For example, an article by Tom Bissel in The New Yorker about Epic Games’ design director, Cliff “CliffyB” Bleszinski bowled me over as I read it during a recent morning commute. The New Yorker is less stuffy than its reputation, but it’s still notable that the editorial staff are applying their trademark care and deep insight into something as un-stuffy as “Gears of War.” Aside from being written to the magazine’s usual levels of excellence, what struck me as so fascinating about this piece was how much, in trying to understand the creative equation that makes games work, Bissel engages in language that’s very familiar to designers.
“Anyone who plays modern games such as ‘Gears’ does not so much learn the rules as develop a kind of intuition for how the game operates. Often, there is no single way to accomplish a given task; improvisation is rewarded. Older games, like ‘Super Mario,’ punish improvisation: you live or die according to their algebra alone.”
Bissel is essentially peeling back the layers on how designers guide users through experiences. A lot of these concepts — intuitiveness, task completion, improvisation, and especially rewards — lay at the heart of design of all kinds.
Another passage later in the article discusses the prevailing philosophy of the “Gears of War” designers, and it reads very much like a mantra for designers everywhere:
“The singularity of ‘Gears of War’ resides in what designers describe as its ‘feel’ — the way that the game’s mechanics are orchestrated to create both a compelling experience for the player and the illusion of an internally consistent world.”
If there’s anything that says design to me, it’s that desire to engage an audience while evoking order — order that is occasionally explicit, but more frequently implicit. Which is to say, we are experts in creating a ‘look’ — the part of a design that draws in an audience — but what makes us designers is that we are beholden to rules and logic that sometimes only we are aware of — that’s the part that to users constitutes the ‘feel.’
Right: War games. You can learn a lot from “Gears of War.” Just look.
The Gray Lady Is a Gamer
Meanwhile, even closer to home for me, Seth Schiesel’s writing on games in The New York Times has been consistently covering similar ground. Following is a lengthy and typically excellent passage from a review of Electronic Arts’ horror game “Dead Space.”
“But horror games (and films and, to a certain extent, fiction) don’t really rely on story to make them compelling. They do not really rely on production gloss, either (though Dead Space looks and sounds beautifully gross).
“What they rely on is pacing. The difference between an excellent horror experience in any medium and a mediocre one is in how it measures out all those little jolts over time. It is balancing the generation and release of episodic tension with a mounting sense of dread that gives the narrative its basic arc. If viewers, players or readers are oversaturated with dramatic and graphic scenes, they can become desensitized. Too much wasted space and the consumer can become bored in a more obvious way.
“These pacing decisions are more art than science. One could argue that maintaining an audience’s attention with a drumbeat of minor moments, punctuated at just the right times with major events, makes the big difference in all entertainment. It just becomes especially clear with horror, because horror generally relies on such blunt emotional instruments: revulsion, surprise, panic, confusion and, of course, fear. Such powerful tools must be wielded delicately.
“And the one word that kept occurring to me in playing Dead Space was discipline. Not over-cautiousness on the part of the designers, but a discipline to stay focused on providing the basics at a high level: spooky levels of the Ishimura to explore, suitably gruesome foes to shoot, and enough depth in the detailed if predictable back story to give the action a sense of consequence (as in ‘I really should care if I can blow apart this next slimy necromorph, because the fate of humanity may depend on it’).”
Here Schiesel draws a more direct parallel with filmmaking, but there are critical ideas that he touches upon — pacing, fending off user boredom, and artistic discipline — that speak to the decision-making in which designers engage every day.
Right: Sack education. LittleBigPlanet is the same as Web design.
In another review, this one for “LittleBigPlanet,” a quirky game that puts an avatar called Sackboy at the center of the action, Schiesel practically unites game design with the kind of experience design through which I earn my paycheck, under a single umbrella, as if they were very much the same thing:
“This [game] is more a system than a product. Most traditional entertainment is about providing an artifact — a book, a script, a show, a score, a performance — that is then preserved, passed on and reinterpreted. There’s nothing wrong with that. But new entertainment — social networks, games, online communities — is about empowering everyday people to express themselves and interact without a central arbiter. The thing is, interactive entertainment is much harder to design than it is to experience. A great game like chess, poker or Tetris should be easy to play at first and then reveal deeper levels of complexity and skill.”
When I read that, I thought to myself, I need to start playing some video games.
Excellent post. Another game you should look at is the amazing “World of Goo” built by two guys in a coffeehouse; it’s an incredible design achievement (and only $20).
At the last Seattle IxDA event, we had three great speakers talk on the intersection of game design and interaction design. Videos are available here.
Turns out Little Big Planet is a great concept in search of a decent game.
I could not help but think of the recent Design Observer article by Andrew Blauvelt, “Towards Relational Design”.
Brett McCallon writes a column on gaming at More Intelligent Life, the on-line version of The Economist’s arts and culture magazine. He often touches upon many of the issues you’ve mentioned from a gamer’s perspective. It’s also an example of an un-stuffy thing in a better quality publication.
You’re right, there’s some good writing in the NYTimes, but I think the fact that they dump all their video game writing under ‘television’ suggests they still don’t take it all entirely seriously. Same for The Guardian, actually, they shove all theirs under ‘technology’, when there’s a perfectly good culture section that seems more appropriate to me.
@felix – uk:resistance is notorious for its anti-Sony bias (perhaps something to do with being written by Microsoft employees?) I would take anything they say about Little Big Planet with an enormous mountain of salt.
What the games industry really needs is grown-up criticism. So many of the printed and online magazines are still stuck in the increasingly old-fashioned aimed-at-teenage-boys mindset. In the UK we have Edge magazine (do you have it over the pond?), which appears to be written by and for grown ups, but that’s pretty much it.
Another problem that gaming faces is that it makes its own history obsolete on a regular basis, and thus inaccessible. For example: if I wanted to listen to an album or watch a film made fifty years ago, I could simply buy the CD or DVD. But what about a classic game from just ten years ago? I’d need to download a dodgy emulator onto my computer or scour ebay for the correct hardware.
You should also check out game-related articles by Clive Thompson, who writes for NYT, Wired, Fast Company. He writes (and blogs) about other cool tech as well, and archives most of it on his site.
Awesome post! I totally agree with Daniel. In my eyes many magazines or their articles are aiming on the wrong target group. This situation is kind of anoying, but that’s not the crucial factor. In my eyes there are just too less new ideas! Most of the games are all the same, only the colors change and the graphic betters but that’s it and it is boring.
There is definitely a whole world of incredible design to be experienced through video games. I think the most important element that video games offer consumers is that of interactivity. The consumer makes the choice to do as they please with a set of tools and opportunities presented to them through the gaming experience.
In this environment many advertising channels remain untapped. In an article posted by Scott Lachut entitled “The Branding of Strangers,” Scott cites a study in which consumers were instructed to study the faces of people in 20 portraits. The subjects were then asked to pick between brands of bottled water. When the portraits contained a particular brand, the subjects chose that particular brand 23% more often than when the brand was not exposed to other subjects.
This should get advertisers interested in casually displaying their brands throughout video games. Vehicle manufacturers could get their brand into “Gears” easily enough. What about Nike jackets for the characters? Even Coke cans littering the ground could, according to the study cited by Scott, influence consumers.
I guess no one here has ever played Rez
Thank you! Your remarks have been sent to Khoi.