Game Design Theory 101

[dynamic1]

As a budding game programmer/game designer (more of the first initially, heh), I'm wondering what people here have to say in terms of basic tips for design. What sorts of decisions have you seen in games that made you say "It was smart of the designers to do this" ?

A good example is the sense of humor in QFG that relies largely on puns... this is a pretty minor decision but for a lot of people, I think it really sets the tone of the game and goes a long way in helping them get enjoyment out of it.

I don't know how many people here have played Half Life (a Sierra game, so it's fair game, no pun intended) but I think one of the reasons that game was popular was the fact that the main character, Gordon, never spoke... nor can you ever seen his feet or hands or reflection or anything else like that. I didn't notice it at first, but it really helps to immerse the player into the game. This is the same reason I loved the Square RPG for the SNES, Chrono Trigger... the main character never spoke, so I think it helped to get people to see themselves as Crono.

So I submit the first "tip" of Game Design Theory 101 to be that immersion in a game can be accomplished by removing all of the main character's lines and not having them do much in "scripted sequences."

Another guideline that I think is important is rewarding a player for accomplishing a task. This seems like common sense, but I find that a lot of games don't do this well, and they end up being somewhat of a bore. You just feel like you are doing all these things and besides the doing itself you don't feel like it matters. Rewards can be as simple as in-game money, or as comples as a story sequence.

So what are other cardinal rules of game design?

[MasterG]

In Chrono Trigger, all Crono not speaking and just shaking his head and all that made me think was that he was a boring, stupid mute with no depth.

Of course if he spoke I probably would have thought he was a boring, stupid chatterbox with no depth. :-p (I hate console RPGs, heh)

Anyway, for me, a strong and interesting protagonist in a game gives it a sense of character as well... the way he or she perceives the game world will influence how I view it, I think. For example, if you have a sarcastic dude who laughs at every villain's stupid hair I'll probably laugh, too, and it will mark the game I am playing as one that does not take itself seriously.

I agree with your point about Freeman and the Hero, though. I imagined responses to what the NPCs in QFG said, actually.

Of course, when it comes down to it, it's all the skill of the writer, artist, programmer and the rest of the team.

[Erpy]

I disagree. While no protagonist is arguably better than a weak main character, I like a strongly defined protagonist with his own character. Take Gabriel Knight, for instance. Part of the charm of playing is the fact that Gabriel is not the typical player, but a womanising, sarcastic smart-ass. That causes situations that are very interesting and amusing to read, but wouldn't happen if the player was to decide the character, for I would interact with NPC's in a different way than he would.

[MasterG]

You can't just say "Hey, people still laud the story of Half-Life, or at least the way it was presented, so let's rip off their idea for making Gordon Freeman a non-entity." that line of thinking leads to stagnation, which can be seen everyday in the amateur adventure gaming community through the endless amounts of tributes to Monkey Island.

Think of your own ideas, and if they happen to be similar to another game's, that's okay, as long as you put everything together in your own personal way.

[dynamic1]

First of all, I think both of you grossly misunderstood the bit about the silent hero... I never said that a silent hero makes for a better protaganist. All I'm saying is that when looking to "immerse" a player, silencing your hero is an effective way to help accomplsih that. If immersion into the main character's shoes isn't your goal, then it makes more sense to infuse your character with some pesonality.

And MasterG, I think there's a lot of value in examining what the designers of the past did right. I'm not saying "let's rip off everyone else's game"... but isn't it better, when writing a book, to know how to write? And what's knowing how to write? It's understanding some of the "rules" that have made the authors before you successful. Understanding those rules is important, I think... even if all you're going to do is BREAK those rules.

I think it's nearly impossible for a budding creativist (as in, a budding game designer, budding writer, budding filmmaker, budding artist, etc) to produce something truly great without first trying to understand the medium itself. A good example is the 2004 movie Primer. It was filmed, directed, written, scored, edited, and acted by a guy named Sahne Carruth, who had never gone to film (or acting) school, and was, in fact, an engineer by trade. Despite this, eh didn't just grab a camera and start filming. He spent two years asking everyone in Hollywood how to make films. That doesn't mean he ripped off their ideas... in fac,t the best thing about Primer was that the style was so fresh since Carruth didn't follow many of the rules direcotrs who go to school for it do. But it does mean he understood some of the basic rules that went into making a successful movie. Then he was able to sort through them and apply the rules that he felt worked well in his movie and discard those he didn't need.

Besides, silent protaganists are not "from Half Life". I'm not ripping anything off if I were to use a silent protaganist in my game. I'm simply making an observation about game design. There are plenty of games out there that use silent main characters to make you feel like YOU'RE the main character. Is this the only way to do it? Of course not. But a game designer can't re-invent the wheel over and over and over. Sometimes it's better to rely on something tried and true that way you can focus your creativity on another aspect of your game where you feel a little extra originality might be more effective.

So... besides the silent protaganist thing, what other general "tips" (not "rules for a better game") are there present in gaming today?

[MasterG]

I'm not saying that you wanted to rip anything off. I assumed this thread was a kind of open-letter deal, as in, directed to anyone who visited this forum and was interested in reading tips for game design.

Basically I was saying that too often these days, the only thought processes that go into new games are what can be taken from past successes to make a nice, safe clone.

There's nothing wrong with cribbing inspiration from your forebearers, when it's done in a respectful, homage-paying or lampooning manner. Or even just the rote inspiration taking that's present in, say, the shoot 'em up game world. Gradius' upgrade system begets Darius begets etc.  

Let's take a look at one of my favourite superheroes for an example, Hellboy... When you boil him down, he's basically a Jack Kirby-esque hero with big Lovecraftian influences, and other stuff that eludes me at the moment. Yet he can hardly be called a ripoff. Mike Mignola blended together the familiar in a dynamic, new way, and created a wonderful character who I believe will outlast him.

So I guess that's what I meant. :-p

Oh, and for the whole silent, unseen protagonist deal, the best game to ever do that was probably Zork. As you played it it felt like YOU were a sneaker clad dungeon adventurer, running about picking crap up and eluding cyclopses.

I also wouldn't say that a game with a protagonist with a character of his own is not a submersive experience either. You just have to put more of yourself aside to slide in.

[Brainiac]

In Chrono Trigger, all Crono not speaking and just shaking his head and all that made me think was that he was a boring, stupid mute with no depth.

Obviously you never got the Slide Show ending.

Ah, Chrono Trigger; such fond memories...

[Oilers99]

Out of curiousity, are you the same dynamic1 who posts on the GS forums?

[Oilers99]

As for the original question, I don't think there are any cardinal rules of game design, except for "don't do anything stupid". If you go from genre to genre, the qualities that make a good game vary, and you can often find games that break those rules, and still manage to be quite good. The only thing you can do is to consider what you want to do, how you want to express it, and how the player is going to express themselves, then try to construct a theory that will allow you to design that game as best as possible. Granted, I'm no expert, but I'm just starting to develop some gaming theory on my own, and I find the process of thinking in terms of the target of the game, and the purpose of the player to be a lot of fun, and very intriguing. Hopefully, this means I'm cut out to be a game designer.