When people ask, "What's your major/area of study?" and I reply, "Game design & Ludology", 99% of the time I get this response, "So you like...write code and stuff?" Well, yes...some (most) do, but I prefer not to (although I can). Then I launch into a dizzying array of real world comparisons and metaphors which usually leaves my glamored inquirer standing lost amidst an ever-growing storm cloud of crap pulled from my ass.
So I think it necessary to log an answer made of stone and mortar rather than smoke and paper:
What is Game Design?
In short, its just rules. That's about it. Game designers are people who make rules. Now, the games industry usually forces game designers to be masters of other fields too: art, programming, sales, management, etc. In fact it is pretty much required that as a game designer you also need a "back up" area of expertise (mine is writing and narrative construction; and maybe beatboxing).
Game designers are the ones who decide what, exactly, makes a game good v. what makes a game bad. I believe this is the most important part OF a game. Graphics, sounds, control methods (peripherals, motion sensors, etc.) are great, but the integral experience of the user is based around what they are DOING inside a game. Tetris is a great example (although timing and resulting innovation had a lot to do with its commercial success) of this.
Look at a game like....Poker. Poker is what I call a "pure mechanics" game (there is a ludological term for them somewhere). This means they are completely devoid of a narrative, and have no (intentional) higher meaning behind its construction. I would have used Chess, but I can argue that Chess has a narrative based on the names, traditional models, and mechanics of the pieces used. Poker does not intend to tell a story; however, because it is a game which is interactive, it acts a catalyst by which stories are created (everyone has a crazy poker night story). These games are arguably much more popular than most for the aforementioned reason. When a group of people gather for an impromptu game of soccer, a story is created about playing soccer.
Now the relationships between Ludology versus Narratology is to be saved for another post. However since it is in the context of this post, I will say this: rules can be used to tell stories. As seen in Conway's Game of Life (great video there) simple rules (Game of Life has four, although that video says two) can have a profound depth and meaning behind them.
I am currently reading Gonzalo Frasca's 2007 Ph. D. dissertation, Play the Message, and in the beginning he talks about a movie called Kamchatka which is about an Argentinian family holed up Anne Frank style. The father uses a Risk knock off called. T.E.G., to teach his son to never give up despite how the opponent is overwhelmingly powerful. The game itself is about warfare, strategy, etc., but the mechanics (rules in a context) can be used to drive home an idea. This is what I love about games. This is why I say there are very, very few "good" games out there, most simply do not take advantage of this. Most games use devices found in movies to further a narrative. Devices like dialogue and cinematics, both things that are hard-coded and can NOT be experienced in ANY other way because they are non-interactive (Resident Evil 4's "interactive cinematics" do not count either, although they are neat).
Game design is all about the rules. When the rules are placed in a context, they become mechanics. I am exploring this in my senior Capstone project Chains: An Exploration of Determinism and Free Will by creating systems of rules designed to dictate the actions of the universe, rather than create the universe by hand. Instead of saying, "the player goes here and does x using y", I say, "well there's gravity, the NPC's have "souls", and everyone is trying to achieve their goals in life". The game takes on a new meaning now in true non-linearity. The act of playing builds the story unique to the player.
No comments:
Post a Comment