Once again this post will be based on Jesse Schell's The Art of Game Design. In this section, Schell talks about "problem statements" or statements that determine both your goal and any constraints. It's clear why these statements are useful since they give you something to work towards and also so that you know your limits before you start. This post will be about I time I started a long term project without a problem statement, and why I wish I had had one to begin with.
So, way back in sixth grade, little me decided that I wanted to write a book. I sat down at my computer and began typing. I didn't know where the story would go, or what characters I wanted to have; the plot was entirely based on whatever came to my head as I was writing. Now, the average person probably would have given up on this book at some point, but miraculously, I stuck with it. Sure, there were long periods where I didn't write anything, but around the end of ninth grade, I finally "finished" the book. I say that because I knew there was a lot of editing to do if I wanted it to not be a piece of crap. Obviously, my writing style had come a long way since I started writing the book, and it was good to go back and fix all of the grammar mistakes my younger self didn't know needed to be fixed. But it wasn't just that. Somewhere along the way, I had come up with a problem statement: "How can I write a book (series) that challenges the idea of good and evil?" Originally, all I had wanted to do is write for the sake of writing, and for the first seven chapters, the story had just been floating around aimlessly. I wouldn't say these chapters were boring necessarily, but they had no greater purpose, they were just about my main character's life. In chapter eight I finally introduced my main antagonist (that took a while!) and from there things started to pick up and that's why I really solidified my problem statement. Reading back through it, I realized I was going to have to entirely rewrite the beginning of the book, because it wasn't working towards a purpose at all. Had I started out with a clear idea and problem statement, this editing wouldn't take so long, and I could probably be done by the end of this year. Now, I'll be lucky if I can finish the book before the end of high school. Having such a clear problem statement now will help me during the editing process though since I'll be able to make sure that what goes in the final cut is all important, and helping me reach my goal rather than meandering. Overall, if I can stick to the problem statement, the end result should be much more interesting.
0 Comments
This is yet another post based on the writings of Jesse Schell in his book The Art of Game Design, specifically about games and their themes, and how they use different elements to support those themes. For this post I'll be talking about one of my favorite games Portal 2.
Coming up with just one phrase to signify the theme is a bit tricky. It's definitely an experience-based theme, set in a sort of science-fiction world. There are two main themes that really intersect here: the fantasy of living in a world where portals exist, and discovering things about Aperture Labs in order to escape. These can come together into one central goal, surprisingly, with a phrase said throughout the game: "Thinking with portals." It's a bit broad, but it captures the idea of using this fantastical technology in order to solve problems. Now let's look at how different elements are used to support this theme. Mechanics: The game has strict rules about what you can and can't do. Portals can only be placed on portal surfaces, limiting where you can go, and you can only have two portals at a time. One portal will lead you to the other, and if you only have one portal, it won't do anything. While it isn't easy to die, there are ways to do so like not going fast enough in boss battles, bumping into a turret, or falling into the water which adds a sense of danger. The mechanics make the puzzles more captivating and challenging by limiting what you can do and they create a more realistic atmosphere by having ways to fail. Aesthetics: The entire game is beautifully design to look like a run down lab. Everything is nicely modeled to fit in with the sci-fi theme. The different colored portals lets you differentiate between them, which is important for knowing which one to fire next. The music is incredibly important, adding urgency to certain scenes, and eerie, empty feelings in others. It's an amazing soundtrack, and everything sounds sort of techno to give it that robotic feel. The rumble pack in the controller is also often used to emphasize the effect of things crashing and give weight to your person as they land from a large fall, making it feel more real. Technology: Valve did an incredible amount of work in designing a physics engine for this game. Sometimes is can be mind-boggling to look at different angles through the portals because it's something we never see in real life, and yet, they manage to make it feel real. Without a great physics engine, the puzzles wouldn't work at all and the player would likely get frustrated having to learn all the in game mechanics as well as the physics of the game. As I said before, using the rumble pack when it's played with controllers was also a great choice for making the game feel real. The tech allows the game to be real despite being so fantastical. Story: The story is largely told through audio. GLaDOS, and later recordings of Cave Johnson are what really get the story across. Yes, there are physical things in the game such as Ratman's drawings on the wall and cut-scenes, that help tell the story as well, but for the most part it is entirely told through the audio as you try to figure out the puzzle, with only minors clues that you can see. This is very effective though since the story is supposed to be mysterious, and slightly up to interpretation as it keeps the player looking for little details, like Cave Johnson's posters on the wall, or a project from the bring your daughter to work day science fair with Chell's (the player model's) name on it. The mystery of it makes you want to progress through the game to learn even more. Overall, the elements work incredibly well together to create a well developed world where portals existing simply feels natural. I love this game for so many reasons, and the way that the theme is enforced by the four main elements certainly includes many of them. This is another blog post based off of The Art of Game Design by Jesse Schell, specifically the part of the book where he discusses the difference between games and the experience created from game play. Basically, he explains that the game itself doesn't matter as much as what the player gets out of it as they play; the game is just the physical pieces that make it up, but the experience that the game creates because of how the player interacts with it is the real purpose of the game. This is important for game design, because we have to consider more than just the physical mechanics of the game, but also how the players will interact. This post is about analyzing the difference between a game and the experience, and I'll be using one of my favorite games Animal Crossing.
I chose this game series as my example, because in theory, the game seems silly and simple. Basically, the premise of the game is to walk around town, sell things, decorate your house, buy things, talk to animal neighbors, and make money - pretty much socializing with people and economics (sounds fun, right?). Yet, this game is pretty popular, and I definitely enjoy playing it. I used to spend hours and hours playing, just running around doing some mundane task like shaking fruit off of trees to sell at the market, and I'd enjoy every second of it. Why? Because the game designers knew how to motivate the player. I wanted to buy that new house upgrade, and if collecting fruit for three hours was what it was going to take then I was going to do it. There were so many different goals that you could work towards, whether it was completing a new outfit, helping out your neighbors, catching all of the fish or bugs, or making your town look nice, and all of them had different rewards, that were, well, rewarding. The designers really did take into account what motivates the player, as well as how long they're likely to pursue a goal before giving up. Getting enough money for a house upgrade could take days, but it always felt within reach, and there were always other tasks to complete along the way. One great feature of Animal Crossing is the real time aspect of it. Depending on what day, month, and season you play in, the gameplay can be completely different. New bugs and fish will appear, and different events would pop up on different days. It made the whole world seem more real to have these types of things happen. It makes sense that this game is really about the experience since it is all about interacting with your neighbors, or your friends online too. There's no linear storyline, the game is completely up to the player as long as they stay inside the game's rules. I think this opportunity to create your own experience in a world with so much potential is what makes the Animal Crossing experience so interesting. While there isn't much that I'd change about the Animal Crossing series, I would say that there is room for improvement in the future when technology allows for these changes at least. I think the game would be most successful if it keeps building on the idea of letting the player create their own experience within the system. The more variety that is allowed, the better the game would be. I feel like it would be a lot more immersive with more dialogue since it's usually just your character listening to the neighbors blabber on. I know it's pretty much impossible to currently add more dialogue, but in the future I think it would greatly improve the game. Overall though, Animal Crossing is a fantastic example of the difference between the game itself and the experience it creates. For Game Design, we were assigned a textbook, The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses by Jesse Schell. The first chapter discusses the skills a good game designer needs, emphasizing that there are two different kinds of skills: skills that one is good at (the minor gift) and skills that one loves doing (the major gift). This blog post will be about analyzing my own skills, which category they fit into, and what I need to work on to be a better game designer. The book lists many of the skills a game designer needs, and I will do my best to go through most of them.
Talents: These are the skills I think I'm good at, more from practice than from natural ability though. Though I only have basic knowledge of it right now, I think I am pretty okay at animation. Yes I still have a lot to learn, but with the knowledge I currently have, I think I do pretty well. This will be good for games with cut scenes, or just for running animation and such. I'm not too bad at brainstorming either. I can usually come up with ideas fairly quickly, or at the very least build off of what other people have come up with. This is useful for conceptualizing, and changing things when they don't work. I've had a lot of practice with creative writing from trying to write a novel and greatly improved over the years which should help when coming up with a plot. I think I am good enough with basic mathematics to consider it a skill since I can work pretty quickly. This is good for calculated formulas in games. Weaknesses: I have almost no knowledge of how business works at all which could be bad for selling the game. Though I don't mind public speaking, I appear incredibly nervous (even though I don't feel that way) making me not so great at it. Also, despite being confident in my mathematics skills, from the little bit of game design I've done in the past, I've found myself to be terrible at designing a balanced system where neither the player or enemies are too over-powered. Love: I am very interested in learning more about animation because it fascinates me. Hopefully, this will help me stick with it and learn it for better walk cycles, cut scenes, and just making the world look alive. I'd want to learn more about cinematography, which would be good for cut scenes and presenting the world to the player in an interesting way. Creative writing is something I've been doing for a while, and that I find really enjoyable, which is good for coming up with a game's plot. History is very interesting to me, and though I need to learn more about world building, it could be very useful for that. Psychology is so cool, I just love thinking about how the human brain works. Psychology is good for trying to figure out what the player likes, how much you need to instruct players, and what the player will do. I really like visual arts, even if I don't always make very pretty pictures. This is good for graphic design, game covers, player models, and story-boarding. I'm also pretty interested in programming, which is good for designing the rule system of the game. Dislike: I am not particularly interested in the business or economic aspect of making games. I know it's important to get the game to sell, but I am not personally very interested in it. I like listening to music, but sound design is also something I think I'd rather leave to someone more passionate at it, and who has more talent with it. As I said before, I'm bad at building balanced systems, which is partially due to me not really liking the technical aspect of game design. My brain is not wired for it, and it isn't really interesting to me. I think I could become interested in it if I saw how it actually affected some games that I like, but for most part the example technical systems are for FPS games and other games I don't really play. Overall, I think I'm more suited for the story-boarding and conceptualizing aspect of game design that the technical side of it, but who knows, that could completely change as I learn more. |
AuthorHi, I'm Abi, a DSA student who likes games, drawing, writing, and acting. Archives
February 2020
Categories
All
|