I recently found that there are now two other blogs about teaching game design:
Boardgame designer and professor Lou Pulsipher has a new blog at http://teachgamedesign.blogspot.com/,
and game programmer Mark Doughty apparently created a blog at http://teachinggamedesign.blogspot.com/ (although this one is currently inactive).
I'd like to welcome these new players to the field. (I say "new" somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as Lou at least has been teaching far longer than I have.) I originally started this blog because there were no other resources for teaching game design on the Web; it looks like pretty soon there will be!
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Textbook Review: Introduction to Game Development
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Introduction to Game Development" (Steve Rabin)
This ginormous book is a fairly comprehensive look at all aspects of game development: art, design, programming, production, audio, business and even a little bit on academic game studies. (As with the rest of the industry, QA is largely ignored.) It's actually a collection of essays and articles written by a wide variety of experienced game developers; Rabin is the editor, not the author. The list of topics was developed according to the IGDA Curriculum Framework and there are exercises at the end of each section; newer editions include a CD-ROM with pre-fabricated Powerpoint presentations ready to use in the classroom... if you're the kind of teacher who likes to read bullet points off of slides. Anyway, this was very clearly meant to be a textbook, possibly the textbook (as in, One Textbook to rule them all, or perhaps the Ultimate Textbook Of Ultimate Destiny).
As might be expected, Programming and Art get the most attention; those disciplines are more quantifiable, have more direct and better understood application outside of game development, and they are the most common entry-level positions (other than QA). As a result, most academic programs already focus on either Programming or Art, so a grand-unified-theory textbook such as this would want to put its attention on the same areas that schools do.
The book's size and scope is in some ways a disadvantage. No single course can cover the entire text, and its sheer bulk is inherently intimidating. It is expensive, and its generality means that any given course probably has other textbooks with a tighter focus that are more relevant.
On the other hand, if several instructors collaborate and agree to use the book in all of their respective courses, this one text could serve as a constant companion to students across an entire curriculum. While Introduction is inherently weak in some areas (notably game design), it gives a solid list of references to other works; any question that a student may have about any aspect of game development is probably either answered in this book, or in one of its direct citations.
Students: Personally, I think every student should own this book as a reference guide, the same way everyone used to own a dictionary and thesaurus before the Web made those obsolete. That said, I went so far as to make this textbook required (and even assigned some readings from it) in several of my courses last year, and for the most part my students ignored it -- whether from the intimidation factor or the expense, I don't know.
Instructors: If you require this book, be prepared to go all the way with it: make sure there are enough assigned readings and problem sets that supplement your existing course that it's worth the trouble. Ideally, work with other professors so that the book is used across several classes. That said, for game design in particular, I think there are better books out there; this is best used in a more general program, or especially an art- or programming-focused curriculum that has a Game Design course on the side.
Professionals: Even at the professional level, this is still a decent reference text. It would come in most handy if you're asked to do something outside of your specialty (a graphics programmer being asked to do some AI, for example) or if you just want a better understanding of what your co-workers do all day. It's probably best to just ask your manager to get a shared copy for the office, rather than having to own your own personal book.
"Introduction to Game Development" (Steve Rabin)
This ginormous book is a fairly comprehensive look at all aspects of game development: art, design, programming, production, audio, business and even a little bit on academic game studies. (As with the rest of the industry, QA is largely ignored.) It's actually a collection of essays and articles written by a wide variety of experienced game developers; Rabin is the editor, not the author. The list of topics was developed according to the IGDA Curriculum Framework and there are exercises at the end of each section; newer editions include a CD-ROM with pre-fabricated Powerpoint presentations ready to use in the classroom... if you're the kind of teacher who likes to read bullet points off of slides. Anyway, this was very clearly meant to be a textbook, possibly the textbook (as in, One Textbook to rule them all, or perhaps the Ultimate Textbook Of Ultimate Destiny).
As might be expected, Programming and Art get the most attention; those disciplines are more quantifiable, have more direct and better understood application outside of game development, and they are the most common entry-level positions (other than QA). As a result, most academic programs already focus on either Programming or Art, so a grand-unified-theory textbook such as this would want to put its attention on the same areas that schools do.
The book's size and scope is in some ways a disadvantage. No single course can cover the entire text, and its sheer bulk is inherently intimidating. It is expensive, and its generality means that any given course probably has other textbooks with a tighter focus that are more relevant.
On the other hand, if several instructors collaborate and agree to use the book in all of their respective courses, this one text could serve as a constant companion to students across an entire curriculum. While Introduction is inherently weak in some areas (notably game design), it gives a solid list of references to other works; any question that a student may have about any aspect of game development is probably either answered in this book, or in one of its direct citations.
Students: Personally, I think every student should own this book as a reference guide, the same way everyone used to own a dictionary and thesaurus before the Web made those obsolete. That said, I went so far as to make this textbook required (and even assigned some readings from it) in several of my courses last year, and for the most part my students ignored it -- whether from the intimidation factor or the expense, I don't know.
Instructors: If you require this book, be prepared to go all the way with it: make sure there are enough assigned readings and problem sets that supplement your existing course that it's worth the trouble. Ideally, work with other professors so that the book is used across several classes. That said, for game design in particular, I think there are better books out there; this is best used in a more general program, or especially an art- or programming-focused curriculum that has a Game Design course on the side.
Professionals: Even at the professional level, this is still a decent reference text. It would come in most handy if you're asked to do something outside of your specialty (a graphics programmer being asked to do some AI, for example) or if you just want a better understanding of what your co-workers do all day. It's probably best to just ask your manager to get a shared copy for the office, rather than having to own your own personal book.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Textbook Review: Fundamentals of Game Design
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Fundamentals of Game Design" (Ernest Adams, Andrew Rollings)
This book covers the core concepts of the field of game design, and for good measure adds an in-depth look at a large number of currently-popular genres and the design elements specific to each.
I love the structure of Fundamentals; the topics flow nicely into one another, and the exercises at the end of each chapter make it easy to design lessons around. The coverage of game genres may be unique to this book; on the other hand, as new styles of gameplay are invented and others lose favor, this book will eventually date itself.
As for the content itself, the majority is (more or less) the sole opinions of the authors, and as such should be taken as a set of theories – not scientific laws. Like a programming code or religious text, this book is meant to be interpreted and discussed, not blindly followed.
Students: This book is absolutely worth reading once you’ve already studied the basics of game design and want to get into specifics. Do not read this as your first book; you’ll be tempted to assume that everything in here must be taken as gospel, and it has the danger of tainting your own artistic vision for years until you un-learn it. But as your study advances, you can properly see this as one approach of many, and the content will give you a valuable perspective.
Instructors: The worst way to use this book is to lecture directly from the text in an introductory course. I have great respect for the authors, but our industry does not need a new generation of Adams and Rollings clones; it needs creative people who can think for themselves. My preferred use of this book would be in an advanced, conceptual class where students already have a foundation in conceptual and practical game design; class time would consist not of lecture, but of moderated discussion. Everything in the book is subject to heated debate (even from the beginning with the definition of what a “game” is) and the debates in an advanced class would be wonderful.
Professionals: Experienced game developers will probably get little out of this book. If you have always been highly specialized and want to learn more about other areas of design then this book can help you, but that’s about it.
"Fundamentals of Game Design" (Ernest Adams, Andrew Rollings)
This book covers the core concepts of the field of game design, and for good measure adds an in-depth look at a large number of currently-popular genres and the design elements specific to each.
I love the structure of Fundamentals; the topics flow nicely into one another, and the exercises at the end of each chapter make it easy to design lessons around. The coverage of game genres may be unique to this book; on the other hand, as new styles of gameplay are invented and others lose favor, this book will eventually date itself.
As for the content itself, the majority is (more or less) the sole opinions of the authors, and as such should be taken as a set of theories – not scientific laws. Like a programming code or religious text, this book is meant to be interpreted and discussed, not blindly followed.
Students: This book is absolutely worth reading once you’ve already studied the basics of game design and want to get into specifics. Do not read this as your first book; you’ll be tempted to assume that everything in here must be taken as gospel, and it has the danger of tainting your own artistic vision for years until you un-learn it. But as your study advances, you can properly see this as one approach of many, and the content will give you a valuable perspective.
Instructors: The worst way to use this book is to lecture directly from the text in an introductory course. I have great respect for the authors, but our industry does not need a new generation of Adams and Rollings clones; it needs creative people who can think for themselves. My preferred use of this book would be in an advanced, conceptual class where students already have a foundation in conceptual and practical game design; class time would consist not of lecture, but of moderated discussion. Everything in the book is subject to heated debate (even from the beginning with the definition of what a “game” is) and the debates in an advanced class would be wonderful.
Professionals: Experienced game developers will probably get little out of this book. If you have always been highly specialized and want to learn more about other areas of design then this book can help you, but that’s about it.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Rant: The Need for Accreditation in Game Design Programs
I just saw a job posting on the HR website of a university that I will not name here, for a "Digital Game Design Faculty".
Requirements for the position:
The really sad thing is, these people probably have no idea what they're doing, nor will the person that they hire. And this will ultimately be a black mark on all education, not just this particular school, as the industry sees just how many schools mis-name their academic programs... and if the name isn't even right, what would you assume about the quality of instruction?
The only way I see out of this is industry accreditation, probably through the IGDA. Because universities can only be honest with students if they know enough about the subject material to proceed honestly in the first place.
Requirements for the position:
- Bachelor’s degree in education with experience in graphic design and animation.
- Proficient with Maya, Swift3D, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Flash, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Final Cut Pro, Motion, and DVD Studio Pro.
The really sad thing is, these people probably have no idea what they're doing, nor will the person that they hire. And this will ultimately be a black mark on all education, not just this particular school, as the industry sees just how many schools mis-name their academic programs... and if the name isn't even right, what would you assume about the quality of instruction?
The only way I see out of this is industry accreditation, probably through the IGDA. Because universities can only be honest with students if they know enough about the subject material to proceed honestly in the first place.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Textbook Review: Game Design, Theory & Practice
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Game Design, Theory & Practice (2nd Ed.)" (Richard Rouse III)
This relatively well-known book was an early stab at a book about game design for non-designers (by “early” I mean that it’s more than five years old, thus predating many of today’s college curricula and the majority of other textbooks I've reviewed). It includes an eclectic mix of game analysis, best practices, and interviews with influential designers.
Most of the content is at a pretty basic level, making it an easy read. Of course, this also limits its usefulness to more experienced designers. Each chapter is mostly self-contained; this also makes it easy to read (one chapter at a time, and if you put it down for a few months you don't have to repeat old sections that you'd forgotten) but also makes the book feel a bit disjointed.
Students: This book is a great place to start for self-study if you know you want to design games but you don't know where to begin. It will help you understand the field, by showing you how some designers approach their craft, and you will come away with a variety of new perspectives on how to make games.
Instructors: It’s probably my own inexperience as a teacher, but I haven’t figured out how to include this book in a class (much as I’d like to). The topics don’t flow well, every chapter seems disconnected from the others, and there are no exercises or questions at the end of any chapter, so using this book would require a lot of extra prep work on the part of the instructor. This is perhaps not so surprising; it was never written for the express purpose of being used as a classroom text, after all.
Professionals: If you’ve already got a couple of shipped titles under your belt, most of the practical advice in this book will be nothing new to you. You may still find it entertaining, but it will probably not be of great help in honing your craft.
"Game Design, Theory & Practice (2nd Ed.)" (Richard Rouse III)
This relatively well-known book was an early stab at a book about game design for non-designers (by “early” I mean that it’s more than five years old, thus predating many of today’s college curricula and the majority of other textbooks I've reviewed). It includes an eclectic mix of game analysis, best practices, and interviews with influential designers.
Most of the content is at a pretty basic level, making it an easy read. Of course, this also limits its usefulness to more experienced designers. Each chapter is mostly self-contained; this also makes it easy to read (one chapter at a time, and if you put it down for a few months you don't have to repeat old sections that you'd forgotten) but also makes the book feel a bit disjointed.
Students: This book is a great place to start for self-study if you know you want to design games but you don't know where to begin. It will help you understand the field, by showing you how some designers approach their craft, and you will come away with a variety of new perspectives on how to make games.
Instructors: It’s probably my own inexperience as a teacher, but I haven’t figured out how to include this book in a class (much as I’d like to). The topics don’t flow well, every chapter seems disconnected from the others, and there are no exercises or questions at the end of any chapter, so using this book would require a lot of extra prep work on the part of the instructor. This is perhaps not so surprising; it was never written for the express purpose of being used as a classroom text, after all.
Professionals: If you’ve already got a couple of shipped titles under your belt, most of the practical advice in this book will be nothing new to you. You may still find it entertaining, but it will probably not be of great help in honing your craft.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Textbook Review: The Game Design Reader
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"The Game Design Reader" (Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman)
This companion to Rules of Play is simply a collection of important essays and other written works about games. It includes pretty much everything that I'd call "foundational" to the field: Costikyan's I Have No Words, Church's Formal Abstract Design Tools, Bartle's Player Types, and so on.
Unfortunately, it tries to be a little of everything; there's some New Games Journalism, some pieces on players and gamer culture, and other things that don't really have to do with designing a game. And most of the articles are freely available online anyway, making me wonder why I should force my students to pay some exorbitant amount of money for a textbook.
This is not to say that the articles (design-focused and otherwise) aren't useful. They are still important works in their own right, many people in the industry have read them already, and any serious student should read everything in this book. It's just that no matter what the subject of the course, the majority of the works in this book won't be relevant. I suppose you could build a course around the book, "Important Readings in the Game Industry," but I'm not at liberty to do that right now. An alternative is to require this book for several courses in game design and game studies, with each course covering different readings… but that requires a bit of coordination between professors to ensure minimal duplication, and pity the poor students who take half the courses only to have to purchase the same book again if it ever goes to a Second Edition.
Students: If you’re serious about games, you should have at least a passing familiarity with everything in this book. Buy it on your own and read it over a summer when you’ve got nothing else to do. Or, if you’re on a tight budget (and what student isn’t?), find the book in your local bookstore, copy down the table of contents, and track down all of the articles online. For those few readings that can’t be found online, you should be able to check out the appropriate works from a library, or just read them in the bookstore.
Instructors: I’ve gotten by with just assigning relevant online readings, without forcing students to buy this book. I do suggest to my students to track down additional relevant readings from the book on their own time.
Professionals: At the very least, take a look at the table of contents and see how much of it you recognize. If you haven’t seen anything mentioned, you’ve got some wonderful reading experiences ahead of you. More likely, you’ll recognize some important works that you’ve encountered before, and the rest won’t be relevant to you. Take a look and decide for yourself.
"The Game Design Reader" (Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman)
This companion to Rules of Play is simply a collection of important essays and other written works about games. It includes pretty much everything that I'd call "foundational" to the field: Costikyan's I Have No Words, Church's Formal Abstract Design Tools, Bartle's Player Types, and so on.
Unfortunately, it tries to be a little of everything; there's some New Games Journalism, some pieces on players and gamer culture, and other things that don't really have to do with designing a game. And most of the articles are freely available online anyway, making me wonder why I should force my students to pay some exorbitant amount of money for a textbook.
This is not to say that the articles (design-focused and otherwise) aren't useful. They are still important works in their own right, many people in the industry have read them already, and any serious student should read everything in this book. It's just that no matter what the subject of the course, the majority of the works in this book won't be relevant. I suppose you could build a course around the book, "Important Readings in the Game Industry," but I'm not at liberty to do that right now. An alternative is to require this book for several courses in game design and game studies, with each course covering different readings… but that requires a bit of coordination between professors to ensure minimal duplication, and pity the poor students who take half the courses only to have to purchase the same book again if it ever goes to a Second Edition.
Students: If you’re serious about games, you should have at least a passing familiarity with everything in this book. Buy it on your own and read it over a summer when you’ve got nothing else to do. Or, if you’re on a tight budget (and what student isn’t?), find the book in your local bookstore, copy down the table of contents, and track down all of the articles online. For those few readings that can’t be found online, you should be able to check out the appropriate works from a library, or just read them in the bookstore.
Instructors: I’ve gotten by with just assigning relevant online readings, without forcing students to buy this book. I do suggest to my students to track down additional relevant readings from the book on their own time.
Professionals: At the very least, take a look at the table of contents and see how much of it you recognize. If you haven’t seen anything mentioned, you’ve got some wonderful reading experiences ahead of you. More likely, you’ll recognize some important works that you’ve encountered before, and the rest won’t be relevant to you. Take a look and decide for yourself.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Textbook Review: From Blue Sky To Green Light
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Game Design: From Blue Sky to Green Light" (Deborah Todd)
This relatively short book covers everything that happens in preproduction; it gives a reasonable treatment to game design documents and the iterative process, and it even has a section on pitching a game to a publisher. It also covers the creative aspects of game design that I myself am weakest at: storytelling, character design and level design.
Overall, the book delivers what it promises, and not much else. You won’t find a lick of material on technical game design, content development during the actual creation of a game, or anything like that.
The only real weakness of the book is that it’s extremely current and uses a lot of very recent examples (as of the time of publication). This means it is likely to obsolete itself in a fairly short time, as the games within become dated and the business of the industry (hopefully) moves beyond the developer/publisher royalty-with-advance model. Although perhaps that’s intentional, if the author hopes and expects to make new editions every few years.
Students: Odds are, the first project you work on will already be in full production by the time you’re hired. Preproduction work, concepting and pitching are usually reserved for experienced design leads (not always, but usually), so this will not be immediately applicable to your first job. That gives you time to read it after you break in to the industry, if you're the procrastinating type. But if you’re curious what the early stages of a game project are like, you’ll get a pretty good overview by reading this book. It’s also not terribly big or intimidating, so reading it while still a student might not seem like such a daunting task.
Instructors: This book is rather specific to the earliest phases of game development, making its use limited in most classes. If you’re teaching a practical game design course where the deliverables include a one-page game concept, a slightly larger game proposal, a game design document and a verbal pitch to a “publisher” (i.e. the instructor), this book will cover you. If the only practical development course you teach involves all of that in the first three weeks and then it’s straight into prototyping, you might not have enough time to make the book worthwhile as a required text.
Professionals: Designers in the industry are still very guild/apprentice-like. If you do indeed start your first design job in the middle of a project, you’ll probably experience a few preproduction cycles vicariously through your leads before you’re forced to do it yourself. Depending on how you look at it, that either makes this book redundant with your experience, or it will reinforce it. In any case, it’s probably worth a read just to see what others have to say on the subject. And if you happen to find yourself in a small studio where you’re thrown into the role of Lead Designer on your first job fresh out of college… then you should read this just so you have some experience backing you up (even if it’s not your own).
Friday, August 31, 2007
Naches / Kvell
I just received news that one of my students (well, ex-student now, I suppose) just got his first game industry job as a designer. That makes two success stories total. Given how difficult it is to find an entry-level game design job, this makes me feel fulfilled in exactly the way I was hoping to be when I first became a teacher.
Interestingly, the two students who are now working as game designers were also the only two students of mine who attended GDC this year. I don't believe this is a coincidence at all. I tell all of my students that GDC is pretty much a mandatory step for anyone who wants to "break in", and now I have stronger evidence than just my own say-so.
Much as I'd love to take total credit for being such a great teacher, my students this year were pretty amazing. All I did was point them in the right direction, but they did all the legwork to reach their destinations.
For those unfamiliar with the terms Naches and Kvell, a description can be found here, on page 6 (the rest of the document is well worth reading too, especially if you're a game design student).
Interestingly, the two students who are now working as game designers were also the only two students of mine who attended GDC this year. I don't believe this is a coincidence at all. I tell all of my students that GDC is pretty much a mandatory step for anyone who wants to "break in", and now I have stronger evidence than just my own say-so.
Much as I'd love to take total credit for being such a great teacher, my students this year were pretty amazing. All I did was point them in the right direction, but they did all the legwork to reach their destinations.
For those unfamiliar with the terms Naches and Kvell, a description can be found here, on page 6 (the rest of the document is well worth reading too, especially if you're a game design student).
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Textbook Review: Rules of Play
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Rules of Play" (Katie Salen & Eric Zimmerman)
I’m really glad this book was written. It was the first book ever written about game design that actually looks like a textbook. It’s big, it’s heavy, it has lots of small-print writing with exercises at the end of each chapter and a bunch of appendices at the end. Its very existence gives the entire field some modicum of academic merit.
The content does not deal so much with how to design games per se, but instead gives many different ways to critically analyze games. For example, if you consider a game as a system of rules, you are going to see it differently than if you look at that same game as a narrative, or as a sociocultural activity, or… well, you get the idea. It is therefore useful to game designers only in the most abstract sense of gaining a deeper understanding of what these things called “games” are, these things that we work with every day.
As a bonus at the end of each of the four sections, there are the rules for a game you can play (I found most of them to be quite good). In addition to the game itself, we can also see the designer’s notes about how the game started out, what kinds of things were found in playtesting and how (and why) the designer addressed the game’s shortcomings. This insight into the brain of a designer-in-motion is most interesting, and practically worth the (hefty) price tag of the book on its own. There’s also an essay by Reiner Knizia, which also makes for great reading, even if it doesn’t necessarily fit the theme of the rest of the book.
Unfortunately, this book has a few weaknesses in its presentation. The writing is a bit on the long side. As a game designer, I found that if I just read the bullet-point summary at the end of each chapter, I usually got all of the information I needed; actually reading the chapter itself was a waste of time. (Yes, I read every chapter first, just to make sure.) I’m not sure if this is just from my experience; if there are any students in the audience who can say whether this was true for them as well, please post in the comments.
Also, the authors have this unfortunate tendency to create their own vocabulary. Their new terminology mingles liberally with established industry jargon, but with no mention of which is which. I can’t fault the authors for this (what else could they do?) but it does make it more difficult to use this as a textbook: my students who go to GDC should know what an Avatar is, but if they start talking about “schemas” and “constitutive rules” and “transformative social play” they’re just going to embarrass themselves.
Students: I doubt any student would choose to read this on their own. Most of you don’t enjoy reading to begin with, and a book this abstract would probably bore you to tears. You may be forced to read it as part of a game design class (and if so, you have my sympathy) but otherwise, you’re safe avoiding it for the time being if you want to be a game designer. If you’re more interested in game critique or game studies, you’ll probably find this quite useful and fascinating. I could never figure out game studies people.
Instructors: This book would be perfect for a “Critical Game Analysis” class that acts as a dual requirement for Game Studies and Game Development students. I’d expect it to be an upper-level class, simply because of the highly academic writing in the text. For any course focused entirely on game design, there are better texts; as noted above, this book does nothing to explain how to actually design games.
If you do use this book for a class, be sure to differentiate between the terminology used that already exists, versus that which was created by the authors. Your students should be able to speak clearly about games to people who haven’t already read Rules of Play.
Professionals: This book took me about half a year to read through from cover to cover (in my spare time, granted). You can get all the same benefits in a fraction of the time by just skipping to the end of each chapter and reading the summary, then going back and looking up anything that doesn’t make immediate “well, duh” sense to you. Also read the Knizia essay and commissioned games, of course. Do that and you’ll finish reading it in a few days.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Textbook Review: Game Design Workshop
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping & Playtesting Games" (Tracy Fullerton, Chris Swain, Steven Hoffman)
This book covers the core concepts and best practices of game design. It is organized into three parts. The first part gives a formal description of all of the different aspects of games, to build a framework for discussing how to design them. The second part talks about the iterative process as it applies to game design (in particular, how to prototype, focus test and playtest, and respond to feedback); in fact, this is the only game design book I've seen so far that does so. The last part gives an overview of the game industry and the job roles and responsibilities of the game designer.
The first part of the book gives a reasonable breakdown of games into their component parts. The second part gives great practical advice on the process of game development from a designer's point of view. The third part is easily the weakest link; it starts out worthless (everyone reading a book like this already knows what a game designer is, why else would they read it?) and proceeds into the realm of actively damaging (giving the waterfall model of production, and a design document template as examples of best practices). It is best for everyone with this book to just pretend the third section doesn't exist; thankfully, the rest of the book is worth the price of admission.
Sprinkled throughout the book are numerous interviews with famous designers, offering many (often conflicting) perspectives on the field; these make great discussion fodder for classes, and also provide some insight into what aspects of game design are universal (where many designers agree) versus those that are a matter of personal style (where designers give opposing answers to the same questions). They don't seem to have much relation to the section of the book they appear in, they're just diversionary sidebars... but they make interesting reading nonetheless.
Students: You can read this book on your own, but you'll probably get the most out of it if you take a class that uses it as a textbook. If no such class exists, reading the first two parts is still a worthwhile use of your time -- certainly better than nothing.
Instructors: The book contains many exercises, some highly conceptual and some quite practical, making it very easy to use as the basis for an intro course in game design. This is, in fact, the book I used myself for just such a class, and I was quite happy with it. I found that, while it does involve a lot of reading, the reading goes quickly; the students taking a game design class are already motivated, and this book contains the material that they want to know. I encouraged students to read those parts of the book that we didn't get to during the course, on their own time... except for the third part of the book, which I advised them to rip out of the book on the first day of class.
Professionals: The first part is worth a read if you're a practicing game designer; many of the concepts will probably not be news to you, but it might give you a few new conceptual ways to think about the design of games in the abstract. The second part is worth reading for both game designers and producers, especially if you're not working at Maxis or Firaxis or some other place that already embraces iterative design; it gives great practical advice for doing so. The third part is even more worthless than it would be for a student; you're already a practicing game designer, so the last thing you need to be taught is "what it's like in the game industry".
"Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping & Playtesting Games" (Tracy Fullerton, Chris Swain, Steven Hoffman)
This book covers the core concepts and best practices of game design. It is organized into three parts. The first part gives a formal description of all of the different aspects of games, to build a framework for discussing how to design them. The second part talks about the iterative process as it applies to game design (in particular, how to prototype, focus test and playtest, and respond to feedback); in fact, this is the only game design book I've seen so far that does so. The last part gives an overview of the game industry and the job roles and responsibilities of the game designer.
The first part of the book gives a reasonable breakdown of games into their component parts. The second part gives great practical advice on the process of game development from a designer's point of view. The third part is easily the weakest link; it starts out worthless (everyone reading a book like this already knows what a game designer is, why else would they read it?) and proceeds into the realm of actively damaging (giving the waterfall model of production, and a design document template as examples of best practices). It is best for everyone with this book to just pretend the third section doesn't exist; thankfully, the rest of the book is worth the price of admission.
Sprinkled throughout the book are numerous interviews with famous designers, offering many (often conflicting) perspectives on the field; these make great discussion fodder for classes, and also provide some insight into what aspects of game design are universal (where many designers agree) versus those that are a matter of personal style (where designers give opposing answers to the same questions). They don't seem to have much relation to the section of the book they appear in, they're just diversionary sidebars... but they make interesting reading nonetheless.
Students: You can read this book on your own, but you'll probably get the most out of it if you take a class that uses it as a textbook. If no such class exists, reading the first two parts is still a worthwhile use of your time -- certainly better than nothing.
Instructors: The book contains many exercises, some highly conceptual and some quite practical, making it very easy to use as the basis for an intro course in game design. This is, in fact, the book I used myself for just such a class, and I was quite happy with it. I found that, while it does involve a lot of reading, the reading goes quickly; the students taking a game design class are already motivated, and this book contains the material that they want to know. I encouraged students to read those parts of the book that we didn't get to during the course, on their own time... except for the third part of the book, which I advised them to rip out of the book on the first day of class.
Professionals: The first part is worth a read if you're a practicing game designer; many of the concepts will probably not be news to you, but it might give you a few new conceptual ways to think about the design of games in the abstract. The second part is worth reading for both game designers and producers, especially if you're not working at Maxis or Firaxis or some other place that already embraces iterative design; it gives great practical advice for doing so. The third part is even more worthless than it would be for a student; you're already a practicing game designer, so the last thing you need to be taught is "what it's like in the game industry".
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Teaching Licenses
I've been thinking about how to best use a license when designing games, since long before I was teaching. Everyone has their theories but no one has an official industry-wide best practice. But when I'm running a class on game design, I feel obligated to say something about it, because it's something that comes up so often in industry.
The first time around, I got through this by mediating a class discussion. (Ha ha, I don't need all the answers, I can just have my students provide them!) We listed a lot of licensed games that were either really good or really terrible, and then looked for common themes. We agreed mostly on two general rules: respect the license (something that a certain dog food company would do well to understand), build a game in the fictional world without trying to recreate the original fiction, and choose a game style and genre that are appropriate to the license. The class then went on to create short pitch documents for a game that used the Care Bears license.
I thought about this again earlier today, when I saw a new Scrabble-branded instant-win game at Subway, and I wish I were teaching class right this moment so that I could lead a discussion on this. It's an interesting case in that it's a game license in reverse: a game itself is a license being used to promote an entirely different product, rather than the other way around. But I assume many of the rules of using a license well still apply. I have to wonder: was this a good use of a license? Okay, it's obviously competing with the Monopoly game from McDonald's. But Monopoly is at least a game about money, so a game where you (theoretically) win money makes sense. And collecting all title deeds of the same color has meaning from within the game, so it makes sense that doing so in an instant-win game is meaningful. I don't see this with Scrabble. In the game I get points, not cash; and I'm not collecting one letter at a time to spell words, either. Neither license has anything to do with fast food. So, I don't really see the use. I have to wonder whether this promotion will have a greater effect on sales of sandwiches, or Scrabble sets.
All that said, it will be a happy day for me if I ever see a big fast-food franchise running a Settlers of Catan scratchoff game.
Feel free to leave other comments on common themes of games that make good use of licensed material.
The first time around, I got through this by mediating a class discussion. (Ha ha, I don't need all the answers, I can just have my students provide them!) We listed a lot of licensed games that were either really good or really terrible, and then looked for common themes. We agreed mostly on two general rules: respect the license (something that a certain dog food company would do well to understand), build a game in the fictional world without trying to recreate the original fiction, and choose a game style and genre that are appropriate to the license. The class then went on to create short pitch documents for a game that used the Care Bears license.
I thought about this again earlier today, when I saw a new Scrabble-branded instant-win game at Subway, and I wish I were teaching class right this moment so that I could lead a discussion on this. It's an interesting case in that it's a game license in reverse: a game itself is a license being used to promote an entirely different product, rather than the other way around. But I assume many of the rules of using a license well still apply. I have to wonder: was this a good use of a license? Okay, it's obviously competing with the Monopoly game from McDonald's. But Monopoly is at least a game about money, so a game where you (theoretically) win money makes sense. And collecting all title deeds of the same color has meaning from within the game, so it makes sense that doing so in an instant-win game is meaningful. I don't see this with Scrabble. In the game I get points, not cash; and I'm not collecting one letter at a time to spell words, either. Neither license has anything to do with fast food. So, I don't really see the use. I have to wonder whether this promotion will have a greater effect on sales of sandwiches, or Scrabble sets.
All that said, it will be a happy day for me if I ever see a big fast-food franchise running a Settlers of Catan scratchoff game.
Feel free to leave other comments on common themes of games that make good use of licensed material.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Analogy: Learning as Painting
I heard an interesting analogy today that I hadn't encountered before: we learn in coats of paint.
First we get a general big picture with broad strokes, then as we revisit the material we add finer and finer details. This is why there's so much review in school; the first time you learn something like integral calculus it's all very new and confusing, but the third time around it gets a lot easier.
Interestingly, this is also how we play video games. At first you have a basic idea of what's going on -- the basic controls to make things happen on screen. After playing for a little while you find additional layers of strategy (or increase your skills) to the point where you understand finer details about how the game works. We even have a name for this: the MDA framework. The broad brush strokes (from a player's point of view) are the aesthetics, the feeling you get from playing the game. The medium-level details are the dynamics, the way that various components in the game interact with one another. The fine details are the mechanics, the underlying rules of how everything is actually resolved by the computer.
If this is, by its very nature, how we learn new material -- learning it once formally and then revisiting it multiple times until we finally grok it -- that has a number of implications for structuring a class. Among other things, it means that any individual course shouldn't be designed in a vacuum; it should have a lot of connections to other classes within the overall curriculum, so that each later class reinforces the material from the earlier ones. (I ended up doing this in a lot of my classes last year, not by design, but more because I thought some topics were important enough that I should make sure all of my students encountered them, even if they only took one class and not another.)
People who have Ph.D.'s in education probably have a theory named after some famous person in the field to describe all this, but I'm still just figuring it all out as I go...
First we get a general big picture with broad strokes, then as we revisit the material we add finer and finer details. This is why there's so much review in school; the first time you learn something like integral calculus it's all very new and confusing, but the third time around it gets a lot easier.
Interestingly, this is also how we play video games. At first you have a basic idea of what's going on -- the basic controls to make things happen on screen. After playing for a little while you find additional layers of strategy (or increase your skills) to the point where you understand finer details about how the game works. We even have a name for this: the MDA framework. The broad brush strokes (from a player's point of view) are the aesthetics, the feeling you get from playing the game. The medium-level details are the dynamics, the way that various components in the game interact with one another. The fine details are the mechanics, the underlying rules of how everything is actually resolved by the computer.
If this is, by its very nature, how we learn new material -- learning it once formally and then revisiting it multiple times until we finally grok it -- that has a number of implications for structuring a class. Among other things, it means that any individual course shouldn't be designed in a vacuum; it should have a lot of connections to other classes within the overall curriculum, so that each later class reinforces the material from the earlier ones. (I ended up doing this in a lot of my classes last year, not by design, but more because I thought some topics were important enough that I should make sure all of my students encountered them, even if they only took one class and not another.)
People who have Ph.D.'s in education probably have a theory named after some famous person in the field to describe all this, but I'm still just figuring it all out as I go...
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
The importance of a Game Industry course
I taught a course last year called Game Industry Survey, sort of a who's-who and what's-what of the industry. Recent events highlight why such a course is inherently useful.
See, there was this game called Guitar Hero, and if you haven't heard of it, it became a surprise hit, originally launched in 2005 with a sequel the following year. The original and sequel were developed by Harmonix and published by RedOctane. Then, things got complicated. RedOctane was purchased by Activision, and development on Guitar Hero 3 was handed to Neversoft (of Tony Hawk fame). Meanwhile, Harmonix is focusing its efforts on Rock Band, an iteration on the same basic concept.
What needs to be understood about this mess?
See, there was this game called Guitar Hero, and if you haven't heard of it, it became a surprise hit, originally launched in 2005 with a sequel the following year. The original and sequel were developed by Harmonix and published by RedOctane. Then, things got complicated. RedOctane was purchased by Activision, and development on Guitar Hero 3 was handed to Neversoft (of Tony Hawk fame). Meanwhile, Harmonix is focusing its efforts on Rock Band, an iteration on the same basic concept.
What needs to be understood about this mess?
- There is a difference between the Developer and the Publisher. (Briefly: Developers make games; Publishers make money.)
- Intellectual Property is often tied to a specific Developer or Publisher, but it can also be its own separate entity, as is the case here.
- Ditto with the code base for a game series, which is often tied to the IP (and the Developer) but not always... as in this case.
Why is understanding these things useful?
- A lot of people in the game industry are following this unfolding story with great interest. A lot of us like the original games, you see. So, if you're talking to a developer and you don't understand this stuff, you're likely to have a foot-in-mouth moment that could cost you a job opportunity.
- Even if you're not interested in joining the industry, if you're just an avid game player who likes the series, understanding these things lets you make better purchasing decisions. "I likes the first two Guitar Hero games, so I'm guaranteed to like the third one" is no longer given if the people actually making the third game are different from the ones who made the originals. If you follow the developer and not the publisher, you'll usually find more consistency in product lines.
My thanks to the industry for making my job easier. For once.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Game Designer as Chef
Another analogy for game design occurred to me yesterday while making dinner: that of the professional chef.
The human body is capable of recognizing five different kinds of taste (eight kinds of fun). Various foods (games) stimulate different combinations of our taste buds (fun centers in the brain) to produce different experiences in the taster (player). The goal of the chef (game designer) is to combine ingredients (game mechanics) in such a way as to produce a unique and satisfying experience.
Ingredients are not static; sometimes a specific combination leads to a result far greater, or lesser, than the sum of the parts. Some ingredients also give different flavors when raw or cooked. The chef understands how the ingredients can be combined to create certain flavors and aromas (game dynamics) which in turn produce a tasty meal (a fun game).
But the consumer doesn't generally notice the individual ingredients (gourmets excepted), but the overall experience. Because of this, presentation of the meal, with proper garnish and arrangement (cool graphics and sound) is as important as the ingredients themselves. Additionally, meals and games fall into genres based on common characteristics and ingredients... whether it be BBQ / Italian / Chinese, or FPS / RTS / MMO.
Skill of the chef is important; it takes talent and experience to make a decent souffle, and if you get it wrong it's pretty obvious. On the other hand, most people have enough talent to at least follow a recipe (playing a good game in an unfamiliar genre) and get reasonable results. In fact, most people are capable of improvising to create their own modifications to recipes when they want to (creating house rules for board games, either to make them more fun or to add handicapping so that they're more fun for younger players). A few people make gourmet cooking (indie game development) into their hobby even though they never plan to make it their profession. Some people teach cooking classes, but one generally wouldn't trust a teacher who was never a professional chef. And while many of the people taking those classes dream of being Emeril Lagasse, most of them will end up working as a nameless grunt for one of the big-name restaurant chains.
The analogy starts to break down when you compare a master chef to Master Chief...
The human body is capable of recognizing five different kinds of taste (eight kinds of fun). Various foods (games) stimulate different combinations of our taste buds (fun centers in the brain) to produce different experiences in the taster (player). The goal of the chef (game designer) is to combine ingredients (game mechanics) in such a way as to produce a unique and satisfying experience.
Ingredients are not static; sometimes a specific combination leads to a result far greater, or lesser, than the sum of the parts. Some ingredients also give different flavors when raw or cooked. The chef understands how the ingredients can be combined to create certain flavors and aromas (game dynamics) which in turn produce a tasty meal (a fun game).
But the consumer doesn't generally notice the individual ingredients (gourmets excepted), but the overall experience. Because of this, presentation of the meal, with proper garnish and arrangement (cool graphics and sound) is as important as the ingredients themselves. Additionally, meals and games fall into genres based on common characteristics and ingredients... whether it be BBQ / Italian / Chinese, or FPS / RTS / MMO.
Skill of the chef is important; it takes talent and experience to make a decent souffle, and if you get it wrong it's pretty obvious. On the other hand, most people have enough talent to at least follow a recipe (playing a good game in an unfamiliar genre) and get reasonable results. In fact, most people are capable of improvising to create their own modifications to recipes when they want to (creating house rules for board games, either to make them more fun or to add handicapping so that they're more fun for younger players). A few people make gourmet cooking (indie game development) into their hobby even though they never plan to make it their profession. Some people teach cooking classes, but one generally wouldn't trust a teacher who was never a professional chef. And while many of the people taking those classes dream of being Emeril Lagasse, most of them will end up working as a nameless grunt for one of the big-name restaurant chains.
The analogy starts to break down when you compare a master chef to Master Chief...
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Textbook Review: 21st Century Game Design
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"21st Century Game Design" (Chris Bateman and Richard Boon)
This is a dangerous book. I can recommend it for veteran game designers since it provides an approach to game design that they may have never encountered before, and it's one more tool in their already-large toolbox. For anyone else (especially students), this can take you down the path to ruin if you just follow it as gospel.
The idea behind the book is simple: identify your target audience, then use psychological profiles to predict what games and mechanics are most compelling to the intended market. This basic concept of "designing for the audience" is a useful one, and I can see it being applied successfully in the field if used with care.
Strangely, the authors seem overly fond of MBTI as the preferred player demographic. For those who haven't encountered Myers-Briggs, it defines sixteen personality types and then proceeds to lump all of humankind into one of these compartments. Reading a description of these personality profiles bears a striking resemblance to another method of classifying people, and my understanding is that either one is about as useful as the other in terms of predictive value. (If you're curious, I'm ISTP, and Virgo. Those of you who place great faith in personality types are now saying to yourselves, "ah, of course!" while the rest of you already know me far better from my writing than any category I fit into.)
I find it ironic that Ernest Adams, who writes the foreward to this book, wrote years ago how designers should concentrate on making great games instead of spending all their time talking about marketing and player demographics. He even talks about how Purple Moon -- a company that used a startlingly similar approach advocated to this book in order to make "games for girls" -- died horribly because their designers spent so much time doing market research that they forgot to actually make their games fun.
Students: Avoid this book. (In my experience, most students don't need much convincing to not read something, so that's all I'll say on the matter...)
Instructors: Do not use as the sole text for a book. If you mention this book in your classes, warn the students that it is just one of many approaches... and one that has not yet been used successfully to make a hit game. It may be worthwhile to discuss short excerpts in an advanced class, as one of many methodologies for designing a game; as an exercise, have students rip apart the logic, separating the useful from not-so-useful parts.
Professionals: It's worth reading the first part of the book, before it goes into the actual details of personality types, just to consider the concept of a player-centric approach. The rest of the book is built on the foundation of MBTI, though, so it's not worth considering the remaining content unless you've already drunk the MBTI kool-aid.
"21st Century Game Design" (Chris Bateman and Richard Boon)
This is a dangerous book. I can recommend it for veteran game designers since it provides an approach to game design that they may have never encountered before, and it's one more tool in their already-large toolbox. For anyone else (especially students), this can take you down the path to ruin if you just follow it as gospel.
The idea behind the book is simple: identify your target audience, then use psychological profiles to predict what games and mechanics are most compelling to the intended market. This basic concept of "designing for the audience" is a useful one, and I can see it being applied successfully in the field if used with care.
Strangely, the authors seem overly fond of MBTI as the preferred player demographic. For those who haven't encountered Myers-Briggs, it defines sixteen personality types and then proceeds to lump all of humankind into one of these compartments. Reading a description of these personality profiles bears a striking resemblance to another method of classifying people, and my understanding is that either one is about as useful as the other in terms of predictive value. (If you're curious, I'm ISTP, and Virgo. Those of you who place great faith in personality types are now saying to yourselves, "ah, of course!" while the rest of you already know me far better from my writing than any category I fit into.)
I find it ironic that Ernest Adams, who writes the foreward to this book, wrote years ago how designers should concentrate on making great games instead of spending all their time talking about marketing and player demographics. He even talks about how Purple Moon -- a company that used a startlingly similar approach advocated to this book in order to make "games for girls" -- died horribly because their designers spent so much time doing market research that they forgot to actually make their games fun.
Students: Avoid this book. (In my experience, most students don't need much convincing to not read something, so that's all I'll say on the matter...)
Instructors: Do not use as the sole text for a book. If you mention this book in your classes, warn the students that it is just one of many approaches... and one that has not yet been used successfully to make a hit game. It may be worthwhile to discuss short excerpts in an advanced class, as one of many methodologies for designing a game; as an exercise, have students rip apart the logic, separating the useful from not-so-useful parts.
Professionals: It's worth reading the first part of the book, before it goes into the actual details of personality types, just to consider the concept of a player-centric approach. The rest of the book is built on the foundation of MBTI, though, so it's not worth considering the remaining content unless you've already drunk the MBTI kool-aid.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Taking Advantage of Students
When I first read this article on how some unscrupulous companies will try to bilk students by promising them high-paying summer jobs in the game industry, my thought was that this behavior is abhorrent.
My second thought is that it's unnecessary. Aspiring game developers already go to great lengths to convince themselves that they'll be able to enter the industry in the first place -- something that, sadly, not all of them will ultimately do. These people don't exactly need any extra false hope; most of them already have plenty as it is.
The one thing I make sure to drill into my game design students -- I probably mention this more than anything else in my classes -- is that no one should expect to get an entry-level game design job in the industry fresh out of college. Yes, a few lucky ones do, but it's so rare that no one should be relying on it as their primary career. I want no one to have any illusions about this.
This comes as a surprise to many students. After all, game development programs are sprouting up all over the place, so at first glance one might think that industry demand is increasing at a proportional rate. It's not.
As far as I'm concerned, any university that touts any kind of game development program (and especially anything involving game design) is implicitly telling prospective students that they will be able to get a job in the field that they're studying. This is just as much of a lie as the article I was reading. Compare:
As such, universities should be careful to notify all prospective undergrads that a game-focused major is dangerous: it doesn't guarantee a job in the industry and may make it more difficult to fall back on a job outside the industry. Given the time and expense it takes to earn any degree at all, these disclaimers need to be shouted loud and up front, before a student decides on what school to attend.
Some might protest that trying to talk students out of attending your school would lower enrollment. In my experience, though, the students who ultimately make it into the industry are the types who are well aware of the risks and who are dedicated and persistent enough to go through with it anyway. The students who would have second thoughts are precisely those students who would make your school look bad to the industry and lower the quality of your program anyway. So, in the short term you trade off quantity for quality; in the long term, your higher quality gets industry recognition which feeds back into greater quantity. Therefore, being up front with prospective students could actually raise enrollment in a few years!
Granted, you should have a quality program as well if your school is going to offer one at all. If your classes consist of teaching students how to tighten their graphics, you're not doing anyone any favors.
My second thought is that it's unnecessary. Aspiring game developers already go to great lengths to convince themselves that they'll be able to enter the industry in the first place -- something that, sadly, not all of them will ultimately do. These people don't exactly need any extra false hope; most of them already have plenty as it is.
The one thing I make sure to drill into my game design students -- I probably mention this more than anything else in my classes -- is that no one should expect to get an entry-level game design job in the industry fresh out of college. Yes, a few lucky ones do, but it's so rare that no one should be relying on it as their primary career. I want no one to have any illusions about this.
This comes as a surprise to many students. After all, game development programs are sprouting up all over the place, so at first glance one might think that industry demand is increasing at a proportional rate. It's not.
As far as I'm concerned, any university that touts any kind of game development program (and especially anything involving game design) is implicitly telling prospective students that they will be able to get a job in the field that they're studying. This is just as much of a lie as the article I was reading. Compare:
"Get paid $80 per hour in QA for the summer! Just pay us a $39.95 membership fee."
versus
"Get a full-time job as a game designer! Just pay us $100K tuition."
As such, universities should be careful to notify all prospective undergrads that a game-focused major is dangerous: it doesn't guarantee a job in the industry and may make it more difficult to fall back on a job outside the industry. Given the time and expense it takes to earn any degree at all, these disclaimers need to be shouted loud and up front, before a student decides on what school to attend.
Some might protest that trying to talk students out of attending your school would lower enrollment. In my experience, though, the students who ultimately make it into the industry are the types who are well aware of the risks and who are dedicated and persistent enough to go through with it anyway. The students who would have second thoughts are precisely those students who would make your school look bad to the industry and lower the quality of your program anyway. So, in the short term you trade off quantity for quality; in the long term, your higher quality gets industry recognition which feeds back into greater quantity. Therefore, being up front with prospective students could actually raise enrollment in a few years!
Granted, you should have a quality program as well if your school is going to offer one at all. If your classes consist of teaching students how to tighten their graphics, you're not doing anyone any favors.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Textbook Review: Patterns in Game Design
This is part of the series on book reviews.
"Patterns in Game Design" (Staffan Bjork and Jussi Holopainen)
If you've never seen a book on Patterns before, this is likely to be different from your usual experience. A "Pattern" is, more or less, a common problem and its established solution. The point of a book of Patterns is to prevent you from reinventing the wheel with each new project.
Most Patterns books are programming-related, because programming is the most expensive part of game development, so a lot of cost savings can (theoretically) come from code re-use. Applying the same concept to game design is intriguing; as far as I know, this is the only book to do so (although similar works like the 400 Project existed first).
This book's concept of a Pattern is slightly different. It is more of an encyclopedia of game design concepts; for each concept, it explains what it is, what design decisions must be made to include it, and links to other related concepts.
Unfortunately, the book has some inherent flaws due to its very nature. For one thing, the field of game design does not have an established critical vocabulary, so the authors had to invent names for a lot of concepts that will be unfamiliar to designers or students. This makes the book read like a foreign-language dictionary: every time you try to look up the definition to a new word, the definition itself contains half a dozen words that you also have to look up. This makes for frustrating and dull reading, and since it's a physical book you don't even have the benefit of having hyperlinks to click on. This would have worked much better as a wiki than a book.
To make matters worse, the publishers decided for some strange reason to put about 200 of the Patterns on an included CD instead of in the printed book. However, many of the Patterns in the book reference those on the CD (and vice versa), so when looking at references you have to go back and forth between the two media.
I found the most useful thing about this book to be the overall taxonomy of concepts, where a game is broken down into major component parts (such as goals, rules and player actions) and then each of those parts has a number of concepts (e.g. different kinds of goals, such as Chase or Capture or Evade). This would fit well into a conceptual class on game design, as it goes into more detail than any other book I've seen on the list of concepts.
Students: You can safely avoid this book for the time being. You get enough tedium from the rest of your classes; there's no need to inflict more of it on yourself. Also, there's no obvious way to tell the difference between the terminology that is in common use in the industry, and that which is purely the invention of the authors; talking about Avatars and Bosses is all fine and good, but if you mention Hovering Closures or Focus Loci in your job interview you'll probably just confuse everyone else.
Instructors: The basic concepts in this book could be used in your lesson plans to supplement a theory-based game design class, when you talk about the component parts of a game. Just don't borrow the terminology that isn't in common use. I wouldn't recommend this as a required text for any class; it's not organized in any fashion that I can imagine being useful for a class, and it doesn't lend itself well to exercises. Keep a personal copy for reference when making your lesson plans, but keep it away from students.
Professionals: The terminology and organization of this book give it a large up-front cost in time; even if you just want to use it as a reference text, it's only practical if you've already read through (or at least skimmed) most of it already. If you do put in the time, it may be a source of inspiration when you're working on the core mechanics of a game... but only if the game is highly derivative by nature, because this book only documents common game features that already exist. In other words, it may help you solve problems that have already been solved in other games, but only in exchange for actively reducing your creativity.
"Patterns in Game Design" (Staffan Bjork and Jussi Holopainen)
If you've never seen a book on Patterns before, this is likely to be different from your usual experience. A "Pattern" is, more or less, a common problem and its established solution. The point of a book of Patterns is to prevent you from reinventing the wheel with each new project.
Most Patterns books are programming-related, because programming is the most expensive part of game development, so a lot of cost savings can (theoretically) come from code re-use. Applying the same concept to game design is intriguing; as far as I know, this is the only book to do so (although similar works like the 400 Project existed first).
This book's concept of a Pattern is slightly different. It is more of an encyclopedia of game design concepts; for each concept, it explains what it is, what design decisions must be made to include it, and links to other related concepts.
Unfortunately, the book has some inherent flaws due to its very nature. For one thing, the field of game design does not have an established critical vocabulary, so the authors had to invent names for a lot of concepts that will be unfamiliar to designers or students. This makes the book read like a foreign-language dictionary: every time you try to look up the definition to a new word, the definition itself contains half a dozen words that you also have to look up. This makes for frustrating and dull reading, and since it's a physical book you don't even have the benefit of having hyperlinks to click on. This would have worked much better as a wiki than a book.
To make matters worse, the publishers decided for some strange reason to put about 200 of the Patterns on an included CD instead of in the printed book. However, many of the Patterns in the book reference those on the CD (and vice versa), so when looking at references you have to go back and forth between the two media.
I found the most useful thing about this book to be the overall taxonomy of concepts, where a game is broken down into major component parts (such as goals, rules and player actions) and then each of those parts has a number of concepts (e.g. different kinds of goals, such as Chase or Capture or Evade). This would fit well into a conceptual class on game design, as it goes into more detail than any other book I've seen on the list of concepts.
Students: You can safely avoid this book for the time being. You get enough tedium from the rest of your classes; there's no need to inflict more of it on yourself. Also, there's no obvious way to tell the difference between the terminology that is in common use in the industry, and that which is purely the invention of the authors; talking about Avatars and Bosses is all fine and good, but if you mention Hovering Closures or Focus Loci in your job interview you'll probably just confuse everyone else.
Instructors: The basic concepts in this book could be used in your lesson plans to supplement a theory-based game design class, when you talk about the component parts of a game. Just don't borrow the terminology that isn't in common use. I wouldn't recommend this as a required text for any class; it's not organized in any fashion that I can imagine being useful for a class, and it doesn't lend itself well to exercises. Keep a personal copy for reference when making your lesson plans, but keep it away from students.
Professionals: The terminology and organization of this book give it a large up-front cost in time; even if you just want to use it as a reference text, it's only practical if you've already read through (or at least skimmed) most of it already. If you do put in the time, it may be a source of inspiration when you're working on the core mechanics of a game... but only if the game is highly derivative by nature, because this book only documents common game features that already exist. In other words, it may help you solve problems that have already been solved in other games, but only in exchange for actively reducing your creativity.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Results of E3
Of the whole of the game industry, nothing has forced me to rewrite my lesson plans as much as E3 with its unexpected "downsizing" last year. So, I'll take this opportunity to read between the lines in the media coverage -- a useful skill that I try to teach in Game Industry Survey, since it's rare to see a negative spin on anything, but you can still spot it if you look closely.
Focus on First Party. ("First Party" are the console manufacturers, for those of you just joining us.) There was a lot more squawking about Xbox 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3 than there was about the games themselves. Given that this is the first E3 in the new console generation, I suppose it's only natural. But how quick people are to forget that a new system is only as good as its games!
Price Wars? There was a lot of talk about "price wars" among consoles. As far as I could tell, this consists of Sony threatening to drop the price of the PS3 and then raise it again, while Microsoft and Nintendo mostly ignore them. Doesn't a "war" require two parties? Maybe "price civil war" would be a more accurate description.
Console Hype. Overhyping is alive and well, thanks. Sony claims that Blu-Ray is the future and HD-DVD will be dead within months, so that's why you need to buy a PS3, yeah that's the ticket. Microsoft responds that their death has been greatly exaggerated, and by the way if it does die they'll just make a Blu-Ray peripheral for the 360, and we've got better games, so nyaah. Nintendo ignores them both and just states for the record that they think they'll sell a hundred million Wii. Wiis. Wii's. Wiii. Oh, whatever.
Games for Girls. Ubisoft announces "Imagine", a series of games targeted at girls age 6-14. Due to "extensive research" of the target market. And the games will allow girls to "explore their favorite interests and hobbies". Do these people not study their history? This is almost word-for-word what Purple Moon was claiming to do, and we all know how that turned out.
Oh, and I hear there were some cool games announced at this year's E3, too.
As for whether this is the death of E3, or same old same old, people seem split about 50/50. Personally, I'm more likely to listen to someone's opinion if they're not wearing a chicken suit. But hey, that's just me.
Focus on First Party. ("First Party" are the console manufacturers, for those of you just joining us.) There was a lot more squawking about Xbox 360 vs. Wii vs. PS3 than there was about the games themselves. Given that this is the first E3 in the new console generation, I suppose it's only natural. But how quick people are to forget that a new system is only as good as its games!
Price Wars? There was a lot of talk about "price wars" among consoles. As far as I could tell, this consists of Sony threatening to drop the price of the PS3 and then raise it again, while Microsoft and Nintendo mostly ignore them. Doesn't a "war" require two parties? Maybe "price civil war" would be a more accurate description.
Console Hype. Overhyping is alive and well, thanks. Sony claims that Blu-Ray is the future and HD-DVD will be dead within months, so that's why you need to buy a PS3, yeah that's the ticket. Microsoft responds that their death has been greatly exaggerated, and by the way if it does die they'll just make a Blu-Ray peripheral for the 360, and we've got better games, so nyaah. Nintendo ignores them both and just states for the record that they think they'll sell a hundred million Wii. Wiis. Wii's. Wiii. Oh, whatever.
Games for Girls. Ubisoft announces "Imagine", a series of games targeted at girls age 6-14. Due to "extensive research" of the target market. And the games will allow girls to "explore their favorite interests and hobbies". Do these people not study their history? This is almost word-for-word what Purple Moon was claiming to do, and we all know how that turned out.
Oh, and I hear there were some cool games announced at this year's E3, too.
As for whether this is the death of E3, or same old same old, people seem split about 50/50. Personally, I'm more likely to listen to someone's opinion if they're not wearing a chicken suit. But hey, that's just me.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Textbook Review: Basic Game Design and Creation for Fun and Learning
This is part of the series of book reviews.
"Basic Game Design and Creation for Fun and Learning" (Nanu and Naveena Swamy).
It is books like this that give the rest a bad name. For starters, in spite of the title, this book has absolutely nothing to do with game design. It should not be surprising that the authors have no published titles to their name and have apparently never worked in the game industry, which is a strong warning sign for any book.
In reality, this book covers the basics of implementation in Game Maker, a game authoring tool. Now, I'm a big fan of Game Maker itself. But the help files and example games included in the download and the forums on the website are far better at explaining how to use it, and go into greater depth than this book does. So, the book itself is entirely worthless; there is no need for it to exist in the first place.
To add insult to injury, the book attempts to explain some basic Object Oriented Programming methodology... and actually gets it wrong! If you're going to use the term "polymorphism" and apply it to Game Maker, be sure you know what it means first.
Students: Avoid this book. If you're interested in programming games but you're not comfortable with the more technical programming languages like C++ or Java, then you might consider starting out with something simple like Game Maker. But the documentation with GM is sufficient, and if you absolutely need a book to read there are better ones.
Instructors: If you're going to devote an entire class to teaching a single tool, you'd probably be better off teaching Flash than Game Maker; Flash is more versatile and powerful, and it's actually used in the industry from time to time. Even if you do want to teach Game Maker as part of a larger course, there is no need to use this book to do it.
Professionals: If you're a non-technical game designer who wants the ability to express your ideas in the form of a digital prototype, again, Flash is probably the best tool for the job if you have it available. Game Maker can be used to make certain kinds of prototypes really fast... but again, there's no need to use this book.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Origins Report (Part 3)
As the board game and video game industries are inextricably linked, it's sometimes useful to compare the trends in both. Here are the recurring themes I saw this year in eurogaming:
- Pirate and superhero themes. No doubt this is to capitalize on the popularity of these themes in the movies. We often talk of the link between Hollywood and video games, but the link is very much there for board games as well.
- Animals. I found a disproportionate number of board games that featured animals, including three games with camels, three games with sheep (not including the line of Catan games), two games with cheetahs, and then the occasional monkey, giraffe, elephant, kangaroo or penguin. I have no earthly idea why the fascination with animals, or why it's so much more pronounced in non-digital games.
- Gladiator combat. If conflict is an inherent element of games, then it's no surprise that games should be particularly good at modeling a straight-up fight. Still, there haven't been many gladiator games in past years, so I'm guessing this year's rash of them is just a statistical fluke.
- Educational games. There was a game that could be described as the Periodic Table of Pokemon. Another game that taught K-6 math skills, with a superhero theme. And another that featured many historical figures, with the History Channel brand. The thing I found shocking is that these games are actually touting their educational value as their main selling point. While this may get some extra sales with teachers and parents, it probably loses just as many (if not more) sales from gamers who would play these games except that we all know how much educational games suck. I have to wonder what would happen if a company released the same game under two different names -- one with an obvious educational slant ("Numbers League: Adventures in Addiplication") and another where the education is intentionally hidden ("Stupor Heroes"). Same game, different name and box copy, in an attempt to capture both the educational and gamer markets. No one is doing this, but I think it's an opportunity just waiting to be grabbed by any or all of them.
- Shorter play times. Due I suppose to today's ADHD society, games are getting shorter. I noticed a large number of very solid, deep strategy games that were playable in 45 minutes (a couple of years ago, these kinds of games mostly took two or three times that long). I think this is great; I can play more games to a satisfying conclusion in less time. There are even some tabletop wargames that are playable in under an hour nowadays; thirty years ago, these were the kinds of games that would take an entire weekend to play.
- Longer play times. Perhaps as a backlash of the shortening trend, I also saw a number of games that take 3 to 6 hours. You can always tell these games because they come in these gigantic boxes with tons of boards and tokens and figurines, and they cost $80 or so. Interestingly, the video game industry followed this same trend with budgets, starting about five years ago: you have to either be a "value" (very low-budget) or "AAA" (very big-budget) game, with it becoming increasingly difficult to find funding in the middle. That trend continues in video games to this day, although it may start reversing itself with third-party Wii games.
- Reiner Knizia. Seriously, the man seemed to have at least one new game with every major publisher. I don't know if he's just morally opposed to an exclusive contract, or what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)