7 Principles of Good Video Game Design

As the Apple faithful descend on WWDC, we ask what can Steve Jobs teach a game developer about good video game design?

If "child"-proof bottle tops, blinking VCR clocks and Apple's iPad teaches us anything, its that good design makes a difference. But as game designers, we often struggle to define "good design". Design in the vocabulary of the games industry spans everything from the video game narrative to character visualization to the game combat mechanics to the statistical curve of the level progression. So how do you come up with meaningful criteria for separating the good from the bad? Is there an objective way to evaluate design? Or is good design purely in the eye of the beholder?

Back Again For More: Sequels in the Video Game Industry

If your video game idea is so awesome, then why not double your fun and make it again?

One of the things you notice in the game industry is sequels. Lots and lots of sequels. A mountain of sequels. Holy crap, there's a lot of sequels.

This is not because game designers as breed can be a bit repetitive, sometimes unoriginal in their thinking and have a tendency to lock their jaws on to something with the tenacity of a demented bulldog.

Scary Risk in Game Development

There are two kinds of risk in life and game development: Rational Risk and Scary Risk.

Rational Risk is where you can measure the likelihood of disaster and reasonably predict a successful outcome. To be sure, there is genuine danger but you can rationally consider the risk versus the rewards. Race car driving, sky diving and marriage would fall into this category. But then there's risk where you can barely begin to calculate the dangers involved - or if you can, the numbers or potential upside don't add up. Included in this category are liposuction at unlicensed border town clinics, throwing your drink in Mike Tyson's face and and unprotected sex with Courtney Love. These are what you would call Scary Risks.

And beware the game project with Scary Risk.

With a lot of game projects, young designers tend to want to invent entirely new game systems from scratch. Why propose a tried and true approach when you can brainstorm an idea that's never been done before? The wheel is boring and has been done to death - why not be innovative and try the hexagoneel? The thing is, there's often a reason a radically innovative solution hasn't been done before. Or, more likely, it has been done before much to the chagrin of those that tried it. Trying something new is inherently riskier than doing something that has been proven to work in the past. And the more risks you take, the more likely you're doing to run into catastrophic ruin, the kind of disaster you don't recover from well.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have business-minded executives. They are typically risk-averse in a way that verges on hypochondria. It's the reason you see sequels in movies, books and games or new games that are adaptations of properties from other media - you lower your risk by working with existing properties (or at least, that's the theory). It's reason you get mantras like "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM...or Microsoft...or Oracle...or whatever". Don't develop an engine when you can license Unreal. Don't invest in infrastructure when you can utilize the cloud. Don't create your own technology when you can engage a middleware vendor. But the problem with that approach is that it's extremely difficult to stand out from the crowd and score a true home run in the market when you are just another commodity, exactly the same as everybody else.

So the between the eternal tension of product development safety and potential disaster lies the danger zone we call risk. Learning to measure and live with an appropriate amount of risk is crucial to success in the game industry. Risk is like jalapeños - the right amount gives life spice, too much brings tears. So it's good to be able to intelligently map out your risks.

Remember that old adage "fast, cheap or good - you can choose two"? Well, with risk there are three types on a game project: content, technology or organization.

Content risk in games represents your game itself and its systems. This includes things like the IP, as well as the game systems. If you've got an innovative and experimental new game system idea, it's probably best to try it in context of an existing franchise (though there's no guarantee there). Proposing a new IP isn't quite so risky if you have a track record of a delivering games with solid technology which is why Bioware is now in a position to role out games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age after building a reputation on Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons. Or, if you're Blizzard, you can significantly reduce your risk by avoiding out-and-out innovation in favor of nuanced iteration and refinement.

Technology is all that magical code that exists under the hood and makes the games go - and it's an area that can frighteningly risky. Developers find platforms like the iPhone or the Wii appealing because they aren't very risky from a technology standpoint. Being the first generation of games on a new console - that's a recipe for pain while producing a title three years into the life cycle is safe as kittens. Technology risk is also one of the reasons you so many MMOs crash and burn. A client plus a server plus a network layer plus a honking database and a billing and CS backend - well, that my friend is a lot of different points where your risks can bite you on the, er, backend.

Finally, organization is a combination of the personnel, their experience working together as a team, as well as the processes they use as a team. Again, if you want to moderate risk on a project, go with a proven team. Take the guys who made Medal of Honor a hit and fund them to create a new promising war-themed franchise (but here's a hint - don't alienate them, since odds are they'll just go form yet another studio and create another franchise).

If you're smart, you'll look to balance risks - take a risk in one area while playing it safe in another. You can risk a new game feature if you've got a solid team. Push the technology envelope but do it with an established game genre and feature set.

So what about that start-up made up of people who've never worked together but are developing radical new technologies to deliver a unique gaming experience no one has ever had before?

Well, if by some miracle they succeed, there's a good chance you'll all be zillionaires. But in the meantime, you might want to stock up on crash helmets and anti-depressants.

- Sean Dugan learned long ago to wear protective gear when attending certain development meetings.


Photo by Shayan via Creative Commons License

Leveling Up as a Video Game Designer, Part III

Here we come to the conclusion of our video game designer odyssey and discover what exactly separates the wee tadpoles from the mighty bullfrogs.

The Lead Designer
Or, now it's your job to make people panic

Whether you're called a lead, supervisor, manager or some other title, the role takes a big step into a vast new realm - the world of management. What people often don't realize is what exactly management actually entails.

Management is the capability to have uncomfortable conversations.

Managers make demands of their people. Managers ask people to do hard things and accomplish challenging tasks. Managers tell people when they are not doing a good job. Managers direct people back onto the path when they go astray. Managers probe to discover problems. Manager cut to the heart of conflicts. Managers seek ways to keep their people from growing stale.

In other words, it's a manager's job to put themselves directly into uncomfortable situations and in many ways, to prevent the status quo from creeping in to the workplace. Unless of course, the status quo for your organization is that everything works perfectly, everyone gets along splendidly and everybody is performing at the optimal level. If so, congratulations to you - life at Gumdrop Studioes on Lollipop Lane in Happy Land sure sounds swell.

But unfortunately, the rest of live in a slightly different realm. Besides all their functional design skills, the Lead has the ability to manage a team. They can guide and nudge the work of other Designers without being intrusive and meddlesome, as well as handling the issues that come with personnel management.

The Lead has developed the ability to work with a wide variety of people and personalities from a variety of levels within the organization. No longer are "the suits" simply the enemy. Or, well, at least the Lead has learned to carefully hold close to their vest their feelings. They can interact effectively with a first day intern as well as not becoming a tongue-tied stuttering mess when encountering the company CEO. They can communicate effectively to groups in a variety of situations and formats including the dreaded all company Powerpoint presentation.

When you boil it down, a Lead takes responsibility. They are invested in finding a way for the team to succeed on both a personal and professional level. They actively look for thorny project issues and find ways to resolve them. The Lead identifies the needed work across a project and matches it up with appropriate team members (including themselves).

Creative Director
Or, welcome to your sales career. 

Many people have what I consider a very mistaken notion about what it is to be a Creative Director. They think being a CD means you finally have all that power you've always dreamed of. You have been crowned the Mighty Design King. Finally, you can sit up in your Tower and tell everybody what to do - dropping those creative missives on the puny underlings below (or dousing them with flaming oil if they grumble too much).

In my experience, being a Creative Director means almost the exact opposite. Sure, you do have genuine power and influence - but often, your influence is as much based on personal skills as title responsibility. In many ways, being the CD means suddenly, you have so many more people to convince and constantly sell on your vision.

You can bark orders are underlings - but that won't make them believe. And it certainly won't get them to embrace your idea and run with it as if it were their own. You can throw your weight around, but often times that comes back to haunt you. And when you are the Big Boss, one of the hardest things to do is influence a project in a way that empowers a team and never makes them feel demoralized or inadequate. The very best Creative Directors have an uncanny knack for getting a team enthused about an idea...which just so happens to be the CD's.

CD's have a comprehensive vision for a product and a variety of tools at their disposal to communicate that vision to the team. They understand the competitive landscape for a product and can effectively position a new idea within that context. They have a keen sense of what the layperson simply calls ‘fun’. They can Lead other Leaders and give effective guidance to highly experienced professionals.

They have the skills to entertain, educate and charm large and small groups, as well as individuals. They can sell a vision for a product to a design team as well as people with no design background. They are comfortable interacted with managers and executives across a variety of disciplines. They have the ability to draw the best work out of talented people, inspiring and challenging as needed.

They can get people excited and interested in a game that exists only in their mind and find a way to get a team to make that idea their own. The Creative Director is patient zero for the viral idea that is a new game. And it's the job of a good CD to infect everyone around them with their enthusiasm.

- Sean Dugan is a designer who wants to know what its going to take to get you to drive off the lot with this fantastic new game idea....