[MUD-Dev] DGN: Reasons for play [was: Emergent Behaviors spawned from...]

[Lydia Leong]

On Aug 5,  5:35pm, "Sean Howard" wrote:

>> Broader question: What makes for a great designer?

> Historical perspective, I'd wager. A better question would be,
> what can the game industry do to spot great designers early?

Great designers have to do things that show that they're great
designers before they can be spotted. That means a track record,
which gets us back to the thing about experience.

At this point, the most "pure" design form is probably the board
game, where a designer can make a playable and enjoyable game with
nothing other than his own two hands. Lone wolves still make board
games.

Pencil-and-paper RPGs can be done on one's own, as well, although
this requires the designer to also be a very good
writer. (Poorly-written great ideas tend to get you esoteric
interest in the RPG industry but not much else.) Plenty of lone
wolves still write RPGs, particularly indie RPGs.

Text-based computer games lend themselves reasonably well to lone
wolf creation. At this point, though, the designer would need to
have some level of programming skill, as well as writing
skills. (The tools for developing this kind of thing are reasonably
forgiving of a lack of programming skills, but execution nonetheless
becomes time-consuming and requires a somewhat different skill set.)
A sizeable percentage of text-based interactive fiction is still
written by lone wolves.

Text-based MUDs can also be lone wolf creations, early in the
process, but it's hard. You need design abilities, writing skills,
and solid programming skills, and at some point in time you will
have to deal with players and, unless you're very small, other
administrators.  Not very many people do this.

Once you add graphics, if you are a lone wolf, you need to be one of
the rare few who can design, write, program, and do artwork. It's
not impossible to produce a graphical demo on one's own, however, by
either using stock artwork or commissioning someone else to do the
art. (In that case, you're getting back into the communications
issue again, since you are depending on the artist to execute your
vision.)  Some interesting games certainly get produced by pairs of
people (Mount and Blade, for instance).

The alternative to "do a great lone wolf game/demo and get noticed"
is "pay your dues in the industry", which means you spend some
number of years toiling in QA or doing level design for the next
generic FPS or whatever, and work your way up the ranks.

>> I'd say that it's a lot more than just the raw talent to spec a
>> great game "on paper", given the multiple people now necessary to
>> create games. For instance, being a great designer also involves
>> the ability to clearly articulate and communicate one's vision to
>> a team, and to follow through design into execution.

> I'm showing my contempt for the game industry here, but you are
> confusing the act of designing with the process of developing a
> game. A good EMPLOYEE works with others and sees projects through
> to completion. A good DESIGNER designs brilliant games.

Today, in commercial computer game design, a good designer _must_ be
a good employee. Designs are not static entities. They are living,
flowing conceptions that are altered by the realities of
development, including technical feasibility as well as the
available budget.  A designer is going to answer zillions of
questions in the course of the game's development, and he's going to
have to explain what he's got in his head to the other team
members. It's no use to have the image of a monster in your head if
you can't work with an artist to make that come to life on the
screen. It's no use to design brilliantly intricate games that a
programmer cannot implement -- or fail to communicate your idea
clearly enough that a programmer can implement it accurately. The
less well a designer works with others, the less likely it is that
his vision is going to be executed well.

This is the reason that the computer game industry doesn't simply
buy paper designs in the same way that Hollywood buys scripts.
Hollywood has a potential writer/director split; thus far, the
computer gaming industry has not achieved that equivalent (and
probably won't).

Grand vision isn't enough, anyway, even if it all gets executed
perfectly.  Well-polished details are often critical, as well; not
only can they turn a decent game into a great game, but on the flip
side, they can make the difference between a great game and an
unplayable game.

Bringing this conversation back to MUDs/MMORPGs in specific: The
larger a team gets, the more dilutive it tends to be of the original
vision. This is perhaps _more_ true of volunteer projects where it
is of commercial ones, since volunteer projects frequently make
compromises in order to satisfy the pet desires of particularly
critical project personnel (who have no incentive other than
enjoyment to continue volunteering). Long-lived multiplayer games
tend to evolve significantly over time, as well, although it seems
like most eventually settle down into a stable-equilibrium design.

	-- Lydia
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev