Ideas for games...by artists
by Rubes · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 12/07/2006 (10:49 am) · 98 replies
Here's something I always wanted to see addressed directly, as it has been touched on in some previous threads. Then again, maybe it has already been discussed directly before, and I'm a lazy slob for not catching it.
It seems the typical process for super-low-budget (ie, no budget) indie game development is: Single programmer, has what he thinks is a killer idea for the Next Big Game; struggles to get far because of the dreaded Art Bottleneck (for now I'll leave out the "struggles because he bites off far more than he can chew" pathway). The idea might work, but development stalls when he can't attract a good artist to participate in the project in exchange for only "a promise of future earnings." Understandable, although there are potentially ways to work through that.
On the other hand, I've heard of a few instances where games were initiated by the indie game artist, who then recruited programmers to help implement the idea. Not many, but then again I haven't paid close attention to that. But it would seem to be the more effective way to go, since that essentially removes one of the big economic hurdles to completing projects like these.
To me, as a programmer, this would also seem to be a potential way to advance a project of my own, if an artist with his or her own game idea would be willing to exchange work on both projects. That's actually how I got going on Vespers, although our arrangement has since morphed into something a bit different. Nevertheless...
I'm just really interested to see/hear what projects out there were really initiated and led by the artist, and which of these have followed through to completion.
And also, what artists out there have their own game ideas and are looking for programmers to help implement them?
It's also a good idea for artists wanting to learn a little programming with Torque, especially if they get involved with programmers who are willing to take the time to teach what they are doing. Not to mention programmers who are interested in mastering Torque, since it gives them a chance to learn by doing in a setting where they needn't worry about other game assets.
It seems the typical process for super-low-budget (ie, no budget) indie game development is: Single programmer, has what he thinks is a killer idea for the Next Big Game; struggles to get far because of the dreaded Art Bottleneck (for now I'll leave out the "struggles because he bites off far more than he can chew" pathway). The idea might work, but development stalls when he can't attract a good artist to participate in the project in exchange for only "a promise of future earnings." Understandable, although there are potentially ways to work through that.
On the other hand, I've heard of a few instances where games were initiated by the indie game artist, who then recruited programmers to help implement the idea. Not many, but then again I haven't paid close attention to that. But it would seem to be the more effective way to go, since that essentially removes one of the big economic hurdles to completing projects like these.
To me, as a programmer, this would also seem to be a potential way to advance a project of my own, if an artist with his or her own game idea would be willing to exchange work on both projects. That's actually how I got going on Vespers, although our arrangement has since morphed into something a bit different. Nevertheless...
I'm just really interested to see/hear what projects out there were really initiated and led by the artist, and which of these have followed through to completion.
And also, what artists out there have their own game ideas and are looking for programmers to help implement them?
It's also a good idea for artists wanting to learn a little programming with Torque, especially if they get involved with programmers who are willing to take the time to teach what they are doing. Not to mention programmers who are interested in mastering Torque, since it gives them a chance to learn by doing in a setting where they needn't worry about other game assets.
#62
If you have problems, you come up with the easiest solution. That's logical, right? Well, as a writer, if I have a story I want to tell, that means that I need characters by which to tell that story and to create any actions and reactions. There are many parts in the plot in which a character has to do or say something important in order to keep the story moving. Sometimes, though, the characters I've created wouldn't ever do or say that thing I need to keep the story headed where is should. Something has to change. I can either change my character or my plot so that it fits.
(Here the point) I imagine it's much the same with the more technical aspects of a game. If something doesn't fit or flow, change one of your pieces to make the whole fit together better. That's dangerous, though! In a single action, you can change the entire direction of your project. (What I am trying to say here is that if you're both artist and programmer, you choose one or the other that has to be changed to fix a problem. I know I didn't go about it very well or obviously.) So it is indeed important, if you are to have a multi-purpose team, to have a strong, opinionated leader willing to push things back to where they belong if they begin to go astray.
You really don't have to worry as much if you've got a large enough team to give them each something different to do. The team I was gonna use back when we were young and innocent and had big plans for Torque was a bunch of my friends who were skilled and willing to work to see something nifty done. So we spent our 100 dollars and we drew up some characters and I wrote a sort of level guide and we were on our way. That was, of course, before we realized that one of us was gonna have to learn how to code and that we'd probably need some modelers and animators before we could really start something. I'm still waiting... It's been a couple years now...
The point being 'make some talented friends before you start making games for free'.
Still, games can be made by artists or programmers. I was the gaffer on a feature length movie a few years ago. We made it in 9 months with a budget of $40, 000 and a crew of 60 or so. That meant that I had to be much more than a gaffer. I was in the credits 13 times for completely different jobs. We all were. With what result? It was dang impressive, but it looked juvenile, almost desperate. If a game is headed by an artist, it will most likely look and feel different than if it's headed by a programmer, even if it starts from the same point.
From my experience in other fields, I would say your best bet is NOT to mix your jobs. If your artists remain artists, your programmers remain programmers, your writers remain writers (all of them headed by a strong leader) you're more likely to come off with a more full and balanced product.
Again, I have no experience in the game creation industry, so this is all opinion and dry supposition.
01/05/2007 (11:22 pm)
Most everybody on this thread says you need a strong leader who's willing to see the project through and make all the hard decisions and also that you need to be flexible-be an artist (I'm assuming this includes, but is not limited to, modelers and animators) and a programmer (a coder) and a story guy (characters, plot, dialogue world, acting).If you have problems, you come up with the easiest solution. That's logical, right? Well, as a writer, if I have a story I want to tell, that means that I need characters by which to tell that story and to create any actions and reactions. There are many parts in the plot in which a character has to do or say something important in order to keep the story moving. Sometimes, though, the characters I've created wouldn't ever do or say that thing I need to keep the story headed where is should. Something has to change. I can either change my character or my plot so that it fits.
(Here the point) I imagine it's much the same with the more technical aspects of a game. If something doesn't fit or flow, change one of your pieces to make the whole fit together better. That's dangerous, though! In a single action, you can change the entire direction of your project. (What I am trying to say here is that if you're both artist and programmer, you choose one or the other that has to be changed to fix a problem. I know I didn't go about it very well or obviously.) So it is indeed important, if you are to have a multi-purpose team, to have a strong, opinionated leader willing to push things back to where they belong if they begin to go astray.
You really don't have to worry as much if you've got a large enough team to give them each something different to do. The team I was gonna use back when we were young and innocent and had big plans for Torque was a bunch of my friends who were skilled and willing to work to see something nifty done. So we spent our 100 dollars and we drew up some characters and I wrote a sort of level guide and we were on our way. That was, of course, before we realized that one of us was gonna have to learn how to code and that we'd probably need some modelers and animators before we could really start something. I'm still waiting... It's been a couple years now...
The point being 'make some talented friends before you start making games for free'.
Still, games can be made by artists or programmers. I was the gaffer on a feature length movie a few years ago. We made it in 9 months with a budget of $40, 000 and a crew of 60 or so. That meant that I had to be much more than a gaffer. I was in the credits 13 times for completely different jobs. We all were. With what result? It was dang impressive, but it looked juvenile, almost desperate. If a game is headed by an artist, it will most likely look and feel different than if it's headed by a programmer, even if it starts from the same point.
From my experience in other fields, I would say your best bet is NOT to mix your jobs. If your artists remain artists, your programmers remain programmers, your writers remain writers (all of them headed by a strong leader) you're more likely to come off with a more full and balanced product.
Again, I have no experience in the game creation industry, so this is all opinion and dry supposition.
#63
whoah.. I hope this does not come out wrong, but that is a pretty arrogant statement. I know this is a perception of mine informed by my beleif structure, but it really hit me hard. This just came across as 'I am an idea person who does not like to get my hands dirty'.. a very rockstar type of stance. this is ok if you are a rockstar, but if you are looking to form a team, this is not the way I would approach presenting yourself in public.
to me, this would be like a film director saying.. yeah, I am not all that into those messy implementation details like cinematography and acting (which in my mind, is the movie correlary to game 'implementation')
I recognize that this may be my own perceptual issues getting in the way, but my own observations lead me to beleive that writers are the ones that are pushing 'lack of story in games' card a bit too much. I suppose, to me, that I see the value of good writing in the context of all the other disciplines and what it can add.. but not to the exclusion of the other disciplines.
I often get the impression, maybe wrongly, that many writers prefer to be seen as auteurs whose work others should be in the service of.
I am not trying to flame here, just throwing into the mix my reaction to that statement as I think the topic of leadership in games is an important topic to talk about.. and to address the issue of autuer vs. team creation.. and where that line should be/could be drawn.
just as important though is having the ability to notice when small changes make things better. often times 'sticking to the plan' can cause as many problems as deviating from it. Making the decisions about when to stay on track and when to deviate is the trick, and unfortunately no right answer.
for me, it is the difference of having a clear vision of the end destination, an allowing for variance in how to get there vs. having the entire trip mapped out and planned.
in the interest of rapid development, I much prefer that the end point and key points along the way be where I want them.. but I am very open to allowing variance in acheiving these 'points'..
in terms of strong leadership.. there are several types.. ranging from a tyrant overlord to a gentle guiding hand.
in the case of Indie games, I think it is important for everyone to ask what else they bring to the table. For me, as well as being a designer with a ton of ideas, I can model, animate, and manage projects.
I am not discounting the brilliance of a strong clear vision being the guiding factor of 'leading' a game project.. but that is something that needs to be proved by the presentation of the vision.
Speaking from a personal perspective, as one with many ideas, I always am asking myself, why should I work on someone else's idea when I have a lot of my own? what makes my ideas worth doing over someone else's idea? what kinds of ideas am I drawn to and would convince me to work on them?
this convincing can be the idea itself, the presentation of the idea, or some other 'thing' (like boatloads of cash).. but there is a line that we all have that will allow us to 'buy in' to an idea above our own.
01/06/2007 (10:05 am)
Quote:Me personally, I'm totally interested in grand theories of design and ideas for particular games, but not much interested in details and implementation. I like playing games and imagining hypothetical games I could play, but I'd leave the actual game-making to someone else if I could. I do enjoy creating story and art content sometimes, but I'm very picky about what kind of project I would donate my labor to, and really only happy if I either am being paid or helped design the game and won most of my arguments about how it should be designed.
whoah.. I hope this does not come out wrong, but that is a pretty arrogant statement. I know this is a perception of mine informed by my beleif structure, but it really hit me hard. This just came across as 'I am an idea person who does not like to get my hands dirty'.. a very rockstar type of stance. this is ok if you are a rockstar, but if you are looking to form a team, this is not the way I would approach presenting yourself in public.
to me, this would be like a film director saying.. yeah, I am not all that into those messy implementation details like cinematography and acting (which in my mind, is the movie correlary to game 'implementation')
I recognize that this may be my own perceptual issues getting in the way, but my own observations lead me to beleive that writers are the ones that are pushing 'lack of story in games' card a bit too much. I suppose, to me, that I see the value of good writing in the context of all the other disciplines and what it can add.. but not to the exclusion of the other disciplines.
I often get the impression, maybe wrongly, that many writers prefer to be seen as auteurs whose work others should be in the service of.
I am not trying to flame here, just throwing into the mix my reaction to that statement as I think the topic of leadership in games is an important topic to talk about.. and to address the issue of autuer vs. team creation.. and where that line should be/could be drawn.
Quote:That's dangerous, though! In a single action, you can change the entire direction of your project. (What I am trying to say here is that if you're both artist and programmer, you choose one or the other that has to be changed to fix a problem. I know I didn't go about it very well or obviously.) So it is indeed important, if you are to have a multi-purpose team, to have a strong, opinionated leader willing to push things back to where they belong if they begin to go astray.
just as important though is having the ability to notice when small changes make things better. often times 'sticking to the plan' can cause as many problems as deviating from it. Making the decisions about when to stay on track and when to deviate is the trick, and unfortunately no right answer.
for me, it is the difference of having a clear vision of the end destination, an allowing for variance in how to get there vs. having the entire trip mapped out and planned.
in the interest of rapid development, I much prefer that the end point and key points along the way be where I want them.. but I am very open to allowing variance in acheiving these 'points'..
in terms of strong leadership.. there are several types.. ranging from a tyrant overlord to a gentle guiding hand.
in the case of Indie games, I think it is important for everyone to ask what else they bring to the table. For me, as well as being a designer with a ton of ideas, I can model, animate, and manage projects.
I am not discounting the brilliance of a strong clear vision being the guiding factor of 'leading' a game project.. but that is something that needs to be proved by the presentation of the vision.
Speaking from a personal perspective, as one with many ideas, I always am asking myself, why should I work on someone else's idea when I have a lot of my own? what makes my ideas worth doing over someone else's idea? what kinds of ideas am I drawn to and would convince me to work on them?
this convincing can be the idea itself, the presentation of the idea, or some other 'thing' (like boatloads of cash).. but there is a line that we all have that will allow us to 'buy in' to an idea above our own.
#64
01/06/2007 (1:29 pm)
@Joe - Well, I'm not looking to form a team, if that makes you feel any better. And it's not that I'm afraid of getting my hands dirty, just that I'm not a detail person. Some people, like history buffs, love all those names and dates and details; me I like to look at the really big picture, take other people's theories apart and build my own composite theory out of the pieces. I like abstract problems like, "What might an mmoadventure game be like?" and "How can we make an NPC seem romantically interesting to a player?" and "What should we put in our game to make it appeal to women?" I'd probably be happiest as a designer or assistant designer working on a project run by a producer - like an adviser to the king lol. So I can do the actual content creation, like writing a script and making sprites and 2D animations, but I enjoy the design brainstorming and the design document the most.
#65
it does not make me feel any better or worse.. I was just noting how I responded to the statement. I was surprised at your last response as well, as it presents some expectations of how game production works that does not match the reality I know.
when you describe what you like to do, and then state that you would be happiest working as a designer or assitant designer, it just does not make sense, as my experience is that the designer is not doing that much of what you want to do and doing a whole lot of what you say you don't like.
I suppose my own understanding and belief in what sort of person makes a good designer is different than yours. My own perception is that good designers have a desire and actually enjoy getting in there and tweaking the hell out of things.. working to make a sound a little more effective, tweaking how something moves to make it more compelling.. changing a particle effect to make an in-game interaction more apparent.
to me, again, my opinion, the implementation is where the magic happens. I cannot imagine someone who wants to be a designer but does not want to do the things designers do.
an additional comment.. producers are seldom 'king' in the sense that they do not sit on a throne and chomp on turkey legs like in the movies. A producers job is often thankless and painful, with quite a lot of attention to the details.
01/07/2007 (12:10 am)
@ Mare, it does not make me feel any better or worse.. I was just noting how I responded to the statement. I was surprised at your last response as well, as it presents some expectations of how game production works that does not match the reality I know.
when you describe what you like to do, and then state that you would be happiest working as a designer or assitant designer, it just does not make sense, as my experience is that the designer is not doing that much of what you want to do and doing a whole lot of what you say you don't like.
I suppose my own understanding and belief in what sort of person makes a good designer is different than yours. My own perception is that good designers have a desire and actually enjoy getting in there and tweaking the hell out of things.. working to make a sound a little more effective, tweaking how something moves to make it more compelling.. changing a particle effect to make an in-game interaction more apparent.
to me, again, my opinion, the implementation is where the magic happens. I cannot imagine someone who wants to be a designer but does not want to do the things designers do.
an additional comment.. producers are seldom 'king' in the sense that they do not sit on a throne and chomp on turkey legs like in the movies. A producers job is often thankless and painful, with quite a lot of attention to the details.
#66
If anyone has a idea for a game and believes in it, then he/she shouldn't wait; he/she should make it.
But the designer won't stand a chance without writing a design doc and coding a prototype of a game level with it's core elements. Actually it can happen that nobody will be around to help him/her. There will be people who will help the designer with code parts, but nobody will do the whole work for him/her.
Like Joe said before, nearly everyone has a idea for a own game, and wants to fulfill it,
so they will not go away from their project unless the designer shows them the idea and convinces them to join.
Cliff Bleszinski (Unreal Tournament) - did almost everything in the beginning
Quote "I was making my own games, programming them, doing all the artwork, the production, level design,
and everything because I didn't have anybody else to do it for me."
PS: I think that a.t.m. a Indie game designer has not the luxury to stay specialized in only one field.
01/07/2007 (2:20 am)
Whatever you are, sound designer, producer, artist, and programmer, it doesn't matter.If anyone has a idea for a game and believes in it, then he/she shouldn't wait; he/she should make it.
But the designer won't stand a chance without writing a design doc and coding a prototype of a game level with it's core elements. Actually it can happen that nobody will be around to help him/her. There will be people who will help the designer with code parts, but nobody will do the whole work for him/her.
Like Joe said before, nearly everyone has a idea for a own game, and wants to fulfill it,
so they will not go away from their project unless the designer shows them the idea and convinces them to join.
Cliff Bleszinski (Unreal Tournament) - did almost everything in the beginning
Quote "I was making my own games, programming them, doing all the artwork, the production, level design,
and everything because I didn't have anybody else to do it for me."
PS: I think that a.t.m. a Indie game designer has not the luxury to stay specialized in only one field.
#67
@ Joe - We must have a different definition of these roles. Here's how I'm defining their idealized separate versions:
Producer - Most important traits are business acumen and networking skills. He gets the funding and must approve project concepts as being worthy of funding. In industry, usually responsible for more than one project.
Game Designer - Most important traits are vision and ability to explain that vision to team members through the design doc and other speaking/writing. Must understand the goals of the project and why each high-level design choice is the best for that goal and in relation to the other choices.
Lead Programmer - Comes up with a plan of attack to implement the game design, and advises the designer on anything which is impractical. Decides what languages, engines, and other programming tools to use and hires staff programmers.
Art Coordinator - same as the lead programmer but for art.
01/07/2007 (9:15 am)
I agree the in indie design it's impractical to have someone who's only the producer or only the designer, and it's most advantageous to be able to do everything yourself. Me I'm utterly hopeless at music, despite trying to learn several times; my brain seems to have some sort of music deficiency. I was only tolerable at programming when I was studying it, mostly confused and bored; more recently I've read some stuff about high-level design, object oriented and otherwise, and information flow and AI to help me be better able to design a game programmers could make. I'm an intermediate anime artist - at that confusing point where I and some other people are happy with my stuff, but a professional artist would tell you the anatomy and shading were nonsense. I would consider myself a professional-quality writer; while I haven't finished a novel yet my only stumbling-block is plotting something that long. I've finished several smaller things up to the size of a 5-act play, outlined some slightly longer graphic novels, and a video game story is the same length; one of my current projects is a long choose your own adventure romance, to help me get a better feel for designing interactive stories.@ Joe - We must have a different definition of these roles. Here's how I'm defining their idealized separate versions:
Producer - Most important traits are business acumen and networking skills. He gets the funding and must approve project concepts as being worthy of funding. In industry, usually responsible for more than one project.
Game Designer - Most important traits are vision and ability to explain that vision to team members through the design doc and other speaking/writing. Must understand the goals of the project and why each high-level design choice is the best for that goal and in relation to the other choices.
Lead Programmer - Comes up with a plan of attack to implement the game design, and advises the designer on anything which is impractical. Decides what languages, engines, and other programming tools to use and hires staff programmers.
Art Coordinator - same as the lead programmer but for art.
#68
yes, we do have different definitions for these roles and what people in these roles do.
your producer description above sounds like an Executive Producer. The Producer role deals more with the day to day task tracking, making sure people have resources, conflict resolution, testing, and interfacing with marketing. The tasks of a producer are less grand than one would imagine.
The game designer description you put down sounds correct, except, in my own experience (and as it relates to your previous comments) is that the 'other speaking/writing' task makes up the majority of the time, with the designer going around to all the team members and being confronted with problems where the game design is either internally conflicted or unclear, or the implementation is in question. The design doc does not take that much time at all in the breakdown of total time the game is being developed.
I understand that your descriptions of the idealized roles as you think they should exist. My experience paints a different picture as the reality of making and shipping games defines the tasks a little differently than you have done.
The leads descriptions are appropriate, although again, my experience does not draw that clean a line between them, and my experience actually leads me to believe that the blurrier the line the better off the team.
01/07/2007 (3:12 pm)
@Mare, yes, we do have different definitions for these roles and what people in these roles do.
your producer description above sounds like an Executive Producer. The Producer role deals more with the day to day task tracking, making sure people have resources, conflict resolution, testing, and interfacing with marketing. The tasks of a producer are less grand than one would imagine.
The game designer description you put down sounds correct, except, in my own experience (and as it relates to your previous comments) is that the 'other speaking/writing' task makes up the majority of the time, with the designer going around to all the team members and being confronted with problems where the game design is either internally conflicted or unclear, or the implementation is in question. The design doc does not take that much time at all in the breakdown of total time the game is being developed.
I understand that your descriptions of the idealized roles as you think they should exist. My experience paints a different picture as the reality of making and shipping games defines the tasks a little differently than you have done.
The leads descriptions are appropriate, although again, my experience does not draw that clean a line between them, and my experience actually leads me to believe that the blurrier the line the better off the team.
#69
One thing I forgot to mention about why I'd enjoy being an assistant designer, is the sheer joy of working with someone who has mostly the same taste and artistic goals as I do. It's really rare for that to happen, but wonderful when I find a leader whose jugdment I really have confidence in and whose follower I can really enjoy being.
01/08/2007 (11:21 am)
If the game design is internally conflicted, the designer did a lousy job. Possibly a direct result of not taking enough time on the design doc before getting into development. Other than that I mostly agree, everything's blurrier in real life and a lot of everyone's time gets spent greasing the wheels rather than doing their primary task. The only thing I would quibble with is that in my experience it's been the designer who does conflict resolution, not a producer - it pretty much has to be a designer because all conflicts must be resolved in the way that's best for the overall vision of the game.One thing I forgot to mention about why I'd enjoy being an assistant designer, is the sheer joy of working with someone who has mostly the same taste and artistic goals as I do. It's really rare for that to happen, but wonderful when I find a leader whose jugdment I really have confidence in and whose follower I can really enjoy being.
#70
What looks good on paper does not always translate well into the game. The mark of a Good Designer is one who responds to this and through the help of the team, resolves the problem. My experience has shown that the biggest danger for a project is a Designer who won't let go of something that just isn't working and tries to force it.
I agree with conflict resolution, the Designer (if capable) should resolve it in an effort to maintain the Vision but a Producer can go along way to making sure this is possible.
Cheers :)
01/08/2007 (12:47 pm)
Quote:If the game design is internally conflicted, the designer did a lousy job.Hardly true.
What looks good on paper does not always translate well into the game. The mark of a Good Designer is one who responds to this and through the help of the team, resolves the problem. My experience has shown that the biggest danger for a project is a Designer who won't let go of something that just isn't working and tries to force it.
I agree with conflict resolution, the Designer (if capable) should resolve it in an effort to maintain the Vision but a Producer can go along way to making sure this is possible.
Cheers :)
#71
I have never met a group of people (no matter how well or how long they've known each other, and no matter how deep their friendship is) who could agree on something so grand in scale as a game. There MUST be someone in charge, and everyone else in the team MUST be willing to follow their directions. In most fields, from motion pictures to graphic novels, you have a producer (slightly less powerful than an Exec. Producer, but with the same basic job description) who makes the big calls. Everyone listens to them because they're the one funding the project, and the one who keeps it rolling. They also have all of the connections.
Directly under them is the Director, the one with the complete and total vision of the finished product. Usually they are guided by a writer who has given them an in-depth story, but they (as well as a producer) have the right to change the story as they see fit. They have a clear visual as well as technical product in their minds, and they work to guide the rest of the team towards that goal.
And it trickles on down from there.
I have a small question, sort of unrelated, I suppose. Is it more effective (quicker, more likely to come out with a decent finished product) if your team is in the same physical location, as opposed to anywhere, connected only by phone or Email? It seems to me that it would be, but I don't know.
P.S.-I have a blog up with a few examples of my writing. I would appreciate it if someone looked at it and told me if I'm an idiot or not. Enough advertising!
01/08/2007 (1:33 pm)
Mare, you sound very idealistic, to the point of having your head in the clouds. From the small amount of experience I have to offer, I've got to agree with James. Things change, big time. If you force rigidity, rather than allow things to bend, it all gonna break. That's not to say that the project should be allowed to become something different, only that there are different ways of coming to the same conclusion.I have never met a group of people (no matter how well or how long they've known each other, and no matter how deep their friendship is) who could agree on something so grand in scale as a game. There MUST be someone in charge, and everyone else in the team MUST be willing to follow their directions. In most fields, from motion pictures to graphic novels, you have a producer (slightly less powerful than an Exec. Producer, but with the same basic job description) who makes the big calls. Everyone listens to them because they're the one funding the project, and the one who keeps it rolling. They also have all of the connections.
Directly under them is the Director, the one with the complete and total vision of the finished product. Usually they are guided by a writer who has given them an in-depth story, but they (as well as a producer) have the right to change the story as they see fit. They have a clear visual as well as technical product in their minds, and they work to guide the rest of the team towards that goal.
And it trickles on down from there.
I have a small question, sort of unrelated, I suppose. Is it more effective (quicker, more likely to come out with a decent finished product) if your team is in the same physical location, as opposed to anywhere, connected only by phone or Email? It seems to me that it would be, but I don't know.
P.S.-I have a blog up with a few examples of my writing. I would appreciate it if someone looked at it and told me if I'm an idiot or not. Enough advertising!
#72
@Vitreous. A link to said blog may be helpful. ;-)
01/08/2007 (1:49 pm)
It's much easier when people are together and more importantly (imo) on the same schedule. turn-around time for questions, approvals, conflict resolutions, etc. is much more efficient when everyone's together.@Vitreous. A link to said blog may be helpful. ;-)
#73
Am I idealistic? I would imagine so, isn't idealism one of the main motivations for designing, writing, or creating art? Having a vision of this great potential thing and fighting to make it come into existence? But I don't think I have my head in the clouds, I've certainly spent enough time wrestling with the practicalities of running a budgetless indie game design project to be aware that nothing is easy, many things are practically impossible, and murphy's law loves to attack at the worst possible moment. I'm aware that I'm picky and don't like to compromise - I try to be honest about that and only get involved with projects where I like the concept and people enough not to get disgusted and quit. But when you're donating your effort with little hope of it ever resulting in payment or a working game there's no reason not to be picky and idealistic. I'm much more cooperative if I'm being paid.
01/08/2007 (2:21 pm)
*blink* I was assuming internally conflicted meant that the design itself was self-contradictory; a problem which becomes visible when you try to implement it but is actually present before implementation, when it is still a pure design. If there's a problem in the design, I don't know whose fault it could be except the designer's. *shrug* Also, having only done budgetless indie design and never been on a team which had any higher-ranking members than 1 director/producer, I'll have to take people's word on what executives do.Am I idealistic? I would imagine so, isn't idealism one of the main motivations for designing, writing, or creating art? Having a vision of this great potential thing and fighting to make it come into existence? But I don't think I have my head in the clouds, I've certainly spent enough time wrestling with the practicalities of running a budgetless indie game design project to be aware that nothing is easy, many things are practically impossible, and murphy's law loves to attack at the worst possible moment. I'm aware that I'm picky and don't like to compromise - I try to be honest about that and only get involved with projects where I like the concept and people enough not to get disgusted and quit. But when you're donating your effort with little hope of it ever resulting in payment or a working game there's no reason not to be picky and idealistic. I'm much more cooperative if I'm being paid.
#75
I'm very cooperative after that... can't move, but very cooperative :)
@ Mare - Nothing wrong with idealism. As to your point about the internal conflict, yes your understanding of it is very extreme(well, that's perhaps too strong a word). No game would make it beyond preproduction if your definition existed in the design. But you're also right about who is at fault - the Designer. Then again, Designers are people too and make mistakes. It still comes down to seeing something in the flesh to know if it will work or not. Unless you are that Uber-Designer that I've heard tell off in song and story ;)
@ Shaz - I agree, the same timezone helps :)
@ Vit - read your blog and left a comment :)
Cheers all :)
01/08/2007 (5:23 pm)
Quote:I think we're all more cooperative when we're being paid. ;-)And ice cream, don't forget the ice cream!
I'm very cooperative after that... can't move, but very cooperative :)
@ Mare - Nothing wrong with idealism. As to your point about the internal conflict, yes your understanding of it is very extreme(well, that's perhaps too strong a word). No game would make it beyond preproduction if your definition existed in the design. But you're also right about who is at fault - the Designer. Then again, Designers are people too and make mistakes. It still comes down to seeing something in the flesh to know if it will work or not. Unless you are that Uber-Designer that I've heard tell off in song and story ;)
@ Shaz - I agree, the same timezone helps :)
@ Vit - read your blog and left a comment :)
Cheers all :)
#76
01/08/2007 (5:47 pm)
@James, they're making songs about me now? I thought it was just stories!
#77
there are always problems with all designs when they reach implementation. Anyone who tells me they can design a game on paper and have implemented exactly as it is spelled in the design doc and not encounter any issues is a liar.
In terms of not spending enough time on the design doc, there is a point where one can reach diminishing returns. One can keep working on a design doc forever, and it is never going to solve all the issues that happen in production.
In a general sense, the separation of design from implementation is one of cost and scope, and the difficulty of rearragement of the design. The larger the scope, the more cost efficient it is to separate design and prodution. The more difficult and costly it is to rearrange the project during the production of it, the more it is desireable to have a solid up front design.
In terms of software, where the cost of design change is small (say, compared to retooling a factory that is producing cars), the allowance for design change while in implementation is greater. In the case of software (as opposed to buildings and cars) the cost of design analysis does not effectively reduce cost when taken to the extreme.
In terms of idealized visions, the vision of having a locked in stone up front design does not sound at all ideal to me. It makes a what I see as a creative process very dry.
Although you have an ideal of what you think a designers job should be when making games, the ideal does not meet with reality very well when working with others, and it is not an ideal that others may find attractive.
While I would agree with you that having idealistic notions is a part of creation, in this case you are idealizing a notion of both the item you want to create and the process by which you want to create it.
Noble for sure.. but a little unrealistic, and certainly making it more difficult than it should be.
I respect your stance, I just don't agree with it at all.
01/08/2007 (6:58 pm)
Quote:I was assuming internally conflicted meant that the design itself was self-contradictory; a problem which becomes visible when you try to implement it but is actually present before implementation, when it is still a pure design. If there's a problem in the design, I don't know whose fault it could be except the designer's.
there are always problems with all designs when they reach implementation. Anyone who tells me they can design a game on paper and have implemented exactly as it is spelled in the design doc and not encounter any issues is a liar.
In terms of not spending enough time on the design doc, there is a point where one can reach diminishing returns. One can keep working on a design doc forever, and it is never going to solve all the issues that happen in production.
In a general sense, the separation of design from implementation is one of cost and scope, and the difficulty of rearragement of the design. The larger the scope, the more cost efficient it is to separate design and prodution. The more difficult and costly it is to rearrange the project during the production of it, the more it is desireable to have a solid up front design.
In terms of software, where the cost of design change is small (say, compared to retooling a factory that is producing cars), the allowance for design change while in implementation is greater. In the case of software (as opposed to buildings and cars) the cost of design analysis does not effectively reduce cost when taken to the extreme.
In terms of idealized visions, the vision of having a locked in stone up front design does not sound at all ideal to me. It makes a what I see as a creative process very dry.
Although you have an ideal of what you think a designers job should be when making games, the ideal does not meet with reality very well when working with others, and it is not an ideal that others may find attractive.
While I would agree with you that having idealistic notions is a part of creation, in this case you are idealizing a notion of both the item you want to create and the process by which you want to create it.
Noble for sure.. but a little unrealistic, and certainly making it more difficult than it should be.
I respect your stance, I just don't agree with it at all.
#78
I've learned quite a bit from this thread. I hope I can use it someday...
I've heard a lot in this thread about how indie teams are made up of people who do more than one thing, and one of them is usually coding. Some people can be very skilled, but muddled and foggy when it comes to technical things, such as learning a language spoken by machines. Do these people not fit on indie teams? Is it unreasonable to think that they have a place in the game creation field?
01/08/2007 (10:55 pm)
Alright. I'll clarify, but only a little. I agree that idealism is important, Mare, and that without it hopes aren't so high and there really isn't as much drive in the end. I don't know you, and I only have these posts to go on, so I have no real clue if your head is in the clouds or not. But to be a strong leader and a guiding influence, you cannot have your head in the clouds. You must be down to Earth, with an ability to see when things are unrealistic and also when things CAN be done, even though it will take extra effort. When you have others counting on you to show the way, you yourself must see the path without any undue imaginings.I've learned quite a bit from this thread. I hope I can use it someday...
I've heard a lot in this thread about how indie teams are made up of people who do more than one thing, and one of them is usually coding. Some people can be very skilled, but muddled and foggy when it comes to technical things, such as learning a language spoken by machines. Do these people not fit on indie teams? Is it unreasonable to think that they have a place in the game creation field?
#79
Of course they have a place in every team and in the game creation field. Why not?
If they want to work on a project, they will quickly get a chance when showing required skills.
But if they have "the idea" for a new game they will have a hard time, when trying to create it and recruit a team.
01/09/2007 (2:40 am)
@ VitreousOf course they have a place in every team and in the game creation field. Why not?
If they want to work on a project, they will quickly get a chance when showing required skills.
But if they have "the idea" for a new game they will have a hard time, when trying to create it and recruit a team.
#80
I will say this - this whole process is an on going learning experience. If we didn't push the outside of our own limits let alone game design, we'd get bored quickly I suspect. Well, I would :) Having a team that supports you as you take on these challenges, take those risks, is not something to take for granted. I love working in a team when it's in sync with each of its members. Unfortunately, such teams can be rare beasts Like marriage, teams take work to make them... ah, work. You have to be willing to put the effort in.
@ Shaz - The songs are quite bawdy actually. Something to do with Four and Twenty Virgins come down from Inverness...
Cheers all :)
01/09/2007 (3:57 am)
@ Vit - Kris is right. I think on all the teams I've worked with and as the project went on, we learned each others strengths and weaknesses. We played to the strengths, lend support to the weak spots or have someone else take up that particular challenge. I suppose that is what is meant by team balance and support.I will say this - this whole process is an on going learning experience. If we didn't push the outside of our own limits let alone game design, we'd get bored quickly I suspect. Well, I would :) Having a team that supports you as you take on these challenges, take those risks, is not something to take for granted. I love working in a team when it's in sync with each of its members. Unfortunately, such teams can be rare beasts
@ Shaz - The songs are quite bawdy actually. Something to do with Four and Twenty Virgins come down from Inverness...
Cheers all :)
Mare Kuntz
Me personally, I'm totally interested in grand theories of design and ideas for particular games, but not much interested in details and implementation. I like playing games and imagining hypothetical games I could play, but I'd leave the actual game-making to someone else if I could. I do enjoy creating story and art content sometimes, but I'm very picky about what kind of project I would donate my labor to, and really only happy if I either am being paid or helped design the game and won most of my arguments about how it should be designed. That's why I don't really care about manhour estimates or concept coding (not that the code would mean anything to me if I did look at it). I like to know that a game design is possible to implement, and in general how it is planned to be implemented, but not in detail, just "this will be done by hand, this will be procedural, we're going to use mad-libs style scripting for that, we'll do the other like game X did it, and Fred's going to provide a test server." Mostly I just have to assess the personality and abilities of the lead designer and/or programmer and find someone I trust to see the game through to completion.