Game Career Guide is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.


Get the latest Education e-news
 
  • Pulling the Plug: In Defense of Non-Digital Teaching and Learning

    [09.02.08]
    - Lewis Pulsipher

  •  It's Good to Generate More Bad Ideas
    When game design students make non-electronic games rather than video games, much less time is wasted on poor ideas, and most ideas are poor ideas.

    Students tend to think their first idea will be the best game ever. And if that doesn't pan out, the next one will be great. Experienced designers, on the other hand, know that they should have many designs in the works at any given time. They know that to get a few really good ideas, you need to generate dozens or hundreds of ideas and accept the fact that the overwhelming majority of them will be bad.

    There's no reason for educators to expect students to come up with excellent game designs when they're starting out, any more than writers or artists or composers start out with excellent ideas or results. John Creasey, who ultimately published more than 600 novels (mostly mysteries), was rejected more than 700 times before he made a sale. Science fiction novelist (and Byte magazine computer pundit) Jerry Pournelle says you must be willing to throw away your first million words (about 10 novels) if you want to become a good novelist.

    Why let students waste huge amounts of time producing one or two electronic games that are fundamentally bad designs? When they design non-electronic games and very soon thereafter play their prototypes, they quickly discover that their "great ideas" are not very good, in practice, which helps them critique their ideas at an early stage, and discard the obviously bad ones before spending a lot of time on them. In a sense, it teaches them humility, something that every designer must learn.

    These are especially important lessons for the millennial generation in the age of instant gratification. Some people think they're in The Matrix, where a quick pill is all they need to be an expert and starting out with electronic games obscures the nature of these illusions.

    Focus on Gameplay
    The greater simplicity of non-electronic games forces concentration on good gameplay.

    Students tend to identify "games" with AAA titles, rather than simpler casual games or games of 20 years ago (Tetris, Space Invaders). These AAA games are often terrifically complex, but they represent the kind of game most students want to produce. However, as a practical matter, most of them actually won't go on to work for companies producing AAA console games; nor in an educational setting can they make such complex games requiring dozens of work years of professional effort.

    All this complexity obscures the actual game design in the games. That obscuring complexity rarely exists in non-electronic games; furthermore, the students aren't likely to design complex non-electronic games because they cannot expect the computer to take care of the details. Gameplay is a much more obvious element of non-electronic games than it is of video games. The result is that the student is forced to concentrate on the most important part of the game: gameplay.

    For example, beginners designing electronic games tend to concentrate on story rather than gameplay, which is usually a big mistake. When there's no computer, they're less likely to do this, because they don't have a computer to describe and depict the world for them.

    Design Problems vs. Computer Responsibilities
    When students work on non-digital games, they cannot hide behind the computer.

    Student game developers tend to design overly-complex electronic games, assuming that the computer will take care of certain problems that are in fact game design problems. I call this "hiding behind the computer." Unfortunately, this is easy to do because only at the end of a very long design and modification cycle will it become obvious that the computer cannot solve the problem, that it is a design problem.

    People make computer games complex because they can, because the "computer will take care of" things that would never be possible or tolerable in a non-electronic game. But often, the resulting game is too complex despite the computer.

    Designers, especially novices, should live by the following advice from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, a French engineer and early airman: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

    It's much easier to learn to do this effectively with non-electronic games because there is no "easy button"; when there's no computer, there's nowhere to hide. When a student designs something that results in a crappy electronic game prototype, she can blame it on the code, or the art, or the sound, or something else. When a student makes a crappy non-electronic game prototype, he's out there on his own. It's the game designer's fault, so students are forced to figure out what they need to do to get better.

    Designing non-electronic games is actually more challenging, for most people, and more educational for beginners.

    Additional Benefits for Educators and Students
    If game education begins with electronic games, in the end, neither the teacher nor the student ever actually teaches or learns game design --they teach and learn game production, which is quite another thing (and it's being taught and learned in an exceptionally half-baked way).

    If a class uses a simple game engine, even something as simple as Gamemaker, it limits not only what games can be made, but also the effect of the effort put in. That is to say, most of the effort goes into making the prototype work, not into the designing, testing, and iterating phases.

    When a class creates electronic games for learning purposes, it spends almost all its time on game production elements that are not related to game design.

    Many video game experts (for example, Adams and Rollings in Game Design Fundamentals) say, "Game design is game design," whether electronic or not. Although that is a topic for another article, I can point out the most important difference. First, the obvious difference is scale, but this isn't so much a design difference as a marketing difference. Big time video games are produced by dozens of people, cost millions of dollars, and in rare cases sell many millions of copies. "Big time" non-video games are produced by a few people with budgets in the thousands, with only a few titles such as Settlers of Catan and Risk selling as many as a million copies.

    More important from a design perspective, electronic games tend to be one person (or group) versus the computer; non-electronic games tend to be two or more players against one another. "Multi-sided" games -- games having more than one conflicting human entity (individual or group) -- are the norm in the non-electronic world, but the exception in the video game world. (Except where player versus player is allowed, even an MMO is not multi-sided even if there are 70 people in a raid.) We are seeing more multi-sided video games, and there is a lot to be learned from board and card games, but that's another discussion entirely.

    Dr. Lewis Pulsipher comes from the non-electronic side of game design, and teaches video game design at Fayetteville Technical Community College, NC. His most well-known game, Britannia, is among the games described in Hobby Games: The 100 Best, edited by James Lowder.


Comments

comments powered by Disqus