|
|
|
|
|
|
by random9749832
218 days ago
|
|
|
The difference I am highlighting isn't that it is wrong to think about how to make your game "fun" but the perspective you are thinking about it from. You can try to treat creating fun using a scientific or neurological framework or you can think about it from a more artistic standpoint. When Shenmue chose to make you start doing forklifting (and while I can't prove it) I am sure this was more of a artistic decision and they weren't thinking about it in terms of extrinsic or intrinsic rewards. At least to me it is obvious when something is designed more by an artist and less by someone trying exploit human psychology. That isn't to say there isn't any logic to the design of great games but also something much more intuitive to their design decisions that doesn't follow known principals or science. |
|
|
which leads to
https://www.raphkoster.com/2014/01/15/a-vision-exercise/
and its critique counterpart:
https://www.raphkoster.com/2014/01/06/how-i-analyze-a-game/
and crucially, the observation in here that you can start with either end -- the experience you want or the systems -- but you gotta make them meet in the middle.
These days, game design is generally taught as "decide on your experience, and fit systems into that." But I favor being open to starting from either end, and also in general think that focusing so strongly on the experience has a LOT of dev pitfalls:"
https://www.raphkoster.com/games/presentations/rules-of-the-...
Lastly -- starting at this end is just as artistic as starting from a chord progression, a cool synth sound, a color palette, or a piece of wood with interesting grain. Just as with any other craft-centric view on things, it's fine to start at a formal or an experiential end -- both are artistic.
FWIW, I have an MFA. :)