A little pondering on my part led me to the conclusion that each game has at its heart a primary element. I'm sure this is all known and understood by many here, but I'm still in the topic set-up. :)
What I determined was that a lot of games I played were war or conflict based. With this in mind I found all my ideas revolved around war or conflicting forces of this nature. So I had to determine the other primary elements for other games. I broke it down into this catagories:
Conflict
Strategy (related to the conflict catagory but differnent because strategic
play can be applied to other game types)
Action
Adventure
Race
Puzzle
Chance
I probably missed some catagories, so if anyone thinks I should include something in my list, please let me know.
Now, many of these cores can cross into others. Like action/adventure, strategic war-games, etc. You may be asking yourself "What's the point of this...?" Well, to clear my thinking I had to break down these catagories and see what came of it. Let alone the fact that some games may at first appear to be one type, but actually be another at its core. Backgammon is a great example because at first glance I thought of it as strategy with chance. Actually, it seems to me to be a Race at its core with a touch of strategy and a lot of chance. :)
Anyways...This is the way I look at games in the design process. Others may see it differently. Well, in thinking about my ideas, and design goals, I would pick a primary core and from there I could determine my objectives and then obstacles and each players' role.
I guess as for this discussion I will ask, what are your methods on this aspect of game design? Do you see it similarly or completely differently?
Do you come up with your core, like a Race game, and shape the game around that strongly, loosely, or just go with a premise as "That might be cool!" I try that too. :)
Anyways...I'm not sure I'm making any sense right now.
Must...get...sleep... :)
Good Day to all!
-Vexx
I would have to agree. I think perhaps I use the type list because whichever type I choose is the primary aspect of the game. Such as, if I choose Adventure, then I am focusing on a design that emphasizes "an adventure" and actually hadn't even thought about Adventure as the theme but the goal of the game design.
See, I wouldn't have even thought of the design that way. :) As I mentioned earlier, if I chose Adventure as my genre, then my focus is to make a game that conveys an adventure. My point of view would be something along the lines of a kind of co-op game, where the players are actually a team playing against the obstactles set by the game. Instead of Player vs Player, its Players vs Game. Now, I have to admit, this may not actually be a workable idea, the fun factor of competing against an opponent being lost. And I am in part thinking of this from the perspective of computer games I've played labled "adventure". I can't say if its a bad idea to take a concept of gameplay from computer games and try to put it into a boardgame/tabletop game to be bad or good, workable or not. I can say I've had some interesting ideas mechanics-wise trying to though. :)
I do understand what you are getting at though. In some of my attempts, I've mixed up themes for types and this may be why I've had some unnecessary frustrations in creating objectives and mechanics.
Well, if not short, at least fast paced. I do think your perspective of marking a game strategic or tactical quite useful. It ehlps to clear some of the "color" out of the way that may cause design frustrations.
Thanx,
-Vexx