Monthly Archives: September 2011

Finalizing a Game

Confidence, that’s half the job. To be able to go into the last week of a project and be confident in your product is half of what you need to get the game done.

At this point in the process you should have everything programmed, all the art in the game, all the audio final, and should only have to polish. The only reason you should not be confident in your game is if you haven’tĀ deliveredĀ on what you set out to get done, if the game isn’t what it’s supposed to be. By this point, confidence will say everything you could say about your own game.

Being able to answer the question “how do you feel about the game at this point?” with a straight face and a “great, we’re nearly finished we just have to tweak some things” then you’re golden.

Continue reading

Competitive and Feedback Mastery

Mastery is a tricky thing to understand when designing games, expectedly. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with a game being hard, but it has to do with why it’s hard.

Games with depth or rewards are the best at providing an environment where mastery is put to use the best.

Continue reading

First Impressions/Professionalism

First impressions can be a challenge in this industry whether it’s your game or yourself. Making sure that someone understands your personality is half of it, and the other half is seeming intelligent. I say “seeming” because it’s only an impression and whether you’re actually intelligent or not is what determines you keeping that connection, not getting it in the first place. That’s also the category that professionalism falls under.

Continue reading

Tagged ,

Revisiting Choice

A while back for my team’s developer blog, Sketch Quest, I wrote a few articles about the different aspects of player choice in video games (mainly ours) and how to properly make a player feel powerful.

This seems to have taken a bit of an estranged path as we’ve been handed a golden ticket – players don’t need to choose everything. This has (believe it or not) been quite a revelation for us, and has validated some original design opinions of mine. That being said, my opinion of the direction our game was different from the direction we ended up going, it’s only validated because it appears that the direction I wanted to head was actually the best way of making the game the rest of the team wanted.

Naturally, when a player is given a choice they take a little while to consider the options and make a decision. In the case of video games this decision is made only to give them the highest benefit, and is rarely a visual choice. Players are actually very intelligent when they’re given the time to think about a decision; I know, it caught me by surprise as well.

Continue reading

Tagged ,

Taking Advantage of a Good Thing

On a similar note to my post yesterday regarding operant conditioning, I want to talk briefly about loopholes and shortcuts, as far as game design is concerned.

A lot of people are very stubborn about their own designs, and will stick to their guns when they’re designing a game. This is often the cause of the infamous relationship between the designer and the producer.

Continue reading

Tagged ,

Operant Conditioning

Way back in a simpler time (mid-20th century) a man named B.F. Skinner came across regimental experimentation by giving his rats less food pellets for every time they hit a lever, to save food and money.

A lot of the time in game design, people come across magnificent processes for design (like B.F. Skinner did for psychology) that they don’t quite understand (unlike B.F. Skinner) or exploit properly.

Coming across a process or a design that people find desirable often doesn’t go far enough these days.

Continue reading

Tagged , ,
%d bloggers like this: