Talk:Video game design

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nrea21 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jooookerr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 2 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DeSosa007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 24 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NolanPennells34.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Marketing Links

Though I formatted them, I am uncomfortable with the links added by 69.47.133.65. They seem to be just marketing links. Though they do link to a game designer (game builder, really), no professionals would use such a tool. If no one objects, I'll remove it. If you'd like them kept in, please list justifications. Thanks. —Frecklefoot 14:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I had to remove the second one—it's slow and riddled with pop-ups. Please comment on the Game Maker link only now. —Frecklefoot 14:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering removing them myself, but I think the article should also consider amateur/hobbyist game design. Maybe a link to the rec.games.design FAQ instead? --Mrwojo 16:58, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think links to rec.games.design and comp.games.development.design are a good idea (as well as the FAQ). But the link to Game Maker is out of place—it is for making games, not designing them. I feel that a link to MS Word would be more appropriate since GD's spend most of their time writing (no, I don't really think we should include the MS Word link). BTW, I mentioned the word processor to the article since it didn't seem to be mentioned (I guess I assumed it was implied). What 'cha think? —Frecklefoot 17:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It all sounds good. I removed the link to Game Maker. --Mrwojo 00:37, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! —Frecklefoot 14:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Game Designers and Fisticuffs

I have a problem with this: "If the designer is not the sole designer on a game, they must exercise diplomacy when discussing features with other designers. Conflicting ideas can easily escalate into violence when passionate personalities are involved."

Are game designers as professionals more inclined toward violence than other creative collaborative professionals, say folks in the movie-making biz? I think not. This sentence seems superfluous to me, especially the reference to violence.

I put that in in reference to my personal experience. The arguments didn't escalate into actual brawls, but there were some pretty heated discussions, full of name-calling and yelling. It doesn't always happen, however, especially if the Lead Designer is diplomatic. So my wording may have been incorrect. I'll take a shot at rewording it. —Frecklefoot 23:16, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

I somehow disagree. Of course, I depends on people. But in some studios, no arguing about game design is allowed - it's just rock solid document. Hopefully this doesn't happen so often. But, the final decision making allways should be on game designer's arms, because that's where responsibility is. Analytik 15:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Initial definition

I changed it because creation is the job of the dev team not the designer. Strategy is what the player creates though of course the designer may anticipate it. I think my definition is more universal and accurate but i'm sure we can work something out.

I will probably start to expand this article with some key concepts and non-videogame design stuff. --Tomheaton 11:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

game design process

I started tidying up this section but stopped because I think it needs a rewrite. At the moment it's very subjective and from an individual point of view.

• eg. The main weapon in a game designer's arsenal is a word processor. With this application, the designer will hammer out the game design as it goes through its scores of revisions, growing from a few sparse pages to a mammoth tome, cross-referenced and indexed. Samples of artwork, graphs and tables make up some of the content, but most of the document is text which the designer generated.

It might be the main weapon - but it might not be. The design doc may not go through scores of revisions. It may not become a mammoth tome with cross-references - there are other ways of doing it. Sometimes the designer is god and will hand down the finished design to be implemented. Sometimes (as in the write up here, the designer is little more than notetaker and documenter to the whole team.) These differences need to be written up if the article is to be objective.

There is also lots here about the character of game designer. Surely that should maybe go into the game designer entry. But again a lot of it is subjective. --Tomheaton 11:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hm... yeah, word processor main be main tool, but I wouldn't call it main weapon - that should be creativity. And, most thing begin in paper, anyway, because it provides more flexibility and... it's just classic :)

Plus, size and need of game document depends on size of team. The more people work on game, the more information is needed to clarify the vision. When you're lone wolf (designer+coder+artist), why would you need polished, detailed doc? Analytik 15:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

rewrite would be good

...for sure. It's not that the article is totally bad, but it just doesn't catch the atmosphere of game design and I cannot agree with many things.

In the first place, game design is fun, art and still serious work.

Then, I cannot agree fully with expressions as "Professional game designers specialize in a certain types of games...", because then don't, at least not explicitly. When I do game design, I do it because I love it and when I've spent 10 years designing PC games doesn't mean I won't have good idea for board game or I won't start designing video games when rich contract appears.

"Key Concept" is beginning in the middle. I... I really don't have any better idea and I couldn't write better article, at least not in few minutes, but imagining I'd know nothing of game design, this would confuse me.

"The game designer starts with a concept" - what? what concept? I cannot agree. I allways start with an idea, which develops into some vision - concept requires a lot more work! And more than that - imagine working as pro game designer, not freelancing, but working under rule of bigger game development company or publisher and thay say: "We licensed Unreal engine for $500'000, so you'd better be good." and you have to design game you wouldn't by yourself. So, this doesn't start with concept, but with technology.

As perhaps some of you noticed, I'm influenced by Richard Rouse III and his book Game Design: Theory And Practice. And I'm not pro game designer. But I love game design and I've spent quite some time reading articles and discussing. Not that it means I'm any better that you guys ;)

So, I could go on about starting with existing story, what could by called concept in terms of storyline or setting of game, but how does this affects design of game mechanics? If I'd start writing game based on Batman novel, how would it dictate me game type? It could be FPS, RPG, adventure, 3rd person shooter and with enough creativity massively multiplayer strategy. Analytik 15:20, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I originated this article and I've been a professional game programmer for over 10 years. That said, I think you have a lot of good ideas and your contribution would improve the article. Specifically:

• The Key Concepts section does jump right into the middle of things. BTW, it wasn't me who added that, but another user (my original version didn't have it).
• Often what game a designer makes is influenced by many other factors other than their "dream" idea for a game. My explanation was more of a "in the best possible situation." Most game designers I know spend years designing games based on what a client or the employer wants, not what they want. Technology, licensed properties and such are all used as motivations for creating certain types of games. Feel free to fix this up. BTW, I did touch on this at the bottom of The video and computer game design process, but it could use more and can be repositioned.

Feel free to be bold in editing. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:59, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Key concepts

Though I think the information in this section is good, it jumps right into things without any lead-in text. Anyone want to take a stab at writing a lead-in? And I think it should be moved to under the "Video/computer game design process" since it discusses video game design, not board or other game type design. Does anyone disagree? — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:21, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

POV edit

Dndn1011 rewrote the Key concepts section of the article and turned it into an opinion piece/essay (see change here). While I supported a rewrite of the section, I didn't intend for it to be turned into a POV diatribe on why the previous piece was wrong and introducing so much opinion. I reverted it to the previous version, which wasn't great, but wasn't full of POV either.

Remember, on Wikipedia we try to have a NPOV. We don't say what is right and what is wrong, we just present the facts. Please don't use Wikipedia articles to express your own personal opinions as fact. If you disagree with the revert, please discuss it here first. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that it was something of a mixed bag. The more I look at it, the more problems I see.... The basic descriptions of Setting and Story weren't bad, though he then delves into things that have the problems you highlight. Theme however, I thought he was completely off base on. By the definitions I'm used to, he's confusing Theme and Mechanics. It also tended to more firmly entrench the bias towards a CVG-only view of design. --Rindis 16:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nearly 30 years experience in game design. The original text also makes assumptions that were not challenged because I submit you found them agreeable, and did not want them challenged.

The best way to deal with this is to actually discuss the text. I take offence at it being deleted simply because it is not agreed with. Care needs to be taken as to where the POV is...

So I will attempt this again but in the discussion area. We will see if reasonable discussion is possible.

Incidentally I agree with the comment about Theme, but only in respect of the title. Some place needs to be found for games that have as there Theme a mechanic.

This topic is very complex and everyone has their view. The best we can do is probably to put forward varying people's views on Game Design in an entry for Game Design. There is no universal truth.

Incidentally, the "Interaction that Entertains" definition of Gameplay has been quoted by Ernest Adams and was printed in Develop Magazine a couple of years ago. But you just wiped that out too. My feeling is this is going to be hard work. Dndn1011 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that discussing this section is the best way to resolve it. However, good edits usually go unchallenged or only get a few changes for spelling and grammar. I just wanted to point this out so you don't assume that you have to discuss every change you make on the 'pedia (from you contributions, it looks like you're fairly new here).

My biggest problems were:

1. You presented as fact things that were very subjective
2. You capitalized many terms that don't need to be
3. You seemed to completely ignore punctuation

The last two are not big problems (a good copyedit can easily resolve those), but the first one is a big problem. If you're going to present some things as fact, you have to cite some credible source. Not all parts of the article do this, simply because there is a derth of such material to cite. But for subjective things, you have to present some reference, or, at the very least, present all sides of an argument. In your edit, you flat out said that many things were wrong. Wrong by whose standard?

I agree that this subject is a difficult one to tackle, since it is so subjective (and by most standard, young) in nature. I hope we can resolve it amicably.

Probably the best place to start is with a lead-in to the Key concepts section. Right now it doesn't have one, but it needs one to be consistent with other articles and to give readers some bearings. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK how do we do this then? I made a stab at it, perhaps you should take what I said and challenge what you don't like. From the quality of the existing article I really did not think I would be detracting from it.

I am quite willing to devote some time to this, but only if it is worthwhile. The effort made by me so far got immediately rebuffed, I think unfairly, but that is really not important. As an expert in this field my views and experience should count for something, but if we include everyone's theories then we will end up with a gigantic entry for this subject. We can attempt to find common ground, but who is to mediate? How do we know when every view is taken account of? I have some ideas on how this might be organised but I am not an expert on Wikipedia and I really don't want to get slapped down again. So the ball is in your court. Please lead the way, if you wish. Dndn1011 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia discourages original research, meaning adding whatever one wishes and claiming it is The Truth. What is encouraged is citing references (reputable Internet sites, books, magazine articles) for claims made in the prose. For subjects where there is a wide variety of opinion, instead of cut and dry facts, a representation of the most popular opinions is expected, and then also cited. For a subjective subject such as this one, it would probably be impossible to include everyone's viewpoint in the discussion, but the prevailing theories can be discussed.

The problem I had with the first edit is that it presented as fact things that were actually subjective. If you are an expert in the field, you probably have a substantial amount of credible material at your disposal that could be used as references for material in this area. I hope this is clear. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 10:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that you refuse to identify any particular claims that need substantiation, but instead wiped out the whole of my work. Once again I ask you to identify the particular claims I made that you had a problem with so that I can clarify. This is I believe the normal process is it not? Or am I meant to spend time working on this again to find that once again the whole work is removed without explanation? That is a risk I am not willing to take. So one more time... will you please point out specifically the statements you had a problem with instead of just applying some kind of general blanket ban? By your reluctance to do so I get the impression you feel it is not worth your time, in which case it can be hardly worth mine to be second guessing you. The ball is still in your court. You have my original text, lets see some actual critical analysis and discussion of it. Over to you.

Dndn1011 12:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The problems I have with your edit are outlined below. Don't take it harshly. Pretend I am sitting across from you at a table with a friendly smile and am speaking in a calm voice. :-) Your text appears in blue just to help distinguish your text from my comments.

Game design is the process of designing the content and rules of a game.

Professional game designers specialize in certain types of games, such as board games, card games or video games.

The only problem I have here is that you split the section into two paragraphs, which is unnecessary. Not a big deal.

===Design Method===

A document which describes a game's design maybe used during development (often called a a design document), although this is not the only way to design a game. Many games that have shaped the video game industry for instance have been developed primarily through iterative prototyping, which is often a much better way to discover new designs than theorising on paper. In the development of board games, prototyping is the primary method due to the lack of expense in developing such prototypes.

Here you say "Many games that have shaped the video game industry for instance have been developed primarily through iterative prototyping, which is often a much better way to discover new designs than theorising on paper." That is clearly POV. It is your opinion that iterative prototyping is a better way to design games (I can only assume you mean video games here). Even if you have a reference, you can't say this in an article, unless it's been proven in some manner. The most you can say is, for example, "according to noted game designer, Fred Derringer, however, iterative prototyping is a much better way to develop new designs." ^[1]

One minor problem, in headings and sub-headings, only the first word is capitalized, unless the following words are part of a proper name (such as "The Statue of Liberty"). So it should read "Design method".

===Theme===

The concept of theme is with regards to game development is perhaps controversial. Many who come from narrative backgrounds will think of theme as connected with story. However in game design Theme is perhaps more suited to encompass the mechanics of interaction, something which does not apply to narrative, except perhaps when describing a plot. For example, Tetris has a theme of packing (essentially this is what you do when playing Tetris). Tetris does not really have a story. But it does have a theme. The theme for Chess, for example is War. However, Chess also does not really have a story, although it is trivial to add a story on to a chess game. For the popular video game "Lemmings" the theme might be described as "Herding". It is possible for games to combine multiple themes together.

In the opening you say "concept... is perhaps controversial." Which is it? Either it's controversial or it isn't.

For the rest of the section, I can't make out your point. Are you saying theme is often confused with plot? Anyway, any claim you make—and you make many in this section—you should cite with some credible source (a credible source is a published book, noted online reference or noted industry magazine).

===Setting===

A setting is not necessary for a game, but often one is supplied to give a context to the activity the player will engage in (the Theme of the game). It is also used as a context to any story elements in the same way as it is in narrative disciplines.

Here you talk about setting, but you never explain what it is. You assume the reader knows what it is. First explain what it is, then how it is used (or isn't) in game design.

Although not essential, most games have a setting of some sort, and it is often the starting point of the design (although arguably this is not the correct approach).

Here, again, you are asserting your opinion as fact. To maintain a neutral tone, you have to present both points of view. You can say that someone states it is incorrect and then cite it, as discussed above.

A strong setting is considered a core part of the marketing strategy for a commercial game and will often be conceived in a marketing department before being passed to game designers to create a game, particularly with licensed properties.

This is sometimes true, but I dispute that the setting is conceived of in a marketing department first. Who said marketers are creative? A marketing department may object to a theme, ask for a new one or even suggest a new one, but never, never have I seen a game idea (or even just a setting) come from a marketing department and handed to a game designer.

Licensed properties often have a setting inherant to the property (for example, Clue takes place in a mansion), but that setting doesn't come from a marketing department. The setting may be stipulated by the property owner, but that's not the same as a marketing department.

Once again, if you want to make this claim, provide a citation.

Unfortunately this is probably not ideal as the focus then becomes story rather than interactivity. As games are generally weak at relating narrative compared purely narrative media this can result in sub optimal designs that do not play to the strengths of the medium. Often so much emphasis is placed on Setting and Story that the interactive elements of the design suffer under the weight of narrative constraints.

This section is 100% POV. It is your opinion again. It reads like a personal essay, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Whenever you see yourself typing "sadly", "unfortunately" or a similar adjective, check yourself and see if you are expressing an opinion. Having an opinion is human nature, but on Wikipedia, we try to maintain a neutral point of view.

===Story===

Most games, especially video games, have a narrative element. The story is the plot enacted within the context of the setting. A well designed game achieves a good balance between Story, Setting and Theme.

POV, needs a cite. Some may argue that one or more of these elements is less important than the others.

There is a tendancy for stories to be overly focused on, perhaps because they are easier to relate and understand, and thus easier to market.

POV, cite.

Gameplay on the other hand requires active participation in order to be understood. Unfortunately Marketing has not properly solved the problem of how to market Gameplay, which is hard to communicate. Thus we often find that the financing descisions and development strategies for games focus on immediate impact rather than fun.

Total an complete POV. Needs citations for every claim made here. Again, sounds like a personal essay.

===Gameplay===

Gameplay is what the player does during the game, governed by the interactions of one or more game mechanics. Gameplay is at the heart of the design process and is usually extensively tested and refined.

This is fine. Doesn't really need a cite, but it couldn't hurt.

However as already stated, Gameplay in video game development is often not in practice the starting point of the project, despite it supposedly being at the heart.

POV

This conflict exists in becasue of the immature nature of the industry and as stated the focus on principles from more mature non-interactive media.

Muddled point, but POV and refers to previous POV. Cite it.

The topic of Gameplay Design [don't capitalize these terms] is still very immature and lacks a coherent and agreed language, unlike more mature media. As a result it is a difficult topic to discuss and is highly controversial.

Good point, but needs a reference.

Long standing game developer Dino Dini defines gameplay as "Interaction that Entertains", although there are many other definitions. However fundementally a good game must be entertaining in an interactive way.

Good, a quote from a noted industry figure! But it needs to be cited (where and when did he say it?). And did he really capitalize "Entertains"? If so, it should have a [sic] after it (IMHO). Directly after the quote, however, there is more POV.

===Presentation===

Presentation is the how the game (including its theme,setting and story) are realised, essentially the visual and audio design of the game. It is one of many factors that need to be considered when designing a game. There are often production constraints (technical/finiancial and schedule) that impact the choice of presentation.

I don't find much to contest here (except some typos), but a cite would be nice.

===The Complexity of Game Design===

How about just "Complexity"? The whole article is about game design.

All the different design elements of an actual product tend to interact, which makes the process of practical game design a highly complex matter. This is especially true in Video Game Development where, unfortunately, it is very easy for the demends of marketing to create a set of conflicting constraints which often manifest themselves in expensive cancellations or reidrections of projects some way into production. A game needs to be designed as a whole unit and not several smaller design elements that can hopefully be slotted together.

Watch the unnecesarry capitalization. I don't disagree with much here, but really needs to be cited (some examples would be good too), otherwise it is POV.

Was that what you wanted? :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going through your notes and revising my work. I will do this a bit at a time. I have redone the Design Methodology paragraph only. If you need citations please add the appropriate tag to the changes, and I will attempt to locate them.Dndn1011 18:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read your latest addition and I say Bravo! I did a copyedit, but only changed some punctuation, no edit to prose. It is very NPOV. So much so, that I don't think you need any citations (citations can never hurt). You present all sides fairly and in a neutral, balanced manner. Great work! I can't wait to read your next addition. :-D — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I do see where you are coming from. The problem I think in the main was that I was responding to the original text, with which I had many problems. Thus I ended up countering POV with POV in some cases. Reviewing the article I have concluded that perhaps a complete rewrite is required.Dndn1011 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First Playable Demo

I was suprised not to find any mention of the term First Playable Demo. Anyway I created the article, and inserted the appropriate reference to the term here. Mathiastck 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes

OK an attempt at clarifying the foundemental concepts of game design. Appologies if my formatting is not correct.Dndn1011 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit looks fine to me, except under "Interaction with other design disciplines", I don't know what you mean by "Production." Aren't they all part of production? Do you mean publication? Please clarify. Thanks! — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Great thanks. What I mean by this is "production design". That is, the design of the production process of making the game. I'll have a think about how better to express this. Dndn1011 17:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Theme

One objection to the current text that I have is the Theme section, which appears to be taken from a narrative POV. In fact theme is a very clear concept in literature, although this is actually higher level than the meaning stated in the game design text. To quote from 'Theme (literature)':

A theme is not the same as the subject of a work. For example, the subject of Green Eggs and Ham is "green eggs and ham are well worth eating, no matter the location". The theme might be "have an open mind". It is also important to note that subjects may be stated in one word, whereas the theme is a full phrase or sentence, yet not a moral.

If we are to use theme as a term applied to game design, then I would argue that it should remain true to the current use of the term for narrative (I know I did not stick to this in my original edit, I have since reconsidered). However this is not the whole, ehem, story. A game design does not require a theme, or any narrative elements at all. However a game devoid of narrative still has a different kind of theme/subject/whatever: the interactive activity which the game player engages in. This is very important for a game design.

Let us work through chess for example, and see where it leads. The Subject (not Theme) of chess is war. According to Theme (literature), themes are descriptive phrases whereas subjects can be single words. The theme of chess might be something like "The power struggle between two sides". However there is nothing here about who the sides are and their backgrounds and why they are fighting, or indeed the consequences for each side of victory or loss. I would argue that this is very firmly in the realm of narrative.

So what of narrative? The wiki article does not help much, I am looking for a breakdown of narrative into things like plot. Plot just links back to narrative. I think this can just be simplified for our purposes down to Story. There is perhaps no need to delve any deeper in this article into the composition of story any more then we should delve into artistic design.

Lets test this out on a more challenging example, the Grand Theft Auto series:

• The Subject is: City Crime
• The Theme is: Survival in a dangerous urban environment
• The Story is: You play the role of a young criminal working their way up (down?) through the criminal underworld, in major american city.

Yet, this is not enough. What about the activities the player engages in? The above makes no reference to the interactive elements of the game.

So a suggestion:

• Activities: Racing, Shooting, Hiding, Trading, Escaping, Finding, Solving puzzles, Stunts

Technically you could apply the above to pure narrative, in that there are things that could happen to characters in a story. However this is not usually important in narrative, unless these activities have an impact in the overall design on the product. In a book, there are no technical or product or other constraints that are impacted by the activities which the characters in a story engage in. In a film, there might be some (lets lose the racing we can't afford car chases). But in game design, these are extremely important because it can be technically difficult to achieve. For example, simulation of racing in a card game might be quite challenging (Hmm... i like challenges... brain starts whirring...).

Thus the top level components of game design should probably encompass:

• Subject
• Theme
• Story
• Activity

Lets try this with another extreme... the perenial Tetris:

• Subject: Packing
• Theme: Organisation and planning
• Story: None
• Activity: Packing of randomly deilvered shapes

Remember these are top level concepts. The method by which the player packs does not need to be described at this level.

OK this explains where I am coming from for my next edit...Dndn1011 09:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dndn1011, it really, really looks like you are delving into original research which is obsolutely prohibited on Wikipedia. While your latest edits are appreciated, we obsolutely cannot allow OR in this, or any other, article. On Wikipedia we strive to convey "just the facts, Ma'am." If you can provide citations for your edits, or just state things that are patently true (e.g. the sun is spherical, a sphere has the greatest volume to surface area ratio of any three dimensional shape), your edits are still welcome. But for a subject such as this one, the "facts" are very subjective and it looks like you're trying to make a personal thesis out of it. I'm sorry, but you can't do that on Wikipedia. If you like, write a paper, but don't espouse the results of your research here, unless you can provide credible sources.

It sounds like a lot your ideas are contested in modern game design. You think many game designers "have it wrong." While that may be, it is not our calling to set them right, but just report on what they do and how they operate, wrong or right. I hope I'm being clear. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, how is this original research.. this is talk. I am presenting an argument for stating the the high level concepts of design are subject, Theme, Story and Activities. I have suggested definitions of these based on the definitions of Subject, Theme and Story (which do seem rather obvious) plus Activities.

Refering to the original text, the current section called Theme is presented as fact when it appears to me to be opinion.

I am trying to discuss a better way of presenting the facts. The above is not what I would put in the article. It is an argument to support, classifcation of concepts relevant to game design.

So if you can't be bothered with my reasoning, then here is what I am suggesting boiled down:

• Under Key Concepts we replace the section "Theme" with with four sections: Subject, Theme, Story and Activities.
• These sections would contain brief descriptions of each. Subject, Theme and Story drawing on their meanings from narratology (how can this be objected to?) and Activities drawing from the fact that games involve the player in some kind of activity, these activities quite easily classifiable.

That's it. The fact that I had to work through some kind of reasoning process to come up with this suggestion does not make the suggestion OR. Dndn1011 16:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that this is Talk, and nothing you have above is inappropriate on the talk page. But it was sounding to me like you were trying to distill what modern game design should be. If you are dissatisfied with what is in the theme section, go ahead and change it. All I want to do is make sure this article stays in line with Wikipedia policies.

Dndn1011, your last few edits have been fine and very NPOV. If you like, go ahead and make future changes without discussing your change here first, unless you wnat to discuss something or want pre-feedback. Otherwise, go ahead and make your NPOV edits. The only edit I had a problem with was your intial one, and you fixed that with your last few edits. So, go ahead and be wiki. :-)

By the way, if the red link of your name bothers you, click it and create your user page. It's not required, just a suggestion. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits completed

There I'm done. Of course there os a lot more to say, but perhaps it belongs in other articles. This is supposed to be a top level view. This one is supposed to be about design, not production... I have suggested a page for "video game production". So everyone ok with this? *ducks* Dndn1011 11:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't appreciate the entire removal of my entire Video/computer game design process section. Certainly the design process differs from company to company, but the section related my experience in game design (okay, I'm not a designer, but a programmer, but I observed the design and development of the games). I know, I know, it could be considered original research, but it was presented (IMHO) in a NPOV manner and wasn't controversal. Couldn't we at least revive it as an example? Some real sweat and blood (okay, no blood, but some carpal tunnel syndrome, at least) went into that and I thought the information it presented was valuable and informative.

We already have an article on production. It's called game development. I authored almost the entire article (others provided some input of course, but the original version was entirely by me). I think it's pretty good as it stands (IMHO), but it could use some references.

Look at the footer table in the article. Almost every article in it was started by me and most of the content in them is still my work. The articles therein cover most aspects of game development. Any augmentation is, of course, appreciated. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I didn't author the articles under the "Types of video games" heading. Those were mostly entirely created and edited by others. I don't want to take any credit for these articles—they're all in a pretty sad state. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, I thought hard about it though. In my opinion, a lot of what was there in the original design process section was not really about design, but about production, hence I did not feel it belonged.

I actually do not agree that game development covers game production. Development is the overall discipline, whereas production is a subset.

Basically the current set of articles on video game development are a bit of a mess. We probably need to co-ordinate them all. The Game Development should probably be quite a short piece with link to the various aspects. It is such a big field I think we need the various areas dealt with seprately.

Your case was valid as an example from your own personal experience, but it is dangeorus to present any single example as the 'way things are done'. On the other hand listing every personal experience would not be useful.

I think your work is valid, but belongs somewhere else. I believe we should have a page on video game production, and your work would fit in nicely there as a video game production example. I have not gone through the game development article yet, but at a glance it appears to fit the concept of production. I would suggest that we move the game development article to video game production. Your examples from Game Design will fit better in there.

A new article for game development can then be made which references such things as design, production, software engineering and so on.

how does that sound?Dndn1011 18:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I know what definitions you're using for the different aspects of game development (or production). Could you give a brief (about a sentence) description of each (game development and game production) in your own words so we're both on the same page?

If you're thinking of making such a big change, as it sounds you are, you'll want more than just my input. I'd suggest bringing this up on The Project, but the big problem is that most people there are video game players, not developers. So I don't know where to go to get others involved. The Project is the best place I can think of (bring it up on the Talk page).

FYI: Right now, there are a few paired articles that deal with the discipline and the activity. For example:

• Game design / Game designer
• Game programming / Game programmer
• Level design / Level designer

It's been discussed at The Project and it was decided to keep both articles as separate entities since one deals with the activity and the other deals with the role. IIWY, I'd review all the articles in the footer box before making a decision on reworking everything. I'd be happy to discuss this further, however, once you're familiar with what we already have.  :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Game Development is what a game developer does... it is the entire process of creating a game. It does not include duplicating, marketing, distributing and selling the game (i.e. publishing).

Game Production is a subset of game development. It is involved with things such as budgets, schedules, features, requirements of the publisher, progress reporting, quality assurance and so on. It is closely linked with game design as production constraints are very important and often the starting point for a designer. Formal production is not actually a requirement for game development, however... in fact informal methods have lead to the creation of such things as the FPS. Dndn1011 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Project is not really suitable. It seems to be more "The history of vidoe games" rather than about the creation of those games. That distinction appears very clear. If there is no such group for video game development, then we should start one. We don't need to worry about input from others in the industry, if they are interested they will come.----Dndn1011 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Project is not focussed soley on the history of video games. It includes that, but it encompasses everything related to video games. I can speak authoritatively about the group since I've been a member for years. Many industry people belong to the group, that's why I suggested bringing it up there. I got some valuable feedback on the original drafts of my articles from the group. If they're not insiders, they probably won't comment. If they are, I think their input will be valuable.

Thanks for your clarification of Production vs. Development. From your definitions, it sounds like production is what a game producer handles. I guess game production could use an article, but it sounds kinda boring ;-) I'm glad I never had to deal too much with that side of development, except when I was lead programmer on a couple of titles (programming is much more fun).

I guess we could look at starting a Game Development WikiProject (I started the Arcade games WikiProject, so I know how to do it). It sure would beat talking about game development issues here on the Game Design Talk page. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Companies don't design games

I would like to suggest changing the "The design process varies from company to company..." - right underneath the "Video/computer game design process" heading, to "The design process varies from game designer to game designer...", as computer games are not only designed by companies. - Miskaknapek 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but the design process is often dictated by the company the designer works for. They usually don't get to design the game any ol' way they want to (though the process can vary from one game to another even within one company, there is usually an established pattern that is supposed to be followed). — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a valid point that you make - in the context of working for game companies, game designers' are usually subject to their company's whims. However, what I was trying to suggest, was that there are game designers that work outside the constraints of companies. Some work alone, others in collaborations with others, for the sake of fun rather than profit. Perhaps our thoughts could be merged into a statement suggesting that game designers are subject to various constraints/direction, dependig on whether they work for a company/commercial gain, or not? - Miskaknapek 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

True, that the process varies from company to company and from producer to produce, but perhaps one should describe somehow it is the entity that creates the game (single author, group of people, company)? Perhaps it would be important to mention the possibilities somehow? — Murrur 21:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, easy to fix... Dndn1011 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Some new materials

I will have a look in adding new concepts from Media Lab Helsinki Game Analysis Course Literature. Possibly even getting the person studying game character design to write a paragraph about game figure design and analysis. — Murrur 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, I guess, as long as it doesn't include any original research. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Games invariably involve activities in which the game player engages, usually for the purpose of entertainment, education or training. Some examples are:" This is called game mechanics. Batting in tennis, throwing dice in monopoly, shooting in 1st person shooters. Or other possibility is to link them to thematic issues. Activities isnt very elaborate term. Game mechanics is more about methods and techinique and theme is more related to athosphere. So, will it be game mechanics or theme related? --Murrur 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another issue. In academic literature the environment is not part of the gameplay. Rewarding is called positive feedback, while negative feedback cuts its effects. I suggest we create one section for thematic issues including level design, one for player figures and human players, and one for game structure, which would include game mechanics, feedback issues, rulesets and other gameplay related technical structural questions. --Murrur 00:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

back to OR issues

Quote from earlier OR discussion:

Wikipedia discourages original research, meaning adding whatever one wishes and claiming it is The Truth. What is encouraged is citing references (reputable Internet sites, books, magazine articles) for claims made in the prose. For subjects where there is a wide variety of opinion, instead of cut and dry facts, a representation of the most popular opinions is expected, and then also cited. For a subjective subject such as this one, it would probably be impossible to include everyone's viewpoint in the discussion, but the prevailing theories can be discussed.

citation is hard thing to do without expertise - it becomes easily plagiarism. however, most of the time all of the materials you mentioned (reputable Internet sites, books, magazine articles) are OR on game field. non-OR texts usually come with materials listed in the end, the literacy they have been using. of course bibliography is not surefire sign of non-or. however, because real material exists in addition to opinions, i believe we should use the real bibliography instead of battle of egos on what is correct personal opinion. common with non-expert texts are strong presence of OR and secondly possible plagiarism. however game expert literature can be very tricky to find. e.g. on game sound design there is not assumingly really any literature at all.

i am strongly for organising the article so that it forms whole picture about game design itself, and not the people and companies who are doing that or games themselves. and what is required, is analytical approach to games instead of i-feel-like approach.

- Murrur 01:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, IMHO you have a good point. It is difficult to reference non-OR source material for emerging fields such as (computer) game design. It raises an issue that's probably spun a few infinite loops around the Wikipedia: why the OR criteria is there.

On a general level, I suppose, there is the continuum of 'author-near and author-distant' source material, between things an author has concocted themselves - leaving us with around 6 billion different possible sources for an article - and material that's essentially a review of several generations of analytical/critical works. I can see the point as to why non-OR material is preferred - one may end up with endless discussions of half-witted 'facts'.

I think the underlying reason for the non-OR criterial might have something to do with the discrepancy of practice between producing for-print and online reference works. When the Wikipedia was initiated, the thought was probably to provide a counterpart to 'mainstream' reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica; which mostly deal - as far as I know - with 'established' knowledge in the humanistic/artistic/historical/natural science fields. The issue of referencing non-OR material is relatively facile there.

However, the issue of finding non-OR matieral is a little different with emerging fields, particularly humanistic such. The fields haven't 'become old enough' for there to be all to much of 'second generation' - that is, reviews of other works. I'm a little short of examples off the top of my head, but I see that this could be a general difficulty for subjects relating to how humans relate to and interact with information technology. This, I would argue, is particularly the case with fields that aren't seen, in academic and industry contexts, as 'very useful'. Artistic use of IT, personal area networks, and - yes - game design come to mind. (Of course, game design is picking up attention rapidly, so the lack of non-OR material won't be an issue for all that much longer).

So how does one resolve finding material for emerging fields?

I suppose, either - the safe apporach - fine-comb the world+net for materials, or begin accepting material that might be OR but is published by reputable sources. Of course, there's also that which is less reputable, but I suppose that's a completely different issue all together. In my opinion, unless some kind of compromise - or change made to the article submission criteria to accommodate emerging fields - writing about emerging fields is going to be just a little tricky.

Other opinions? Miskaknapek

Your latter point, about organising - as I interpret it - the article around some abstract principle, a bottom-up approach, also meets support from this corner of the world. I think the current article jumps a little too readily between specifics and higher level concepts, making it a little difficult to get a cohesive idea of game design. Should one organsie the article around some kind of general/abstract criterria common to all game design - there's the odd bit of that available in academic writings - including the possibility to describe specifics, this would enable us to have a logically coherent article, whilst being able to retain the material that's there.

That is, I think the kind of abstract->specific organisatiion you suggest - or at least as I inerpret it - would probably give this article a bit of a more cohesive and underrstandable 'flow'. Miskaknapek 09:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It might help to discuss specifics in the current article, as it was my intention to create a top level view of the most important issues to Game Design as a discipline in a balanced manner, without going into detail. I feel I succeeded in doing this, however general vague feedback does not help in refining the article. In the current article what is not not logically coherent? To me it appears logically coherent but I am an expert in teh field, it is hard to understand how it appears to those who are not experts or are indeed experts but have a differing viewpoint.Dndn1011 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I realise I might have come out a little too critically or perhaps too biased. Given the state the article was in before, you've done a great bit of work. I think your point about having a different point of view is a very significant one here, and in particular given my previous comment. The way the article is organised, I believe, is greatly dependent on one's views and background. (Mine's an academic one, and, I confess, not one who's had as much game experience as you).

This article covers the phenomenon of 'game design'. What a game is, which parts it has, and the various ways of going about designing one, is subject to varying interpretations. Academics have varying points of view, and so do game designers. Given that explaining what 'games' and 'game design' are, requires structuring one's explanations around one's understanding of these concepts, finding a structure that satisfies all is a little tricky.

From the point of view I had in mind when I wrote the post above, I envisaged that one might separate the bits of the article discussing theoretical views of games, from the more pragmatic pragmatic parts concerning who games are for, who makes them, how they're made, how they're marketed, and so on. Moreover, I also thought more of a theoretical discussion might be in order. However, given the different paradigms out there... It might be difficult not to stir the hornet's nest by suggesting paradigm dependent changes. Let me get back on this.

Miskaknapek 08:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskaknapek, your wonderings about why printed material is generally more acceptable has nothing to do with Encyclopeida Brittanica. It has to do with the fact that any old idiot can throw something up on a website. But to get printed, someone generally has to have some sort of clout. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, thanks, yes, I agree that's a point too. The web does indeed make 'getting published' much easier than the paper way around it. But we're still left with the problem regarding finding non-OR material for emerging fields, which is something I believe printed reference works deal with in a more conservative (read: leave it out) manner. Miskaknapek 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

MiskaknapekWith regard to your points about theories of game design and production, yes these are very interesting topics but as has been pointed out it is very hard to present articles in this without it being viewed is OR. Even printed material does not help because there are widely varying viewpoints. Basically, the vast majority of the field is OR in itself. What we can do is present different viewpoints, but these should probably each have their own article and be referenced from an index. To decide if a viewpoint is OR or not, we would need to use common sense, looking at the credentials and experience of the holder of a viewpoint to decide if that can be included. For example, I am developing a "Constraint Theory of Design", and have been for a few years. I have spoken on this subject a few times at conferences. There is no printed material. If I put this work up here, is it OR or not? Common sense would state that since I am an acknowledged expert in the field and have publicly stated my viewpoint on the subject outside of wikipedia prior to adding it, then it should be ok, but it is a hard call. It is a wonderful example of fuzzy group decision making. In the end, all we can do is try and see. If more people call it OR than not, then it is OR, otherwise it's ok. The current article, although obviously not prefect, is an attempt to stick to things that the majority of people familiar with the field would agree on as being relevant, without calling it biased or OR. I think what you wish to add is very valid but in order to avoid disturbing the validity of the current article (which appears pretty stable at the moment) you could create new articles or contribute to existing ones elsewhere. For example, you could create a "Game Design Theories" article, and place a link to that in this article.Dndn1011 11:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dndn1011 : Thanks for the summary and suggestions. Good summary statement of the non-OR/OR conundrum, it sounds as if you've thought about this a fair bit too. I'll think about things and return to the discussion before suggesting changes. Miskaknapek 14:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I just comment that although I appreciate a lot of work has gone into this article, we've gone from a long opinion on game design to a couple of different opinions about how everyone does it different overall there's still a real lack of useful relevant content. And of course as is being discussed it's all pretty much original research. However I don't believe finding source material is as hard as you guys are saying. I've got a bunch of books on game and level design, and a big pile of Game Developer magazines that go nicely alongside all additional interviews and opinions represented on GamaSutra. I'm just amazed no-one's using any of the wealth of material to back up any of the stuff said here. I might take a stab adding some material from existing articles and books this week to see if we can get this article closer a real represenatation of the state of the industry. tnomad

See also -list and subsections

The see also list seems to cover very few and odd fields. 2 links on mud and 2 lists. this surely does not present game design entire field. maybe we should throw in some extra see also's?

also, maybe there could be subsections covering specific fields which have articles, such as level design with redirect to actual articles? So that the game design would be covered more broadly. e.g. game designer article could be linked to "designers" section. --Murrur 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not really play about with See Also references much, I agree it is a bit messy. The article should in my opinion be a top level view and not go into detail. We can put in refereces as appropriate to other articles that go into areas in depth. Some of the references are not at the right level of abstraction basically. The link to MUDs probably does not belong here. A link to Computer and video game genres would be appropriate however I believe. I'm changing this now, although I have not vetted the article in detail. It does appear to do what it says on the tin though. MUDs are referred to in that article. Any other low level references should probably be similarly dealt with. Dndn1011 11:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Murrur, if you look down at the bottom of the article, the footer box contains links to other relevant articles, such as level design and other game development topics. I added game designer to the "See also" list since it seems particularly relevant, even though it is already linked to in the article. I removed list of video game designers, since this article is not about designers, but just design (and the list is linked to in the game designer article). HTH — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Macs or PCs

Which one is usually used to make video games. I always wondered :68.234.4.254 22:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This question would probably be better here or here, but it is PC by far, normally for the latest version of Windows. I could also tell you why, but you didn't ask that. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Waterfall

OK I see where you are coming from... the article does not mention iteration enough, it is an oversight on my part because iteration in design and development comes so naturally to my thoughts on the subject. In fact the two models I describe can operate with varying degrees of iteration. In reality iteration always exists, it is just a question of the scope of that iteration. It is not uncommon to have projects developed through a waterfall model iterated late in development ("Oh they want us to make it a zombie and werewolves game now? We are supposed to be going Beta next week!"). Prototype phases imply tight flexible and inexpensive iteration at the design phase before bigger investment is required. It is however true that prototyping can be treated as part of a waterfall model (that is with no iteration), in which case I would argue the value of prototyping is greatly diminished (perhaps the infamous "vertical slice"). I'm not happy with the current text, but will leave it in for now as a reminder while I let it stew for a bit in my mind. Dndn1011 09:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

new subject

who wrote this article? 150.131.81.102 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Many different editors. I started it, long ago. It's gone downhill since then, see below. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article trashed

I started this article long ago. Back then, after a few thoughtful edits, I thought it was pretty good. It was approachable and just deep enough to give the casual reader an introductory understanding of game design. Since then, however, scores of editors have added their own spin on the whole topic and, unfortunately, turned the article into a pile of mush, with tons of opinion and now it totally lacks any sense of coherence. The last decent version of the article, in my opinion, is this one. After that, it all started going downhill.

I don't know if it can be salvaged at this point. But as of now, I absolve myself of any claim of authorship on this article.

I don't dislike the wiki process. I love it. But this is one of the few cases where it has totally and utterly failed. I crafted a thoughtful and decent article. Usually other editors come in and enhance the basic framework, sometimes incredibly expanding it into a real work of art. But in this case it has totally and utterly failed. Try to salvage it if you like. But be prepared for others to step in and tear down your work. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn that you approved the contributions I made. We talked about them at the time. Now, you want to revert back to the article you basically wrote. I don't understand. Dndn1011 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'll salvage it for you.... I mean you have basically rubbished my entire contribution. I have been designing video games for nearly 30 years, who am I to argue with you. Hurray for the wikipedia process! Dndn1011 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't single you out—and probably your contributions didn't trash the article. But I do think the article's gotten unweidly. It lacks coherence. And a whole bunch of editors started jumping in and inserting their opinion. I mean "Psychological Profiling"? Come on! I didn't appreciate you deleting my entire "Video/computer game design process" section long ago, but, to be fair, it was completely unsourced. But so was everything you replaced it with.

This article needs a lot of help. It needs coherence and order. A reader who reads the article should be able to read it and walk away with a better understanding of game design. That wouldn't happen in the article's state. An average reader would walk away confused.

Reverting an article to make one editor happy isn't the wiki way. I'm reverting it to the version before your revert. But this article needs help. — Frecklefoot | Talk 12:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Psychological profiling section is not relevant to the topic - the technique has only appeared in one game and is by no means a "key concept." Remove it? Michael 134.84.96.142 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Actually, I think the article started going downhill when the "Key concepts" section was added. This isn't a textbook! Like I said, this article needs some TLC. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I was reading this article and began thinking it needed a lot of work. I looked for a page I could compare it with, and found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_design , which is pretty well written and maintained. I suspect the problem is game design is perceived as sexy, and thus draws a lot of POV (while presumably auto design is less so). There's also the danger in game design getting bogged down in competing methodology and quasi-technical mush terms. -- Lasati 09:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)lasati

I think you're right. What it needs is some serious research and refs for that research. But a big part of the problem is that game design is still very volatile--very few designers approach it the same way. I don't think this article can go beyond a very high level discussion of the topic without getting POV. I tried to do that when I originally started this article, but it has digressed significantly since then. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, new Wiki member thinking about contributing. I agree this article lacks cohesion right now, and (personally) I feel it is biased specifically toward video game design. I come from an amateur board game design background and this article (currently) isn't that useful to me or, I suspect, to someone who was wanting to learn more about game design in general. In fact, browsing through various game related articles on Wikipedia reveals that MOST are skewed toward video games. Game studies for example is entirely about video games, despite the fact non-video games predate video games by millenia, heh.

Anyway, what would you all think if this were to be thinned out a bit to general game design principles, with links to other articles that are specific to video games and to board games? There ARE many common elements to both forms of games - I think "game design" is a good place to list those, followed by references to other (mostly existing) articles specific to video or board games.

SiddGames (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Starting by thinning it out is a great initial step. I don't know if we have enough material to make separate articles for "board game design" and "video game design". This article was geared towards video games because, at the time, no one wanted to contribute to an article about board game design. But, yeah, this article needs help. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Focus Diamond

I suggest you write about this: Mark Overmars's Article on Focus

It isn't origional work (except for Mark's addition of a forth element, making it a dimond instead of the traditional focus triangle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piepeople (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Very old article

I found this very old article on game design from CRASH magazine. It might be useful for historical reasons. SharkD (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

game design not just for computer games

Designing board games, interactive books, and all that good stuff qualifies as game design and possibly more so than videogame design. Not mentioning them is the worst kind of bias. YVNP (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Swentibold rewrite

I saw a version of the article authored by Swentibold. I had to revert it. It wasn't a proper Wikipedia article and contained a whole bunch of opinions. While there were some references, they weren't cited inline so it was impossible to tell what information came from which source. When proposing something like an entire re-write of an article, it's sometimes best to discuss it first, put up a draft and then replace the original when a consensus has been reached. Wikipedia lets you do what you like, but wholesale rewrites of large articles are sometimes best done as a community first. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Swentibold made that material into a separate article titled Game Design Brief. That article looks like it should be merged into this one, or else simply deleted -- there's a lot of overlap. See below.Agathman (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging Game Design Brief

It has been proposed that the Game Design Brief page be merged into this one. That page reads rather oddly, but may have content that would augment this page. In any case, there appears to be a lot of overlap. Agathman (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote to just delete that article and be done with it. I couldn't read more than a sentence or two without wincing. It's a personal essay, not a Wikipedia article. It doesn't contain anything worth merging over. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the vote was to keep the Game Design Brief article (and, yes, it does use that capitalization), for reasons I can't even begin to understand. I did some copyediting of it, but I still can't see any worth in it all. I don't see how it can help this article at all, except maybe to say: "there are many methodologies to designing games. Trying to capture them all is beyond the scope of Wikipedia." — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be time for a second deletion discussion on this. Nothing's happened with this article, save for your copyediting, which is a good effort, but as you said, the article itself is of very little worth. The last AFD was no consensus, which I guess I can see, since the discussion seemed evenly divided. My main point all along was that it is original research and unencyclopedic, which is still true. freshacconci talktalk 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you nominate it for deletion, I'll support it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Game Design

Okay, so if the article is about Video Game Design and not Board Game Design or Card Game Design, why is the article not called "Video Game Design" as opposed to "Game Design". Speaking as a board gamer, I'm constantly frustrated by the video game industry stealing all of my words... Jmgariepy (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(I moved the section to the bottom of the page.)

I suspect the name is "game design" to keep it short. There is no "board game design" or "card game design" articles, so there is no conflict. This is true for a lot of video game articles who only use "game"

I know this is really biased, but noone has challenged the article for the main topic spot (yet). Even if this was to be moved to Video Game Design, the Game Design itself would still redirect to the same content.—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  20:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, many of the fundamental principles of game design actually apply across mediums which would mean that this article should really probably discuss game design and general and then go into specifics for game design for specific mediums (board games, card games, video games, etc.). UncannyGarlic (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have notable, verifiable sources; please—expand the article. So far no properly referenced material about non-video games has been added. —  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Game development which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Career paths often leading to a game designer position?

I think it would be nice if the article provided a few examples of game designers that stand out, mentioning, besides games they are famous for, how they ended up as game designers, and also a few more general examples of common paths leading to reaching that position. I would expect a significant percentage of people come to this article to get more information on becoming game designers themselves. --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be worthwhile. Most famous game designers started out that way (Sid Meier, Will Wright) while they were also doing all the game programming or another function. Most people who enter the game industry want to design a game someday, and almost any "entry level" position can lead to the coveted position of game designer. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 05:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly False Information Exists.

"Today, it is rare to find a video or computer game where the principal programmer is also the principal designer, except in the case of casual games" This is an absolutely ridiculous statement (and there's no citation), considering how many games exist as the result of a single person's efforts. The most well-known example might be Minecraft. While the team is larger now, it was created by a single person initially and through much of its development. There are many, many more examples, however. Too many to list.

Droqen (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. It's not completed false, it's just only applicable to AAA titles. It already mentioned casual games as exception but didn't mention indie games. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Story board

Another important part of game development is story board development.The basic concept of story board is to developed the steps in the drawing elements.Just pick any cartoon books you can get idea a story goes with “quote” and image says then movement of the story.The same way that build.Means what will be in the first level.Which character will introduced,other object etc etc.To save time you can make the storyboard short or in the text lineup.As game is a software so based on that the algorithm developed.Here that the interaction and simply a graphical representation so that required to stated in the storyboard.Now a days most of the game developer not developed a complete story board which are specially developed in a cartoon film.Concept is more than important rather than Story board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.149.31 (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That website is a promotional blog and not a reliable source, not to mention lack of editorial oversight. There are many ways one can approach story design, story board being just one of them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 03 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Video game design with original title left as redlink. Xoloz (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Game design → Video game design – I noticed this article has previously (2010) been renamed "Video game design". Surely this should be its name (or "Video-game design"?), for – as its own {{dablink}} currently states – "[t]his article is about video games design, and does not deal with the design of other forms of game..."? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support WP:PRECISE lacks precision, this is about videogames, not boardgames, etc -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was discussed before, see Game design above. In short, no need to move to Video game design because there is no article on any other type of game design right now. We can discuss below if you like. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that Wikipedia is, I believe, meant to be a general encyclopedia, I don't understand why the absence of an article means it's okay to name another article as if it's that missing article...? Thanks for your feedback. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral per COMMON and PRECISE. On one hand, saying "game design" is predominantly synonymous with "video game design" and basic search results confirm as much. On the other hand, "game" is ambiguous and the article has nothing to do with non-video games. (P.S. since when are we asking for "support"/"oppose" only comments?) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • If your search results were obtained online, I guess I'm not surprised – but, although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that depends on computing and computer-related technology, I don't think it's meant to carry a computing/computer/etc-related bias (such as "Game design" = "Video(-)game design")...? Thanks for your feedback. (PS Maybe due to the italic text above that was added automatically when this proposal was launched...) Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:AT, the title should "be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." As there is very much a possibility of ambiguity with board game design, card game design, casino games design, etc, the current title very ostensibly fails that wp:policy. I also propose that Game design be red-linked, so that we might at least have a stub to palliate this deficiency in our encyclopedic coverage. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think an article on "game design" apart from video game design would be nice, it's been like 5 years or more since this need was first raised and no one has stepped up to write the article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support and leave the current title red, per Victor falk. If we don't have an article on general game design, we shouldn't imply otherwise to our readers, either by having an article on video game design at that title or by redirecting that title to such an article. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Easy support Red Slash 02:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Study of Games quote is only partially from that book

I'd edit it but I'd probably get it wrong. It is quoting The Study of Games but it's mixing it up with Rules of Play by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmermann https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UM-xyczrZuQC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=%22A+game+designer+is+a+particular+kind+of+designer,+much+like+a+graphic+designer,+industrial+designer,+or+architect.+A+game+designer+is+not+necessarily%22&source=bl&ots=2AIGsY6E_o&sig=5zopoJuyh3mKDeqkI_JNQIPvDpE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5zYyDjPLMAhUk56YKHY8kB68Q6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=%22A%20game%20designer%20is%20a%20particular%20kind%20of%20designer%2C%20much%20like%20a%20graphic%20designer%2C%20industrial%20designer%2C%20or%20architect.%20A%20game%20designer%20is%20not%20necessarily%22&f=false 116.212.215.74 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Video game design. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107182604/http://www.eurocom.co.uk/content/view/102/81/ to http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107182604/http://www.eurocom.co.uk/content/view/102/81/ to http://www.runawaystudios.com/articles/chris_taylor_gdd.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Elements of Game Design

Hi! What do you think about making a list of tools available to game designer (i.e. ways to model in-game time, or combat resolution)? What would be the best venue? Editing this article or starting separate one? Also, there are already articles, like the one on initiative in turn-based games, but they are badly organized and don't cite any sources. NikitaSadkov (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey! When you say "tools", can you give some examples of what you mean? In short, the content would have to be sourced. You can add it regardless, but it could get removed quickly if it looks like it's not verifiable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

By "tools" I meant atomic elements from which one builds game, like a house out of lego bricks: I.e. try breaking Chess into its parts: there is a 8x8 board of discrete cells, then there are different game pieces and with different movement pattern, of course there is a notion of time, where each turn player can move single piece, and the rules governing how pieces move. In case of Chess, a piece has no initiative, but in case D&D, Heroes of Might & Magic 3 or Final Fantasy Tactics pieces do get movement based on initiative, while in X-Com one moves all his pieces during his turn. But any game would be composed of space, pieces, time and rules, that modify pieces with time, based on user input. Other element proposed for Chess is startup randomization (fischer random chess), which can also be seen in other games, where game's space is populated at random, so players can't pre-memorize it. Future, in games like Dungeons&Dragons, Magic The Gathering, Master of Magic or World of Warcraft there are just that many magic spell effect types, affecting pieces: stat changing (including damage/heal/buff/debuf), teleport, mind control, terraforming, etc... So the proposition is to describe and organize all these elements somehow NikitaSadkov (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What you are describing is closer to various entries of glossary of video game terms and game mechanics and various related articles. You can always add reliable citations (like those at WP:VG/RS) to those first and expand into stand-alone articles if there's enough content. At this point, I doubt there are many concepts what we don't have an article for that have enough sources to make one, but you never know. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I see. game mechanics would be closest. Still it is all messy, because say Initiative (role-playing games) is orphaned from WP article on time. And currently there is little mention of game space structure: discrete (hexes,squares,map regions,rooms) or continuous, and ofc both discrete and continuous spaces allow wormholes, which, BTW, hamper the use of A*, so pathfinding algorithms could be mentioned too. The exploration element is also missing. -NikitaSadkov (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem you'll find is that there aren't that many reliable sources that would cover such concepts. I'm sure there is information to cite, if you can it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

What source would be considered acceptable? Can we cite something like that? Do we need to cite some source to state that chess is played on square cells board? Can we cite the game itself? Can we cite game manual?

You can read up the reliable sources guideline. Video games project maintains their own list at WP:VG/RS. If it's not on that list, it's usually not reliable. Blogs and such are almost never reliable -- it generally has to be part of some publication with editorial oversight, potentially peer review and fact checking. At the very least, the author would have to have credentials in the industry. But, even then, it would be a self-published source, which is usually not okay. In short, 99% of stuff thrown back by Google is not reliable. We can cite the game and its manual, but only without doing original research and for plain facts. You can cite a game for what it clearly is and does, but you cannot conclude anything from it or try to expand or group it or connect it to other concepts. For example, just because 2 games have tiles and you can cite them individually as having tiles, does not mean that there is a "tile game" genre/concept/whatever. In the end, any fact that is challenged is up to you to show that it is verifiable (not necessarily true, but can be attributed to a reliable source). Practically, it's best not to try to write content and then try to source it, but first locate a source and then write content that it supports. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are little academic papers on video game design. I.e. it is common knowledge that wargames usually use hexagonal playfield, but no source to cite on that, so the board wargame doesn't cite anything and is literally flooded with "citation needed" notes, similarly to many other articles on general subjects, so one may guess that Wikipedia has a lot of original research. Anyway the author on that link, I mentioned, says following about himself: "My name is Ian Schreiber. I’ve been working in the video game industry since the turn of the millenium, first as a programmer and then as a game designer. I’ve taught college classes in game design since Fall 2006." Would he and his lectures be a reliable source on game mechanics? At least to fill these "citation needed" holes? -NikitaSadkov (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, video game topics don't have great sourcing available. Yes, Schreiber is in general a reliable author. But it would be best if his posts were in some other publication. If he self-publishes (like that blog), anything you cite would have to be in the form of "Game designer Ian Schreiber describes..." That is, to make it clear this is purely his opinion in whatever context without an external peer review, editorial, etc. If he were to post as part of another publication, like an article in a reliable source, then it would be fine to cite it without necessarily mentioning him as the author. Final note is that you have to be very sparing in citing the same source too much. That is, the broader the topic the more sources are expected for unbiased content and you shouldn't have more than a paragraph or two from the same source not sourced to anything else. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Then we need to produce some guidelines on what can be considered reliable source on game design. For example, I wanted to mention "last hitting" - a notorious problem in video games, but I'm not sure if authors, such as this Josh Bycer could be cited, despite that he argues nicely and cites real examples from commercial games. BTW, can we cite articles at Gamasutra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaSadkov (talk • contribs) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RS for what is considered reliable sources. It's not a simple topic. As I said before, video games project keeps a list at WP:VG/RS. Other than that, we'd have to look at each one individually. Gamasutra articles are good. Their user blogs are likely not. Other stuff is probably not. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I made a stub version of the article on last-hitting with intention of linking it to Experience point, explaining various ways player characters can earn experience points. Am I on the right way? -NikitaSadkov (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Take note that wikis are not reliable sources. They can be edited by anyone and thus can never be reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Regarding Final Fantasy Tactics, The idea was to cite game manual or official strategy guide, but they say nothing about how experience points are acquired. And LoL and Dota2 don't appear to have any manuals at all, beside in-game tutorials. Still game wikis are arguably more reliable than blog posts or documents from Gamefaqs.com, because facts in these Wikis are continuously challenged by other gamers, who supposedly have good knowledge of the game, so any factually incorrect statement would be fixed, and Wikis are easier to access than experimenting with the game itself. Then game design subjects are closely related to math, therefore not that much controversial or obscure as say global warming: i.e. last-hitting is just a way of defining how player gets reward for defeating monsters. Of course, there could be opinions (like mathematicians have opinions on alternative proofs of the same theorem), which may or may not deserve a mention to preserve NPoV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaSadkov (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Kilómetros

Zapatero 138.118.200.20 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)