QuoteOn 1.2.2018 at 7:10 PM, Gian-Reto said:Well, if anyone REALLY wants to discuss the importance of vision and direction in game development
I'd actually like that, and I think it could be valuable/interesting. Maybe start a spin-off topic in Game Design so we can discuss it without all the baggage of Kavik's martyrdom?
So as proposed by @jbadams, here I am "Forking" a Thread opened in the Lounge into a Thread here in Game Design... because that Thread got bogged down and closed.
Basically @Kavik Kang opened a very interesting Thread, with a misleading OP, stating that the common Thread amongst a lot of the most successfull games of all times was that they had a very strong, unified Vision behind them.
Well, he didn't word it quite like that, amongst the vagueness of his text and including a Youtube Video of Queens "One Vision" for comedic effect, his exact statement wasn't so clear. This is my wellmeaning interpretation of what he wanted to discuss... before the thread ended how so many Kavik Kang threads end.
But this was the first one I was really sad to see going down the rabbit hole so quickly. So here I am, trying to actually have the discussion I was hoping to find when I read the OP in Kavik Kangs thread.
So, to make my own statement, I kinda agree with what I THINK Kavik Kang wanted to say, before he went down the same road again of his already well known narratives.
Games, like movies, while being Teamwork, need a very strong, very clear vision behind them. Someone needs to set a clear goal, and then the team needs to execute it without straying to far off the course. If the plan was flawed, and a course correction is needed, somebody needs to sit down, take all that feedback into account, and chart a new course, lest everyone on the team runs off in different directions like headless chickens.
We all have seen the games that seemed just a mess of ideas executed poorly, or where a strong vision clearly was diluted by different interests pulling in different directions, or people misinterpreting the vision. We all have seen games that lacked that all important vision from the start, and were just built based off existing trends or prior successes without anything added to the formula that would make for a great game.
Now, given that Kavik Kang was talking about some of the greatest games of all times, we are not talking about "profitable" games. We all know a game successfull in sales doesn't mean its a great game in mechanics, story, or anything else. We, or I at least, are/am also not questioning if "decent" or "good", hell even "bad" games have a reason to exist. That is besides the point here.
What I THINK Kavik Kang was talking about, and what I would certainly like to talk about are games that will become classics.... either cult classics that only a small niche of gamers get, but will love like nothing that comes out in the next decade. Or that real mainstream classic that can spawn massive online nerd fights even 20 years after it was released just because some dislike a classic getting a remake that changes the mechanics or story.
1) Now, we all know by now that Kavik Kang thinks a good game is made by a VERY hierarchical Team... while I do not fully agree here, lets also widen the discussion to that topic. Can you have a very focussed vision without a strict hierarchy, and what tools exist out there to a) get a team of people onboard with the vision, and b) keep them focussed on that vision? Or is it like Kavik Kang actually believes and you do need a Tyrant Designer telling everyone what to do? Is there a hybrid approach were the "genius" of a really good and expierienced designer can be combined with the added input of a more open and less hierarchical approach?
2) Can a comitee of people come up with a unified vision... or is the idea to spawn a focussed creative vision from a group of people with no hierarchy deciding the "pecking order" a pipe dream? If we need a hierarchy, which department should make the shots (lead positions of these departments obviously): Game Design, art, tech (I know that its usually the business, but remember we are not talking about making the game profitable)?
I think there is a lot of merit in giving battle proven designers and leads a lot of power over the development of a certain game. Yet I do think giving them too much power limits the game in the end, and can lead to bad actors actually ruining games and even studios (some of Peter Molyneux' latest games come to mind.... probably needed some oversight there). So I think there is a delicate balance between a team of people with no real vision or the vision of the suits producing something lacking that elusive "greatness" factor, and a tyrant being able to run a games development into the ground with bad decisions because he cannot see his own flaws anymore.
Please keep the discussion civil, and don't go offtopic (too much... ;))... if someone wants to talk about a system that might be dubbed Rube, please do it in another Thread.