Skip to Content
 

Production vs Design

7 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I have recently broken my vow to not touch video game programming ever again. So I am trying to revive my wizardry legacy video game implementation.

While getting back into the code, I starting to realise things that I have not before. For example:

The work behind video games could be considered as composed of 80% production and 20% design. Why, because the design of a video game does not have to be as sharp as a board game, but on the other hand a lot of production work is required to make the game work. Since it needs to be coded to be playable.

While for board games, it's the opposite. It's 20% Production and 80% design. Board games takes much more time to design because you need a lot of testing and refinement to make the game run correctly. But when the game is working, the production consist only in building the print-outs and the rules. And sometimes a proportion of these are made by the publisher.

When I work, I generally have a variable mind set. Sometimes I am in production mode, where I just want to produce stuff, while sometime I am in a more creative mode where I want to design stuff. So I am trying to see what kind of results I am going to achieve if I mix and match video game programming and board game design. I could be able to constantly feed the need of production and design when I need it.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
So...

...not to open a can of worms, but I think you've jumped to a false conclusion.

I agree that many mainstream video games involve large amounts of production, but that isn't a function of them being video games so much as them being largely solo games that people expect to play for 20 hours or more.

Lets look at some counterexamples to both sides of the argument.

Consider D&D. Yes, there are a LOT of rule books, but there are more modules, source books, and maps, and miniatures. Or take M:tG. I know both a designer and an artist who worked on that game in its early days, and both had stories to tell about the sheer amount of art required to create the game. Sure, there is play testing and balancing to do for all those cards, but I think the split is closer to 50/50 than 20/80.

Alternatively, look at two of the most popular video games out right now: Draw Something is almost exclusively design, and Angry Birds Iteration N is also pretty low-cost in terms of production. And don't even get me started on Tetris -- probably the most famous video game in the world.

I can see where it's tempting to point to the majority of AAA console titles and say that they are 20/80 design to production, but even that is misleading. Having just finished a 5 year stretch on DC Universe Online, I can tell you that half the team was Design, the other half was split between Engineering and Art.

Computers, consoles, and phones are just another medium for game creation. You can use them to create games with virtually no production values (e.g., "Johann Sebastian Joust" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUzIhFHxJ5Q), just as you can use paper, chipboard, and plastic to create games with relatively few rules and a relatively high production costs (think tabletop miniatures gaming).

What determines the split is the type of game you're making, independent of the medium in which you're making it.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Maybe I should clarify my

Maybe I should clarify my definitions, it's not that easy to define.

By production, I mean something that you need to do and know approximately the time it will take to do it. I consider programming, drawing, Prototyping and writing to be production activity. Of course there is a bit of design activity included in drawing, writing and programming. (ex: how will the rules be layout, what style of art will be used, what architecture will be used.)

In video games, when you know how the game is going to work, most of the time is put on production. In RPG, again most of the time is put on production. Dream Pod 9 said that they don't play games, and they designed tons of RPG and supplements.

By Design, I mean something you need to create that you don't know how it is going to work and have no idea how much time it will take to do. This primarily include the activity of creating and designing the mechanics, layout of a game.

This is one of the reason that board game design is done mostly through free lancing. Because a game idea can take from 1 month to 10 years to design. It's very hard for a company to finance such kind of activity. So they freelance prototype and when they accept a game, the only part left to do is production. Now they can plan ahead the cost and time it will take to produce the game much more easily.

For example, in my wizardry legacy projects, it's a video game inspired on D&D. I am going to design a rule draft and make a couple of test just to make sure that it works. But the amount of play testing required to make it work is far less than what is required for a board game that has a much tighter design. A wrong rule/value in a RPG will be less game breaking than in a board game. Also tabletop RPG tend to be more flexible and adapted by players during play. While in board games, you must play the game by the rules until the end of the game.

So the impact of badly designed mechanics/values does not have the same impact between video games, Role Playing games and board games, this is the reason why less time on design can be placed for video games.

For example, in Skyrim, there are a few mechanics that I find badly designed. For example, poisons are almost useless since they are one time use and does not have useful effects, except for paralyze. Many stones also have useless abilities. But even with these flaws, the game is playable. While in a board game, that would have given different results, it could have created a dominant strategy and break the game.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
I see

I see what you're saying, but still think comparing board games to video games is apples to oranges. "Board games" refers to a genre. "Video games" refers to a medium.

I agree that an RPG can tolerate flaws in its secondary rules, so broken poisons in Skyrim doesn't lead to a failed game -- but that's because the game is an RPG, not because it's on the computer.

Alternatively, Reiner Knizia could wake up tomorrow and decide he's going to make all his games on the computer now instead of chipboard and paper. The designs would remain identical, only the medium has changed (from "real" components to virtual ones).

Your next-to-last paragraph sums up the flawed argument the best:

> So the impact of badly designed mechanics/values does not have the same impact between video games, Role Playing games and board games, this is the reason why less time on design can be placed for video games.

"Board game" and "Role Playing game" or genres, but "video game" is a medium. I can play (or create) Settlers of Catan on my tabletop or my XBox 360, even though it's a "board game". Sonic Party is literally a board game rendered by a Sega Dreamcast.

Many people fall into this "genre vs medium" trap, but if computers could only play one kind of game, it would be impossible to play electronic versions of chess, Ticket to Ride, or Monopoly -- but all of these exist.

I agree with you that some kinds of games require more design time than others. Board games that live and die by the interplay of a few key systems fall into that category, as you point out, but that has nothing to do with whether they exist on a tabletop or a computer.

Finally, as an aside, I think this statement is also misguided:

"This is one of the reason that board game design is done mostly through free lancing. Because a game idea can take from 1 month to 10 years to design. It's very hard for a company to finance such kind of activity."

The differences in publisher relations come not from design differences, but from production requirements. The more equipment and financial support a publisher invests into the creation of the product, the less likely it is to allow freelancers to remain free. Since virtually anyone can write a book or prototype a board game, publishers need not bring the majority of those creators "in house." Large scale video games and movies, on the other hand, require so many resources that publishers must protect their investment by creating binding long-term contracts with the developers. Music is somewhere in-between, as musicians can rent studio time, which creates a balance between independent record labels and big studios.

In all of these industries, you can see the independent (i.e., "freelance") movements grow as production costs drop. It's happening dramatically in the video game industry now thanks to the surge in the mobile game market. There are thousands of independent developers flooding the app stores with new games, none of which involved money from a publisher.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:but that's because the

Quote:
but that's because the game is an RPG, not because it's on the computer.

OK, I see your point of view.

I know that some strategy game on computer also have the effect that some design flaws does not break the game compared to strategy board game. I think this is because video game can process so much data and formulas, that eventually, it's going to balance itself out somewhere else, while in a board game, if you have a wrong value, in can break your game.

It reminds me of Ogre Battle 64, with the new legion feature that was more a flaw than an advantage to use them. The game was still playable, because it was an "Additional feature". So this is an example of strategy game on 2 different medium where bad design does not have the same impact.

The main difference seems that strategy video game as much more information and calculation in it which reduce the impact of a bad rule or bad value.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Yup!

> The main difference seems that strategy video game as much more information and calculation in it which reduce the impact of a bad rule or bad value.

This is a good point. A lot of video games use so much data and calculation that you couldn't finely balance the systems if you wanted to. Not to mention the fact that many of them rely heavily on dexterity based components, so they have to function well across a wide range of ability levels.

It's neat to get emulators and play games from the 80's. Back then, they were much more like board games in terms of their reliance on a few simple, interconnected systems. In fact, one of my favorite games of all time, M.U.L.E., is a brilliantly-executing board game rendered on the computer.

Mark

Dulkal
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2012
larienna wrote:Quote:but

larienna wrote:
Quote:
but that's because the game is an RPG, not because it's on the computer.

OK, I see your point of view.

I know that some strategy game on computer also have the effect that some design flaws does not break the game compared to strategy board game. I think this is because video game can process so much data and formulas, that eventually, it's going to balance itself out somewhere else, while in a board game, if you have a wrong value, in can break your game.

It reminds me of Ogre Battle 64, with the new legion feature that was more a flaw than an advantage to use them. The game was still playable, because it was an "Additional feature". So this is an example of strategy game on 2 different medium where bad design does not have the same impact.

The main difference seems that strategy video game as much more information and calculation in it which reduce the impact of a bad rule or bad value.


Again, I think it depends a lot on the genre. A bad value in Starcraft II could bring the whole thing crashing down, and the threshold for 'bad value' is much lower than in almost any board game.

I do think you are right that video games /in general/ tend to put more emphasis on production value, for several reasons. But I think you are mistaken when it comes to your reason. The forgiveness for poor design is not inherent in the video game medium, but a part of the video game genres that put emphasis on narrative, graphics or other mechanic-unrelated features.

Poorly designed fighting game mechanics, on the other hand, would break the game to a much larger extent. The subtleties and tightness of successful fighting games is awe-inspiring once you dig into it.

MarkKreitler
MarkKreitler's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/12/2008
Well said!

> The forgiveness for poor design is not inherent in the video game medium, but a part of the video game genres that put emphasis on narrative, graphics or other mechanic-unrelated features.

Yes! That's what I was trying to say, Dulkal, but you nailed it.

> The subtleties and tightness of successful fighting games is awe-inspiring once you dig into it.

Indeed -- and this brings up another point. In games where the player's reaction time matters, production often *is* design. Fighting games are a perfect example. The character animations -- which most people would consider production -- have a huge impact on the way the game plays, so they are a critical element of design.

Now excuse me while I go play some Street Figher x Tekken...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut