Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Design: Transcend the Box from the Start!
"I want to make an RPG."
"I'm designing a first-person shooter."
"I've got this cool idea for an RTS..."
"So I'm working on this side-scrolling shooter..."
If you hang out in game development forums, you'll see postings like this. I've been guilty of saying things like this, too.
These are CATEGORIES of games. Neat little boxes invented by fans and marketing guys to put games in to add shorthand descriptors to make purchasing decisions easier. They aren't games. While it's definitely a good thing to borrow conventions from these categories, the danger you run into if you start your design process from inside that box, your thinking will never go far outside of it.
Sid Meier's approach (or at least the approach he used to take) was to make a game about a subject. He said he'd try to pull out all the elements of that subject (he used his original Pirates! game as the example) that sounded like fun, and see how many he could fit together. Getting them to fit together harmoniously could be a trick. In a speech he gave at GDC many summers ago, his talk was entitled (I think), "How I almost destroyed Civilization." I don't remember all the details (I didn't go... I've not been in the industry THAT long - I had to read about it in a magazine), but I remember he considered for a long time making Civilization real-time. That's a pretty defining characteristic to be undecided on.
What would the PC gaming landscape be if he'd only said, "I want to make an adventure game. I'll theme it based on human advancement through the centuries."? A lot less interesting, for one thing.
The popularity of game categories rise and fall pretty regularly. Once-dominant genres fade, new ones rise up, and sometimes old categories reappear and kick butt. In the mid-to-late 90's, the common wisdom was that RPGs didn't sell, and that it was a dead genre. Then we had Diablo and Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy 7 happen, and pretty much knocked common wisdom on its butt. It wasn't about the categories - it was about the games! The categories grew stale because too many games that were all alike, and even the good ones were hard to recognize amongst the pile of derivative junk that were all alike. They all matched the boxes they were put in pretty well.
Twisted Metal was a game I worked on which actually created a (small) category. The "Vehicular shooter," I guess. Several people working on it had different ideas of what it would be. From my background, I immediately put it in the box I was most familiar with, the "sim" game. I was thinking of the Car Wars tabletop game and sci-fi "simulators." Some of the guys working on it were thinking first-person shooters in cars. Sony's producer on the project, Dave Jaffe, was thinking Fighting Games, of all things! Street Fighter in cars. The monstrosity we ended up with turned out to be none of these things, but it also turned out pretty cool, and was a signature series for the Playstation. It also spawned some pretty cool imitators, thus becoming a mini-category of its own.
Battlefront.com was formed by wargame developers who found themselves unable to work in the "mainstream" game industry anymore because the category was no longer a staple of PC games. The created a game called "Combat Mission" which transcended the traditional bounds of wargames on many levels. It still simulated a battle in a turn-based format, but comparing it to the traditional hex-grid-and-counter style wargames was difficult at best. They couldn't really get a publisher, so they sold the game mail-order. While the game didn't exactly take the world by storm, it was a major success. For the sequel, they apparently had no problem getting it onto store shelves. I don't know if they started with the idea of doing a wargame but abandoned all the traditional ideas of what a wargame should be later, or if they started by saying, "We want to fight a battle where you can really see the units duking it out cinematically and in 3D so it looks more like a war movie that you play in stages." However they did it, they created a revolutionary game that redefined the concept of a 'war game,' and they were apparently successful at it.
Don't start with a category and try to dress it up in a theme later. Don't limit your thinking by starting your design from inside an existing, well-established, well-explored category. Explore a theme from the start rather than simply dressing up an old idea in a new theme. You can always impose category restrictions on it later if and where you need to.
Transcend the box from the start!
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I did a lot of kvetching about the limitation of genre some time ago. It seems to me that genre terms are perfect marketing tools to give an audience an idea of the gameplay elements they can expect, but terrible design tools.
Damion Schubert has posted an interesting take on this issue. His point is that you shouldn't restrict the category by the boundaries of its dominant representatives.
So just because Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life, F.E.A.R., and a couple hundred other First Person Shooters let you pick up any ol' weapon or ammunition you happen to see lying around like a one-man-band of violence, it doesn't mean that this is a defining characteristic of a First Person Shooter.
Though if you don't have it, some critics are still gonna gripe.
So just because Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life, F.E.A.R., and a couple hundred other First Person Shooters let you pick up any ol' weapon or ammunition you happen to see lying around like a one-man-band of violence, it doesn't mean that this is a defining characteristic of a First Person Shooter.
Though if you don't have it, some critics are still gonna gripe.
I don't think it's all that bad to think in terms of genre. It's a different starting point, not necessarily the wrong starting point.
In Scott McCloud's excellent Understanding Comics, he points out near the end that there are a half-dozen layers in creating a "product" or piece of art (from the superifical, or surface, aesthetics traced all the way back through craft to the initial idea). He makes the point that once an artist has successfully worked at all of the levels, he inevitably begins every new project at one of two starting points: either the idea or the form.
By form, Scott is meaning "is it a song, a movie, a poem, a comic, a game, a car, ..." So, if you start with the form, you're saying "I want to make a game! Now, what should my game be about...?" If you start with an idea, like "love", you then must decide how you plan on expressing that idea ("paper matche!").
I think the "form" can also be applied within a chosen form as Scott uses the term, i.e. within the game making process (or rather, interactive design), one could start with either the idea ("You're a pirate!") or the form ("It's an FPS!"). I think either is valid.
I would agree with your follow-up comment: just because you identify a form doens't mean you should constrain yourself to the other examples of that form. Anyone fluent in games realizes that saying "FPS" leaves a lot of room for design yet (think Half-Life vs. Doom vs. Battlefield). I think what strikes you as "wrong" about the whole thing is when the less experienced designers say "I want to make an FPS!" and they literally mean they want to replicate FPS's they've seen and played with mere aesthetic differences. No less valid, but not exactly game design. It's art direction.
Post a Comment
In Scott McCloud's excellent Understanding Comics, he points out near the end that there are a half-dozen layers in creating a "product" or piece of art (from the superifical, or surface, aesthetics traced all the way back through craft to the initial idea). He makes the point that once an artist has successfully worked at all of the levels, he inevitably begins every new project at one of two starting points: either the idea or the form.
By form, Scott is meaning "is it a song, a movie, a poem, a comic, a game, a car, ..." So, if you start with the form, you're saying "I want to make a game! Now, what should my game be about...?" If you start with an idea, like "love", you then must decide how you plan on expressing that idea ("paper matche!").
I think the "form" can also be applied within a chosen form as Scott uses the term, i.e. within the game making process (or rather, interactive design), one could start with either the idea ("You're a pirate!") or the form ("It's an FPS!"). I think either is valid.
I would agree with your follow-up comment: just because you identify a form doens't mean you should constrain yourself to the other examples of that form. Anyone fluent in games realizes that saying "FPS" leaves a lot of room for design yet (think Half-Life vs. Doom vs. Battlefield). I think what strikes you as "wrong" about the whole thing is when the less experienced designers say "I want to make an FPS!" and they literally mean they want to replicate FPS's they've seen and played with mere aesthetic differences. No less valid, but not exactly game design. It's art direction.
Links to this post:
<< Home


