I had a long arguement with my friend Jack about game design being an art. You see, he belives that the actual story can certainly be an art, but the formulation of rules and operations that the player can perform is hardly so. I disagreed. You see, by my understanding, the only thing that sets RPGs, adventure games, or even some of the more story driven shooters apart from just long, boring movies is the game aspect. This colection of rules for interaction IS what makes a game a *game*. This set of rules, which is often different between games, is what defines the medium, what makes it different (dare I say, better) than other media. But is the system creation itself an art? Well, I designed tabletop systems long before I wrote or designed computer games (I still don''t know if I do!) There are two tabletop games that strike me as relevant here... Dungeons and dragons, and shadowrun. Dungeons and Dragons Second edition was full of convoluted runs and some un-needed math the seriously interefered with (my) ability to enjoy this game. It''s set in a fantasy setting, things are not meant to be complex, and certainly not realistic to the point of exclusion! They''ve recently released a third edition which I feel solves many of these problems. Shadowrun takes place in a grim, gritty near-future setting. Here, convoluted rules and un-needed math aren''t a hinderance to the system, they define the world. They are the atmosphere, and they are usually the same things your characters are dealing with. There''s a rule for every single realistic situation, and frankly I think the game would be dull without it. A system, rules of play, play operations, these all set the timbre of a game. A well designed system should reflect the setting, whilst at the same time being fundamentally fun. This is yet another beef I have with Final Fantasy, but we won''t get into that. So in the sense that game design itself is an art, I say yes. It is the art at the core of games, it''s very difficult to make a set of rules that make the player FEEL a certain way. But tetris did it. Monopoly made certain social statements during the depression era (ironically, monopoly is published now by hasbro, who claim they invented it. They didn''t). Creating a solid system that helps tell a story is harder even, but that much more rewarding when done right. So what does this mean for how we write, or for writers should design? Do we work to their needs or vice versa?

I think it means that anyone who shares this vision
of a new medium has to take on as much of the project
as possible.
this person probably needs to be at least writer/designer/producer (there is A D&D joke in there for U)

Optimally she would do graphics, sound and music also

Obvoiusly, we can only do what is possible. Until some of us
start really producing in the new media and therefore have tangible pieces of work to share...
I think people will only understand when you have a point of reference for them.

I think you''re confusing game mechanics (the core rules) with the game story. The two are different, yet (in a game) they are mutually exclusive. The rules don''t make a player feel a certain way, it''s the story and setting that hold all reign there.

But, it''s the balance between the two that creates a great game. A strong gameplay/weak story game will be heralded for it''s gameplay, while the opposite is also true. To achieve a truly fantastic game, a balance of each being outstanding has to occur.

Is this an art? Yes, very much so. Anything that deals directly with a person''s views and opinions can be considered an art. One designer will take a certain view on how to incorporate all the elements of a game as compared to another designer with the same game. I can guarantee the games will be different.

RPG style games (which 90% of the people on these boards are talking about creating for whatever reason) are potentially the most complex type of game from a mechanics and story stand point. The balance of the story (the prime element of any RPG) and the mechanics (the guts of it) are what the most effort should be focused on in the beginning and should never be pushed out of mind.

The art of game creation lays in creating a balance between the story and the mechanics.

-------
Monkey eat deadCricket, checkmate!

quote: Original post by deadCricket

I think you''re confusing game mechanics (the core rules) with the game story. The two are different, yet (in a game) they are mutually exclusive. The rules don''t make a player feel a certain way, it''s the story and setting that hold all reign there.

I refuse to believe that game and story are mutually exclusive. I just don''t see how that is true! Perhaps in a time where we didn''t have the technology for both to go on at the same time, but it''s certainly possible now.

Rules of play can certainly make a player feel a certain way! A set of rules based around violence will make the character tend towards combat, whereas a set of rules that in it''s structure rewards negotiation will make players tend towards negotiation. It''s that line of thinking that, "A set of rules can not make a player feel a certain way" which is what keeps us making RPGs with the same damned rules over and over again, and leads to bad gameplay.

On the contrary, I say that gameplay and story should be inextricably woven together. Gameplay needn''t stop every time we as the writers/designers want to expose some more of the plot, the game must go on, before DURING and After the story.

Damn. That last one was me. I hate it when I forget to put my name in.


Edited by - Landfish on December 20, 2000 1:47:33 PM

Not all antiques are art, but they''re no less collectable.
Not all collectables are valuable, but that doesn''t meen people won''t get trampled trying to get them.
The beauty of things is not always obvious.
Just because there is an "art" to doing something, doesn''t mean the result is art.
Words suck, they never convey what we truly meen or feel.

I like creating worlds, systems, and stories. It makes me feel superior to everyone just enough to not care if it gets called art, a work of genius, or something not worthy of the dump it winds up in. (But not enough to begin my plan to rule the world.)

Games are not about writing. They are about gameplay. Don''t forget that. Don''t try to put a high-minded story above the player having fun. This is hard for writers in the game industry to accept, because many of them see themselves as the driving forces of creativity.

Good gameplay + terrible story happens all the time. Even the much ballyhooed Final Fantasy VII and Half-Life had pretty pithy stories when you come right down to it, but the games were fun and popular. Rotten gameplay + fantastic story is of no value at all. If you don''t want the game to come first, then you should write novels.

One single line, a quote from Ernest Adams.

quote:
But what is the player going to do?

...
I''ll let that simmer for a few more full-stops.
...

This was about interactive movies, when he wrote it in ''94. However, it''s still very applicable today, when we discuss story vs. gameplay ( which after all is exactly what we''re doing ).

Everything, EVERYTHING about a game should start with "What is the player going to do?".
If you don''t do it this way, you might as well write an RPG story for Tetris. After every line you make, you get a short explanation of the next part of the story. The two don''t tie together, so the experience is, on the whole, not very pleasing. Strip poker is probably the worst offender at this kind of gameplay.

The closer the story and the gameplay tie together, the more involved the player can be. The ultimate in this, is that nothing in the story is impossible to do by the player. Someone poisoned the king? I should be able to poison people too.
Someone used gunpowder to blast a hole in the castle wall? I should be able to do that too.

I believe that some of the most successful game designers from Japan have actually designed their game systems before they got to designing the world, the characters, the monsters and the story. They actually had desisions like "Here we need a monster that should be fast, agile, agressive, but not very powerful. Now, how are we going to dress it up, how is it going to look, and what will it be called?"

I''m trying to bend my own mind around to thinking about things in exactly that way. You won''t know where you''ll end up before you are actually there, but the end result will be a very compelling experience.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
Mad Keith the V.

Small, but significant correction-

The lead designer for Nintendo''s franchise titles (I''d butcher his name if I tried to spell it ) begins, not w. "systems" as such, but pure _activity_. That is, what activity he would enjoy in real life, that modesty, risk, etc. does not permit.

For example, the gameplay of Super Mario did not begin w. koopa troops or even the possible player inputs, but w. the sheer enjoyment he had as a child exploring far out-of-the-way places and finding "secrets." I think there''s alot of value to this stage of the process, that ignores the medium, and goes straight to the raw heart of experience.

Dunno, sounds good to me.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster

Games are not about writing. They are about gameplay. Don''t forget that. Don''t try to put a high-minded story above the player having fun. This is hard for writers in the game industry to accept, because many of them see themselves as the driving forces of creativity.

Oh gee, thanks for reminding me. I really needed to be put in my place, anonymous poster! For a moment there, I almost went out and tried to sell a game with bad gameplay and good story! Whatever would I have done?

In case you hadn''t noticed, you''re in a forum about game writing. Many of us here are in this field because of our belief that you can damn well put a story in a game. If you disagree, why the hell are you posting in a writing forum?

As for writers thinking that they are the central creative force in games, guess what, I''m not a writer. I''m a producer. Screw. Go read what I wrote in the Why Writers get Rejected thread and see if you don''t agree. Don''t expect me to take you seriously if you won''t put your name on a post.