The Economist had an article a couple of weeks back on design trends in consumer electronics. It discussed the Flip Mino and the Asus Eee PC. It did not find them notable for their features, but for their success despite the lack thereof.
I call attention to this article because it highlights something that has always bothered me. In the race to differentiate their product from the competition, designers pile on feature after feature; it reaches the point where the features far exceed anything the consumer can mentally process.
What does this have to do with game design?
Whenever I compare my prototypes, later versions invariably have one glaring difference from their predecessors: simplicity. I have realized that I tend to pile on mechanics (features) in my initial designs. It is only through testing that I (painfully) whittle away rules, choices, and mechanics from a prototype in an effort to make it both comprehensible and playable by my target audience.
In Pioneer, I used to have two in-game reverse auction points. This was important for two reasons.
First, it fit in with the flavor of the game. It made sense for pioneers to reach a "last outpost" at which to restock for the rest of their journey.
Second, it helped with gameplay. The auction point at the start of the game would take too long if players had to buy twice as many goods to last the entire length of the trail.
However, because of the nature of how goods were priced in this reverse auction, it represented a major speed bump in gameplay. It required far too many cards to be on the table at the same time, resulting in information overload.
I eventually eliminated this auction point and substituted a simple mechanic where players could buy cards from the top of the deck. Flavor-wise, it makes no sense. Gameplay-wise, it introduces the randomness I dread. However, I think it was the right move. The game is just more . . . fun, even if I feel the design is less interesting.
So which method of design is superior? Should a designer go my route, starting with an overwhelmingly complex jungle of features and cutting the vines away until a clear gameplay path emerges? Or should a designer follow the example of consumer electronics companies, beginning with a simple game and adding features until it becomes "superior" to existing games?
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
What impressed him about the design was not simply the gadget’s diminutive proportions and low price, but the way the developers had so ruthlessly resisted all the marketing pressure to add further features—and had single-mindedly maintained the design’s clarity of purpose.
I call attention to this article because it highlights something that has always bothered me. In the race to differentiate their product from the competition, designers pile on feature after feature; it reaches the point where the features far exceed anything the consumer can mentally process.
What does this have to do with game design?
Whenever I compare my prototypes, later versions invariably have one glaring difference from their predecessors: simplicity. I have realized that I tend to pile on mechanics (features) in my initial designs. It is only through testing that I (painfully) whittle away rules, choices, and mechanics from a prototype in an effort to make it both comprehensible and playable by my target audience.
In Pioneer, I used to have two in-game reverse auction points. This was important for two reasons.
First, it fit in with the flavor of the game. It made sense for pioneers to reach a "last outpost" at which to restock for the rest of their journey.
Second, it helped with gameplay. The auction point at the start of the game would take too long if players had to buy twice as many goods to last the entire length of the trail.
However, because of the nature of how goods were priced in this reverse auction, it represented a major speed bump in gameplay. It required far too many cards to be on the table at the same time, resulting in information overload.
I eventually eliminated this auction point and substituted a simple mechanic where players could buy cards from the top of the deck. Flavor-wise, it makes no sense. Gameplay-wise, it introduces the randomness I dread. However, I think it was the right move. The game is just more . . . fun, even if I feel the design is less interesting.
So which method of design is superior? Should a designer go my route, starting with an overwhelmingly complex jungle of features and cutting the vines away until a clear gameplay path emerges? Or should a designer follow the example of consumer electronics companies, beginning with a simple game and adding features until it becomes "superior" to existing games?
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
3 comments: