With my pretension of being a GAME DESIGNER, I can now note that in my illustrious career of producing things almost nobody plays except myself that I have some very strong preferences towards using specific design aspects. I make a lot of prototype games, and develop some of them into "real" games, and then even publish some of them for everyone to see. But among almost all my games, there's common underlying mechanical currents, as well as overall production similarities.
I'm going to take a look at some of these, why I like them, and consider if I'll burst into flames if I stop using them for a game or two. Checking in from last week:
Split Second
Wasn't a whole lot on paper but it did end up being a lot of work. I was listening to my first episode of a podcast for a popular wargame I play recently and I was struck by something. Almost all the discussion was anticipatory, or related to consumption of products yet to come related to the game. They spent a lot of time talking about new releases, then a bit of complaining that where aren't enough new releases ("X isn't getting enough support"), the a sprinkling of whining that they don't have anything to do without a constant stream of new releases. The only discussion related to playing the game was nebulous "community" talk where they of course condemned "gatekeeping" in favour of growing the game as much as possible. It got me thinking: if you can't talk about the game much without a constant stream of new "content", just how boring is the game? But even beyond that, do games really benefit from non-stop "support" (which has come to mean, for the most part, new releases, not updating and tweaking)? Similarly, I find a lot of discussion in the board game realm is basically "hobby by consumption": a lot of people discussing what they're planning to buy, why they should or should not get something, and then a lot of discussion of "backlogs" of unplayed games. This is even worse with videogames. Following this line of thought while working with a friend on his game, and then playing some MtG cube, it got me to thinking about "closed" or finished games which are not being expanded when compared to "Open" games, where they're having things added all the time. Increasingly I find myself repelled by open games and drawn to closed ones. How did last week go?
Split Second
The bar was pretty low and I managed to jump it, so naturally, I feel pretty good about myself. There's a wave of wargames that have been released in the last two years, with an accelerating pace, that seem to follow a very similar design template:
A quick browse of Wargame Vault pulls up a huge number of games fitting this description; this also seems to reflect what I see in many game design ghettoes, where simplicity is the order of the day, stripped-down systems are considered the ideal and subtractive design has been in vogue for what seems like the last ten years. There's some secondary sentiments common in this movement as well (a general disdain for tokens or 'cluttered' table space, an allergy to 'bookkeeping', and what feels like a genuine aversion to basic arithmetic). This undercurrent is probably being driven by a lot of forces, some of which are perfectly practical (people have stuff to do and don't want to spend four hours resolving a game of Harpoon) and it's good to see the need being served. But I also feel there's a reactionary movement against the games that are perceived as overly-complicated. There's no doubt that there have been games from previous generations with needlessly-convoluted systems and tomes for rule books, but I feel the pendulum is swinging too far towards 'simplicity'. I like lightweight games occasionally, but I also don't want all my games to become a homogenized "sixty minute generic skirmish" slurry. I call these gruel games. Split Second
Wow, great week! I'm on the cusp of finishing three projects at once. I really want to get these done so I can move on to some new stuff (especially Split Second, which I've been grinding out for the last ten weeks trying to finish). I finalized I'm Going Down, a solitaire print-and-play adventure game, on Wargame Vault recently. While the game had been finished for almost a year (I originally developed it for a game jam), I wanted to go back and refine it a bit. I decided to get rid of the most obvious placeholder assets while keeping it printer-friendly, clean up the rules, do another proofreading run, include a guide for people printing it, and kind of give everything a once-over. This was meant to be a quick project and in the grand scheme of things, it certainly was (most of my projects have a 9 to 12 month turnaround before 'completion'). In the end I'm quite happy with the game and the process that went into it. It's also the first game I published on Wargame Vault, which is something of a milestone. Since I have no plans to go back to this game unless it needs some kind of correction or editing, I figured I'd so some last thoughts on it to make sure I at least try to learn something from the experience. This is part of a series on getting and using feedback when designing games. You can find the previous entries by following these links:
Once you have testers and you're playing with them, or you've found volunteers to look over your rules, they're hopefully going to provide you with input. Synthesizing this input can be challenging unto itself because it may conflict with your vision for the game, it might not be very useful, or you may be really attached to something that isn't working... that kind of stuff. So ultimately how do you try to make the most of this valuable resource when it's provided to you? Review of last week's goals:
Split Second
Pretty good stuff. This is part of a series on getting and using feedback when designing games. You can find the other entries by following these links:
How To Use Testers In PersonFace-to-face live feedback is generally the most helpful type you can get when working on a game project for a couple of reasons; immediacy, clarity, and the ability to follow up on statements can happen as quickly as you can articulate thoughts. It's probably smart to prioritize in-person feedback over other types, with the exception of some cases (like when getting rules tested blind to make sure they're mechanically solid); as a result it's worth putting some effort into making sure you get the most out of these precious people who will waste their time on your work.
Depending on where you live, you might have a huge pool of people to draw from who play games and could help you, or an extremely small group to work with. In either case the same principles will apply. The bottom line is above all else you have to respect other people's time. This isn't just a question of manners, but also one of maximizing your own benefit. There's some things you distinctly don't want face-to-face game tests to be resolving, because they're a waste of everyone's time. |
Blogroll SearchArchives
September 2023
Categories
All
|