From Concept to Constants to Control: The Top-Down Approach
Once our proposed layered architecture is defined and explained, we can start talking about the proper process of game design cognition, which involves traversing the layers as the game's design is constructed. Such process has distinct approaches if we are moving from a more abstract view to a more concrete one (in top-down fashion) or the other way around (from the bottom up). Studying these approaches is a useful meta-design exercise that will allows us to understand deeply how the layers relate to and depend on each other.
Since we have already discussed the layers in the top-down order, let's start by studying the process in which the game design process is driven from a conceptual perception of the game towards more specific and concrete views: the top-down approach.
When working down from the top, the game designer usually exercises his analytical skills, i.e. his capacity of breaking a broader concept into smaller parts that are representative of the whole. For example, when trying to transform a game concept into its context, a designer must further unfold the concept to answer questions like “where and when does the game take place?” and “which characters or entities are involved, and in which circumstances?”. Finding out which are the right questions is often trickier than finding the right answers to them.
As said before, concept and context do not necessarily involve interaction or entertainment, which are major features of any game. Thus, one of the main challenges of the top-down approach is that this process often requires that the game designer introduces fun elements into concepts that are not necessarily entertaining by themselves, or at least not as much as a game should be. For example, a game concept derived from a very serious book must still turn out to be a fun experience.
Famous game designer and BioShock mastermind Ken Levine has something to say about fun: “Game designers have a weird job. At root, it is their responsibility to ensure that a game is fun to play. The problem with being a game designer is 'fun' is an extremely relative term.”
Typical situations in which top-down game design cognition is applied are games based on existing IPs from other media, such as books and movies. In these cases, it is common that the game's concept and general context have already been defined by the source material, and so the game designer must work downwards in order to turn such material into a truly interactive and entertaining experience. A spin-off of an existing game series, where the contextual elements are maintained but the gameplay is changed, is another example of a situation where a mostly top-down approach is used.
From Verbs to Variables to Vision: The Bottom-Up Approach
Before we start talking about the bottom-up approach, let us clarify some differences between our definition and the one presented in the excellent article “The Designer's Notebook: The Perils of Bottom-up Game Design” by industry expert Ernest Adams.
In Adams' view, bottom-up game design occurs when an existing mechanism, not related to gaming at all, is used as the baseline for the construction of a game. Adams points out that such an approach can lead to overly and unnecessarily complex game mechanics. The whole difference is that, in our case, we are talking about bottom-up cognition, rather than bottom-up design; our mechanisms are always game-driven by nature, since our process starts with verbs, which are already components of a game. Any non-game mechanics must be processed and turned into a game system through the top-down cognition process.
Bottom-up game design cognition can be seen, in some sense, as the process of finding excuses to successfully apply a particularly fun gameplay verb or mechanic, complementing it with the appropriate setting, content and story. And if we look at some of the most well-known game developers in the industry, we will find out that such process is used more often than not. Take, for instance, id Software's highly-praised series Doom and Quake. As David Kushner's excellent testimony in “Masters of Doom” tells us, these games were built barely as excuses for the brutal, over-the-top shooting gameplay that Carmack and Romero had devised.
Let us say, for example, that our next first-person shooter will feature a unique weapon that can split a target into smaller and weaker parts that can then be shot upon again. What kind of weapon is that? What objects (or characters) are we shooting at, and how do they split? Why are we shooting them, in the first place? Answering questions such as these is the core of the bottom-up cognitive process.
Designing an expansion of an established game is a typical situation in which mostly the bottom-up approach is applied. Expansions generally imply that the major gameplay elements from the original game are maintained; this way, most of the verbs, mechanics and even features layers are already defined from the start, and the designer has to define content and context that fit well with the rest, still providing the player with a fresh experience in a familiar gameplay setting.
Rafael: Take that, you stupid alien!
Gilliard: Dude, aren't they... like... demons?
Rafael: Umm... Er... Whatever... Can I just keep shooting at them?
Conclusion
There is no such thing as a recipe for game design cognition (or any cognitive process for that matter). In the end, the main outcome of this article is that the practical game design process involves a mixed approach between top-down and bottom-up cognition.
Bringing together those little pieces of gameplay inspiration into something fun can be quite a challenge that involves several iterations of top-down and bottom-up thinking. But it is a challenge that we hope to have made easier and more approachable by studying the different layers of game design and their relationships during the cognitive process.
We also hope to have inspired you to think of meta-design more frequently and profoundly, as we truly believe it is a very important path for us, as designers, to evolve in our craft towards even richer and more entertaining games.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
