...
"First, let’s get rid of the idea of the designer as the director of the game. Games are made by teams – one guy cannot do it alone (with a few brilliant exceptions)."
Did Stanley Krubrick make movies alone? I think one of the problems is most people in the game industry don't really know what a movie director does (I certainly don't).
Having said that, for great games, I believe that there is a need for one person to preserve the game vision. Someone needs to ensure that the sound, graphics, technology, and gameplay are being steered in the proper direction. As coding and graphics continue to become more of a commodity, that 'director' role will become more important and logically falls to the game designer.
I really felt that this article took how I feel about being a designer and presented it quite well. Any time I work on a team, I make it all about the team. This produces a much better product than having one key person and following everything that they say. That's not to say you can't have someone with a vision of what the end should be, but when their vision gets cloudy, they need to take a step back and see if it's a good cloudy or a bad cloudy.
"The only reason designers often have the answers when others don’t is that we have the luxury of time to think about it. "
Artists and Coders are Developers, and so they develop the code and assets for the game en which we love or hate. The job of the designer is the balance the game, make the story pop, or help out with decision making....and get coffee. I agree that designers are not the the only rock stars in the game development scene... everyone is :)
Everyone works hard to ship their games out the door and it is brilliant to see so many people working towards one vision, the game inside the case. It is the essence of game development, Teamwork.
It is hard to find another field with so many passionate fans and so many passionate developers alike.
There is indeed a need for a singular person to maintain and preserve the original vision and keep track of where the game is going. That's the designer's job. But the fact that they act as a guiding light for the game's vision doesn't mean they're also the shining beacon of the game's production. They're not the 'master and creator', even if they created a good deal of the game and masterfully kept the team focused on the game's focus.
Good article. I agree with you, but I also with Mr. Brad Wiggins. My primary concern is, with design and writing my only skills (can't draw, can't code), how do I become a game designer on some development team. Also, something thats been nagging at me lately, let's say I do become a designer, I'm worried that my team will resent my position, not because of what I do, but because of what I do not do. They're the ones digging out the trenches, and I just say, "can you do this?" So I guess I'm concerned with equality. Since all I do is think and write, I'm concerned that my team would be bothered by my less pivotal role.
While I agree a game is made by a team and to say it isn't is ludicrous, I can't agree to this concept of designer as less than important member of the team. I know plenty of people who play games and who make games and that does not qualify you to be a designer. There are lots of crappy designers, sure, but to say that simply playing games makes you a good designer is total BS. Design is about many things and it certainly doesn't require the same technical skill set as other positions it is a unique ability.
This article, while I know it is a opinion, is very flamebait-ish. I found reading it I was bouncing between being offended by blanket assumptions but occasionally agreeing strongly. Then again, what good is an opinion article if it doesn't do that?..
Personally, I agree with what Brad Wiggins has responded with: Designers are people who focus on making the gameplay of the game, and they do this with a focus that exceeds the expertise that is expected by other developers.
Also, I think most people agree that designers aren't really the exclusive idea pools, per se, but are idea conduits. Good ideas can come from everywhere. To make them work, however, you'll often need someone specialized in knowing how gameplay elements interact with each other; thus, you need a designer.
In response to some of the comments here I feel that the point isn't to say that the designer is irrelevant or less important. I definitely think that design is a valuable skill set and a specialised skill set. However, I took the point to be, 'don't assume that the programmer is only making decisions based on programming knowledge'. So for example if the programmer says (for example) 'I don't think you're idea of a billion entities is going to work' he probably understands it's a cool idea, but he has the specialist knowledge to understand whether the console will or will not be able to support that feature.
I've seen situations where a designer has said 'well I came up with the brilliant idea, you have to make it work my way', even if the idea is technically impossible, which is admittedly the worst case scenario.
Also I believe that collaboration will usually create a better output than the 'single vision' idea, although there are good examples of both ways working. To sidetrack and use a musical analogy, I doubt Dark Side Of The Moon would have been as amazing if Roger Waters had directed the whole album, it was the fusion of his philosophical ideas with the music of David Gilmour (et al) that created such a great album.
This was an interesting read, and I agree with some previous comments that it sometimes borders on the rant. Which is all well and good when it comes to explicitly oppinionated articles. It certainly did its job by making me want to add my thoughs.
First off, I can only agree that the game designer as a develoment specialist was the last to join the party. Even sound was here before the designers. The one thing I don't agree with, having worked in a professional capacity as a game designer, and working now as an educator of game designers, is that the designer by default is a less skilled, less useful team member left at the mercy of the people with "actual skills". As has been noted already, game design as a discipline requires a set of sophisticated skills and abilities, which may vary depending on specialization. Traditionally (let's say, in the 90's, which I guess is history by industry standards) game designers were recruited from the ranks of experienced artists or designers, who knew enough about the whole process of making a game to make informed decisions, and keep the whole team focused and motivated. The rise of the 'pure' game designer, who's never held another position in a development team, is relatively new.
Speaking only from my own experience, I came into the computer game industry from the table top gaming scene. I was amazed to see that what seemed to me like a huge team (around 16 people, back in '99) of hard working people were all terribly busy doing... well, isolated tasks with little to no sense of the actual game experience/player perspective. When you make pen and paper / dice based games, teams are usually pretty small - usually a game designer or two, and an artist or so. As a designer you need to know your probability and other math, you need to be a good, concise "business" writer who can convey rules and fluff in an expedient manner, and you need to be aware of the state of the metagame and the genre conventions. You can't very well 'hide' behind ritzy graphics or next gen code. But when it came to making games for the PC (or consoles), the taks of just getting anyting to appear on screen with any reliability - to speak nothing of issues such as AI or network code - were so complex they seemed to eat up most of the processing power for the developers. Figuring out new phycisc or animation systems (a "must") or getting reliable lag compensation in requires dedicated specialist work. But so does player's gaming experience. For dice, pen and paper game designers a successful game absolutely has to provide the players with a clear goal, a sense of purpose, exciting things to do, replayability and, preferrably, a neat fantasy.
Perhaps I need to clarify my point. I do believe there are 'coffee boy' type game designers in the computer game development industry. These are typically junior people, still learning the job and developing skills. In the traditional, non-computer games industry, such designers are confined to hobby activity and are considered hangarounds or, well, kids looking to learn.
The "game designer" of today is a varied position that could mean a great number of things.
I think the article goes a little too far, though it's certainly worth reading by beginners and students.
Big video games are "designed by committee." The committee includes virtually the entire development team. The designer is one of the chief persons on the committee (the producer is another). He has more influence than "coffee-maker" or "problem-solver". But he often has a minority influence over the finished product.
Smaller video games may be designed by one person, who has a much greater influence over the finished product.
Boardgames are still designed by one (or two) people who have a very great influence over the finished product.
In the end, maybe we can gauge relative importance by who is paid more. IIRC, surveys show video game designers are paid less than coders, and no more than artists.
Any hard figures could be argued endlessly, but I'd suggest as percentages of lead designer influence (and NOT COUNTING the influence of publishers, as opposed to the development team): AAA game 20%,
small video game 50%,
boardgame 90%.
Btw, I have dozens of hardcore game players as students: they are very knowledgeable about games, but when they begin they are poor designers. Playing games/knowing games does not make you good at design. Playing and designing take different skills and mindsets.
I am sure Will Wright smirked when he read this article.
Despite the obviously baiting tone of the article (which is entertaining), the author is correct on several points.
The designer should not be a diva, should not be the source of all ideas termed "game". Anyone with this attitude is unhelpful and wrong. The point about the designer being part of a team is also very important.
But the author is wrong in several key areas:
1) Game Design has been around far longer than programming. In fact its a science that predates computer games by several decades, called Game Theory. Military wargames have been around since the 19th century. Before computer games there were RPGs, Boardgames, etc.. The only discipline that has been around longer perhaps are the Artists... That doesnt mean that every designer is a student of game theory, but there is a method to design.
2) Just because you play games doesnt mean you understand this method.
3) Games are too complex and expensive to be designed through a series of collected ideas from a group. There has to be a someone checking the overall picture and making sure that the game is on the right track from an entertainment perspective. Doesnt mean that the designer is infallible, or has all the answers, far from it, BUT the Designer is the guy RESPONSIBLE for it. You need someone to worry about the entertainment, just like you need someone to worry about the look, the stability of the code and the budget/schedule. Who better to look after that then the guy who gets paid to do it?
4) the more complex the game the more important the need for a strong central design role. The inverse is also true true.
I remember when the industry was high on Rock Star programmers like John Carmack and Romero. Remember "Daikatana"? Anyone who missess the "good old days" when teams didnt need designers is missing the point, we should be grateful that games now are so massive and complex that they need designers, we are no longer in the stone age of computer gaming.
Programmers and Artists have been known to be excellent designers as well. The combination of great programmer/artist and great designer in one person is rare though.
For Metal Gear Solid 2, Hideo Kojima had passed out notebooks to all his staff. He required them to write their ideas in these notebooks which he collected and reviewed. From these notebook emerged alot of the gameplay, like popping around a corner and freezing bombs. The team contributed greatly but it was ultimately Hideo that made the game what it is. He was the visionary and it would have been impossible to make that game without him. He didn't just write the script. He went department to department and literally directed the teams in the execution of the game. I think a designer doesn't just design the game.......he directs the team to make the game he ultimately desires.
I think the rockstar discussion is stupid and irrelevent but I do think a designer is a director. I can even see the similarities between a movie director and a game director. They're both viewed as the people sitting down in a chair yelling stuff out to the people making the movie or game. People don't understand that they are always funneling and focusing all this talent and ideas into a finished game. Literally, "Directing" the game.
Also, I doubt the programmer doesn't care about the game and just wants to get his code done. The joy and fun of programming something and experiencing the results in the game. That's the joy of game programming........not hammering out code just for money.
I'm just a student programmer and this is all my opinion but If I ever do get on a serious project, I'll be sure to give my two cents but also trust the developers vision because that's alot of weight on his shoulders......not mine. My opinion might change but consider this my un-biased opinion.
For Metal Gear Solid 2, Hideo Kojima had passed out notebooks to all his staff. He required them to write their ideas in these notebooks which he collected and reviewed. From these notebook emerged alot of the gameplay, like popping around a corner and freezing bombs. The team contributed greatly but it was ultimately Hideo that made the game what it is. He was the visionary and it would have been impossible to make that game without him. He didn't just write the script. He went department to department and literally directed the teams in the execution of the game. I think a designer doesn't just design the game.......he directs the team to make the game he ultimately desires.
I think the rockstar discussion is stupid and irrelevent but I do think a designer is a director. I can even see the similarities between a movie director and a game director. They're both viewed as the people sitting down in a chair yelling stuff out to the people making the movie or game. People don't understand that they are always funneling and focusing all this talent and ideas into a finished game. Literally, "Directing" the game.
Also, I doubt the programmer doesn't care about the game and just wants to get his code done. The joy and fun of programming something and experiencing the results in the game. That's the joy of game programming........not hammering out code just for money.
I'm just a student programmer and this is all my opinion but If I ever do get on a serious project, I'll be sure to give my two cents but also trust the developers vision because that's alot of weight on his shoulders......not mine. My opinion might change but consider this my un-biased opinion.
For Metal Gear Solid 2, Hideo Kojima had passed out notebooks to all his staff. He required them to write their ideas in these notebooks which he collected and reviewed. From these notebook emerged alot of the gameplay, like popping around a corner and freezing bombs. The team contributed greatly but it was ultimately Hideo that made the game what it is. He was the visionary and it would have been impossible to make that game without him. He didn't just write the script. He went department to department and literally directed the teams in the execution of the game. I think a designer doesn't just design the game.......he directs the team to make the game he ultimately desires.
I think the rockstar discussion is stupid and irrelevent but I do think a designer is a director. I can even see the similarities between a movie director and a game director. They're both viewed as the people sitting down in a chair yelling stuff out to the people making the movie or game. People don't understand that they are always funneling and focusing all this talent and ideas into a finished game. Literally, "Directing" the game.
Also, I doubt the programmer doesn't care about the game and just wants to get his code done. The joy and fun of programming something and experiencing the results in the game. That's the joy of game programming........not hammering out code just for money.
I'm just a student programmer and this is all my opinion but If I ever do get on a serious project, I'll be sure to give my two cents but also trust the developers vision because that's alot of weight on his shoulders......not mine. My opinion might change but consider this my un-biased opinion.
I think this is similar to saying anyone can draw. It might be true, but some people through practice have greater skill, so I disagree with this statement. Even if all new developers have similar skill to begin with, in time as a result of professional experience a designer becomes more analytical and learns to put into words the subtleties of what makes a game fun that might not come as naturally to an artist or programmer.
I do agree that a designer should be a conduit for ideas, but Id also like to think that the designer should pick and choose from that pool of ideas, and giving the game a unified vision from what would have otherwise been a bunch of inconsistent ideas from different minds.
I don't think Designers ought be the "rockstars" of games either, but people like John Carmack, and Trip Hawkins have made names for themselves for their non-design work. Maybe we need a little bit less famous designers, but its not completely an exclusive thing.
It's long past time to break their hearts; 'I have a really awesome idea' is not the sole job requirement of a game designer and the sooner young designers-in-training learn this, the better off everyone will be. This is one of the bigger issues facing game development from a HR standpoint; getting accurate job descriptions out to educators to ensure the next generation of 'game designers' aren't eagerly anticipating the day when their star is on the Videogame Walk of Fame and Conan O'Brian asks them to appear on his show.
Many programmers couldn't give a damn about the actual gameplay interactions. They just want to code their sections and be done with it. Artists tend to have many opinions about the gameplay, but typically they just know what they do not like and have few suggestions on how to solve the problems (and many can't even determine the exact nature of their dislike).
For me the role of the designer has been one of taking elements from both programming and art and constructing the game using the pieces given. Many ideas start in the programming and art team, but for them to flourish, a good designer is often required.
I've certainly never considered myself a rockstar, but the things I have created from the pieces given to me by programmers and artists are always much greater than their individual parts. A game without a designer is often one without a soul.
I have never considered myself a rock star and until I learn to play guitar and make a hit album, I never will. I've also never made coffee for anyone. So I guess I failed that part of design...
Did Stanley Krubrick make movies alone? I think one of the problems is most people in the game industry don't really know what a movie director does (I certainly don't).
Having said that, for great games, I believe that there is a need for one person to preserve the game vision. Someone needs to ensure that the sound, graphics, technology, and gameplay are being steered in the proper direction. As coding and graphics continue to become more of a commodity, that 'director' role will become more important and logically falls to the game designer.
"The only reason designers often have the answers when others don’t is that we have the luxury of time to think about it. "
Artists and Coders are Developers, and so they develop the code and assets for the game en which we love or hate. The job of the designer is the balance the game, make the story pop, or help out with decision making....and get coffee. I agree that designers are not the the only rock stars in the game development scene... everyone is :)
Everyone works hard to ship their games out the door and it is brilliant to see so many people working towards one vision, the game inside the case. It is the essence of game development, Teamwork.
It is hard to find another field with so many passionate fans and so many passionate developers alike.
Great Article Jim
Sincerely,
Luke Weatherlow
Web Developer/3d Artist
There is indeed a need for a singular person to maintain and preserve the original vision and keep track of where the game is going. That's the designer's job. But the fact that they act as a guiding light for the game's vision doesn't mean they're also the shining beacon of the game's production. They're not the 'master and creator', even if they created a good deal of the game and masterfully kept the team focused on the game's focus.
Personally, I agree with what Brad Wiggins has responded with: Designers are people who focus on making the gameplay of the game, and they do this with a focus that exceeds the expertise that is expected by other developers.
Also, I think most people agree that designers aren't really the exclusive idea pools, per se, but are idea conduits. Good ideas can come from everywhere. To make them work, however, you'll often need someone specialized in knowing how gameplay elements interact with each other; thus, you need a designer.
I've seen situations where a designer has said 'well I came up with the brilliant idea, you have to make it work my way', even if the idea is technically impossible, which is admittedly the worst case scenario.
Also I believe that collaboration will usually create a better output than the 'single vision' idea, although there are good examples of both ways working. To sidetrack and use a musical analogy, I doubt Dark Side Of The Moon would have been as amazing if Roger Waters had directed the whole album, it was the fusion of his philosophical ideas with the music of David Gilmour (et al) that created such a great album.
I'm way better at solving problems, learning new things and dealing with limitations than having visionary ideas and being a rockstar.
First off, I can only agree that the game designer as a develoment specialist was the last to join the party. Even sound was here before the designers. The one thing I don't agree with, having worked in a professional capacity as a game designer, and working now as an educator of game designers, is that the designer by default is a less skilled, less useful team member left at the mercy of the people with "actual skills". As has been noted already, game design as a discipline requires a set of sophisticated skills and abilities, which may vary depending on specialization. Traditionally (let's say, in the 90's, which I guess is history by industry standards) game designers were recruited from the ranks of experienced artists or designers, who knew enough about the whole process of making a game to make informed decisions, and keep the whole team focused and motivated. The rise of the 'pure' game designer, who's never held another position in a development team, is relatively new.
Speaking only from my own experience, I came into the computer game industry from the table top gaming scene. I was amazed to see that what seemed to me like a huge team (around 16 people, back in '99) of hard working people were all terribly busy doing... well, isolated tasks with little to no sense of the actual game experience/player perspective. When you make pen and paper / dice based games, teams are usually pretty small - usually a game designer or two, and an artist or so. As a designer you need to know your probability and other math, you need to be a good, concise "business" writer who can convey rules and fluff in an expedient manner, and you need to be aware of the state of the metagame and the genre conventions. You can't very well 'hide' behind ritzy graphics or next gen code. But when it came to making games for the PC (or consoles), the taks of just getting anyting to appear on screen with any reliability - to speak nothing of issues such as AI or network code - were so complex they seemed to eat up most of the processing power for the developers. Figuring out new phycisc or animation systems (a "must") or getting reliable lag compensation in requires dedicated specialist work. But so does player's gaming experience. For dice, pen and paper game designers a successful game absolutely has to provide the players with a clear goal, a sense of purpose, exciting things to do, replayability and, preferrably, a neat fantasy.
Perhaps I need to clarify my point. I do believe there are 'coffee boy' type game designers in the computer game development industry. These are typically junior people, still learning the job and developing skills. In the traditional, non-computer games industry, such designers are confined to hobby activity and are considered hangarounds or, well, kids looking to learn.
The "game designer" of today is a varied position that could mean a great number of things.
Big video games are "designed by committee." The committee includes virtually the entire development team. The designer is one of the chief persons on the committee (the producer is another). He has more influence than "coffee-maker" or "problem-solver". But he often has a minority influence over the finished product.
Smaller video games may be designed by one person, who has a much greater influence over the finished product.
Boardgames are still designed by one (or two) people who have a very great influence over the finished product.
In the end, maybe we can gauge relative importance by who is paid more. IIRC, surveys show video game designers are paid less than coders, and no more than artists.
Any hard figures could be argued endlessly, but I'd suggest as percentages of lead designer influence (and NOT COUNTING the influence of publishers, as opposed to the development team): AAA game 20%,
small video game 50%,
boardgame 90%.
Btw, I have dozens of hardcore game players as students: they are very knowledgeable about games, but when they begin they are poor designers. Playing games/knowing games does not make you good at design. Playing and designing take different skills and mindsets.
Despite the obviously baiting tone of the article (which is entertaining), the author is correct on several points.
The designer should not be a diva, should not be the source of all ideas termed "game". Anyone with this attitude is unhelpful and wrong. The point about the designer being part of a team is also very important.
But the author is wrong in several key areas:
1) Game Design has been around far longer than programming. In fact its a science that predates computer games by several decades, called Game Theory. Military wargames have been around since the 19th century. Before computer games there were RPGs, Boardgames, etc.. The only discipline that has been around longer perhaps are the Artists... That doesnt mean that every designer is a student of game theory, but there is a method to design.
2) Just because you play games doesnt mean you understand this method.
3) Games are too complex and expensive to be designed through a series of collected ideas from a group. There has to be a someone checking the overall picture and making sure that the game is on the right track from an entertainment perspective. Doesnt mean that the designer is infallible, or has all the answers, far from it, BUT the Designer is the guy RESPONSIBLE for it. You need someone to worry about the entertainment, just like you need someone to worry about the look, the stability of the code and the budget/schedule. Who better to look after that then the guy who gets paid to do it?
4) the more complex the game the more important the need for a strong central design role. The inverse is also true true.
I remember when the industry was high on Rock Star programmers like John Carmack and Romero. Remember "Daikatana"? Anyone who missess the "good old days" when teams didnt need designers is missing the point, we should be grateful that games now are so massive and complex that they need designers, we are no longer in the stone age of computer gaming.
Programmers and Artists have been known to be excellent designers as well. The combination of great programmer/artist and great designer in one person is rare though.
I think the rockstar discussion is stupid and irrelevent but I do think a designer is a director. I can even see the similarities between a movie director and a game director. They're both viewed as the people sitting down in a chair yelling stuff out to the people making the movie or game. People don't understand that they are always funneling and focusing all this talent and ideas into a finished game. Literally, "Directing" the game.
Also, I doubt the programmer doesn't care about the game and just wants to get his code done. The joy and fun of programming something and experiencing the results in the game. That's the joy of game programming........not hammering out code just for money.
I'm just a student programmer and this is all my opinion but If I ever do get on a serious project, I'll be sure to give my two cents but also trust the developers vision because that's alot of weight on his shoulders......not mine. My opinion might change but consider this my un-biased opinion.
I think the rockstar discussion is stupid and irrelevent but I do think a designer is a director. I can even see the similarities between a movie director and a game director. They're both viewed as the people sitting down in a chair yelling stuff out to the people making the movie or game. People don't understand that they are always funneling and focusing all this talent and ideas into a finished game. Literally, "Directing" the game.
Also, I doubt the programmer doesn't care about the game and just wants to get his code done. The joy and fun of programming something and experiencing the results in the game. That's the joy of game programming........not hammering out code just for money.
I'm just a student programmer and this is all my opinion but If I ever do get on a serious project, I'll be sure to give my two cents but also trust the developers vision because that's alot of weight on his shoulders......not mine. My opinion might change but consider this my un-biased opinion.
I think the rockstar discussion is stupid and irrelevent but I do think a designer is a director. I can even see the similarities between a movie director and a game director. They're both viewed as the people sitting down in a chair yelling stuff out to the people making the movie or game. People don't understand that they are always funneling and focusing all this talent and ideas into a finished game. Literally, "Directing" the game.
Also, I doubt the programmer doesn't care about the game and just wants to get his code done. The joy and fun of programming something and experiencing the results in the game. That's the joy of game programming........not hammering out code just for money.
I'm just a student programmer and this is all my opinion but If I ever do get on a serious project, I'll be sure to give my two cents but also trust the developers vision because that's alot of weight on his shoulders......not mine. My opinion might change but consider this my un-biased opinion.