|
[In this Gamasutra design feature, original Lara Croft/Tomb Raider creator Toby Gard here outlines a process for designing action/adventure gameplay that will satisfy the needs of both your player and your game's story, in the first installment of a multi-part series. To read Part 2 of this feature, click
here.]
Intro -
Delegation
Different people
have different approaches to delegating design responsibilities.
I have seen creative
directors who seem to have no vision of their own but merely act as filters
through which their team's ideas are strained.
I have also seen
creative directors who form a rough image of what they want in their heads and
then delegate the design to their team after loosely describing it to them.
Inevitably the team then repeatedly fail to deliver his expected
"right" solution.
A better approach
than searching for mind-reading designers, is for the creative leads to express
clearly both what they want and where the flexibility is, so that their team
can know how to take ownership without getting lost in the creative wilds.
I believe that
balance is achieved when an unwavering core vision is delivered to the team
(based on the whole team's input and feedback) and then responsibilities are
delegated with clearly defined parameters for success.
This first
article describes stage 1 of a process that does just that, based on the
methods that I have found the most successful.
The process
attempts to balance to a healthy amount of creative freedom and ownership for a
level team, while keeping a structured vision in place by defining what details
are essential to work out first and communicate to the team and what parts are
better to be delegated with success criteria.
The steps that
the entire process describes can be just as useful for an individual designer
regardless of the level of delegation expected to occur.
Since every
project has its own needs and team structure, this process is unlikely to translate
exactly for you. However, many of the concepts can be adapted for just about
any story-centric game.
Stage 1 Level
Flow Diagrams
The first step in
the clear communication of vision for level design is delivering the Level Flow
Diagram.
There are four
sources from which the high level design plan should be drawn:
Motivation - What
am I doing here?
Like any good
scene or chapter from a book, the conflict and resolution of a level should be
born from the main character's motivations. This is why the character's
motivations should always be clear to the player or they will feel lost and
directionless.
These motivations
translate into game objectives such as "find the man who killed your
lover" or more simply, "kill Boss 5 of 10". The strongest objectives
are ones where character and player motivations are in alignment.
It is not enough
to simply state the objective or motivation of a character if you want to
create alignment. You also need to make it matter to the player if you want
them to become invested in it.
For instance,
showing through cutscenes that the main character hates a boss enemy, while
letting the player know they must kill that boss to progress, results in a much
weaker alignment than giving the player reason to hate that boss enemy.
If that boss
enemy betrays the player after the player has come to trust him or if he takes
something from the player (for instance by killing an NPC that the player has
come to care about) then the player and the character will both have a real
reason to hate him.
The time it takes
to setup player motivation is why it is so hard to align player motivation and
character motivation in an opening cutscene.
Often you have no
choice but to state the character motivations right at the beginning, in which
case the player will only have an intellectual rather than emotional alignment
with him or her.
To strengthen
that alignment through the game, the motivation "I want to bring my
girlfriend back to life" must be completely linked to the player objective
"Kill the Colossus."
If the objectives
are not directly related to the motivation (for example, if you spend most of
your time being waylaid by endless rat killing quests) then the player will
lose sight of the meaning behind their experience and their alignment with the
main character's motivation will erode along with their interest in continuing
to play.
|
Excited to see future installments of this article!!
If I'm going to ask people to give me money, it doesn't seem unfair to consider their interests in addition to whatever inspires me.
Perhaps for a future entry; I would love to read what you'd see fit to scribe about what might be different approaches / techniques for developing / brewing level designs and mission flows when the governing source material is an established IP / License versus one you're fortunate enough to be able to craft from scratch?
Cheers,
e
But it's hard to fully embrace the position you seem to be taking, which (as I read it; please correct me if my perception is wrong) is that any consideration of audience interests must weaken the artist's vision. Do you see no value in trying to identify what things move audiences, and from that information figuring out how to produce those things?
Games are not just form; they have a function, which is to entertain. The form does matter -- I'm in the camp that says computer games are an artistic product -- but the function matters, too. Just as a car designer ought to have an understanding of how people like to drive and ride in vehicles, and a bridge designer has to consider getting cars from Point A to Point B in addition to any aesthetic qualities, so a game designer is wise IMO to understand how people like to play, and how to build systems that satisfy those playstyle preferences.
If your concern is that the how-to stuff can sometimes be presented in too mechanistic a way, I share that concern. People following a recipe are cooks, not chefs. But if you want to learn how to be a chef, you have to start somewhere!
This how-to guide from Toby Gard seems like a pretty good starting point to me. Not only does it offer specific suggestions on the mechanics, which do matter, he comes right out and says that real game design starts with the delivery of an "unwavering core vision."
That's the "what," which sounds very much like your "creator creating what he wants." All the rest is "how," which is exactly what a wise leader solicits ideas for.
I honestly don't get the impression that the author is advocating that designers second-guess what players want to the detriment of a single coherent artistic vision, but that's just me; YMMV.
It reminds me of one of the first scenes in Half-Life 2, where a guard makes the player pick up a piece of trash from the floor and put it in a garbage bin. That was worth a thousand cut-scenes. It's no longer about Gordon Freeman, that guard has been a jerk to *me*.
I think this kind of formal technique is pretty important for larger teams, where it's a lot trickier to get everyone collaborating towards a common design/vision/feel/story/etc.
Yea, Spielberg, Lucas and Cameron all made movies they wanted to make, but they also made movies they wanted to see or thought should be seen.
When I'm creating any type of art, it usually is something I enjoy myself. Specifically when pertaining to games, I'm constantly projecting myself into the player and asking myself "Is this fun?" "Would I think this is cool if I just picked up this controller?" ... etc.