Skip to Content
 

Game design crisis

7 replies [Last post]
Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I work in the video game industry. Each year, I get more jaded as we pump out endless sequels, genre imitators ("like Halo 2, but with monkeys!"), and retreaded designs fitted with glittering licenses.

I would like to look to board games for help. It seems that no such stagnation has happened in the tabletop world, and I hope we could dicuss why that is.

I plan to ask several specific questions along those lines in future threads, but I'd like to start by challenging the assumption that the world of tabletop games has no similar design crisis.

So, my question to all of you is this:

Do you feel that tabletop game designs have become too tied to standard genres (both in terms of theme and mechanics), and if so, why? If not, why not?

Given the people on this forum, I'm looking forward to some illuminating replies...

K.

Anonymous
Game design crisis

I believe that boardgames, like video games, definitely fall into ruts or follow trends from time to time, but then a novel game mechanic or entirely new spin on gaming gets developed, pumping fresh ideas and creativity into the industry -- but it isn't long before other games modeled after those innovations start to surface.

That said, there are finite different mechanics you can develop a game for. Perhaps there are still a few untapped, undeveloped concepts, but I think that, barring an amazing innovation, many of the types of game interactions have been developed -- the trick is combining the right elements, with the right theme and a few novel twists so it remains fresh, engaging and interactive.

I think Santiago by Amigo/Z-Man is a good example. It's an auction/bidding game, but with some very novel elements -- bribing players to irrigate your lands, risk management on where/what to invest in, etc -- which take some tried and true mechanics and implement them into an engrossing, wonderful new game.

Jebbou
Jebbou's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Game design crisis

Hello,

Without knowing much about the inner mechanism of the boardgame industry, I would say that, what makes a videogame sucessful is not the same thing as what makes a boardgame successful.

With high development costs, videogame producers are less likely to take risks. Thus instead of investing money in a game that is innovative, but not garanteed to succeed, they will invest in a sequel that already proven to be a good investment (such as maiden football or another walt disney title). They will then increase the success of their project with advertising.

The boardgame industry, on the otherhand, has lower development cost (The guy in his basement) and is not mainstream enough (at least in Canada) to be advertised. Thus, for a title to be successful, a boardgame has two possibilities: First, it can rely on a popular brand name (monopoly, lord of the ring, warcraft). Although it is not a garantee of success, it has more chances of making it through the main stream. The other way to succeed is to innovate. Making an original and fun boardgame will probably be more successful than any advertising, since people will talk about it, and show it to their friends (this is how Settlers was introduced in our group, and probably to any other newborn gaming group).

Anyways. My thoughts. Feel free to amend or comment if I said anything wrong! Very interesting topic by the way!

Have a nice day,

Jeb

EDIT: I noticed that, although I sticked to the theme of the topic, I completely missed the question! DOH! Alright, I will followup on this later on :)

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Game design crisis

There is certainly sequel mania going on in the board game world. The two prime examples are the Settlers and Carcassone franchises, both seem to have endless permutations with no end in sight and there won’t be as long as they keep selling. There are also certain mechanics that have become popular and in my opinion a bit overused in new games. The one that sticks out is roll selection; you know where you get to choose a special power for the turn. On the other hand I think even if you’re using a tried and true mechanic or theme for the base of your game how the components mesh is as important as what the components are.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Game design crisis

It's instructive to go back in time a little here. Long-ish, boring and yet controversial post follows. You have been warned.

The late 1970s was the first break-through period for video games. The first real "video game"*, Space Invaders, appeared at just about the same time as the first home computers were becoming affordable. The technology wasn't so hot, but the novelty was immense. It's hard to imagine what sort of an impact Space Invaders had these days - almost as hard as remembering the impact that Jaws and Star Wars had on the movie-going public (although I'm of that generation, being 10 years old in 1978, and between them, those two events have overshadowed everything else from that period in my memory.!)

(*and I don't count Pong or things like Space War as they were too small scale compared to the global impact that Invaders had.)

But the important point was that the technology was very first-generation, and this meant that it almost didn't matter how crudely the ideas were implemented - the novelty factor outdrew everything. And this meant that "one-guy-in-his-bedroom" could produce games that would be accepted by the market simply because presentation wasn't the overriding factor.

And this state of affairs held for nigh-on a decade; video games and consoles advanced in quality unmatched by home computers until the advent of what was the real second-generation: the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga. And suddenly, the hopes of the lone-coder were shattered. No longer could OGIHB do everything as the users of these machines demanded hi-res graphics, multi-channel sound and so on. Programming teams were certainly not unheard of prior to this (the last gasp Sinclair Spectrum and Commodore 64 games were built in this way) but this was where it took hold.

And the third-generation wasn't far behind, as Microsoft took over the world in the mid-90s with a version of Windows that actually worked.
At the same time, the console market had undergone a similar revolution.

The result is that buillding a video game today requires a team - it's not an optional component. You need specialists in a lot of fields to produce something that will compete with the best. (That's not to say that innovation doesn't exist, but it can struggle to break free without some heavyweight support. Or it can be enjoyed on the first-generation level by those people willing to look for it. For which we can at least thank the 'net!)

Boardgames have been in the second-generation world for a while now, although this has occurred at different rates in different areas of the world (and kudos to people like Rio Grande and Days of Wonder for dragging the US market into line.) But in the second-generation model there is less room for innovation as the focus shifts to the presentation (and less kudos to Days of Wonder here, as they may have made things much harder for smaller companies!)

IOW I think that the semi-stagnation process is almost inevitable. Sure there will be lots of small companies who will continue to break the rules and, once in a while, one will surprise everyone by selling well too. But grabbing on to "franchises" strikes me as a classic second-generation syndrome and I think we will see more of it.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game design crisis

Great post, David! That's some good stuff to think about!

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game design crisis

Thanks, David -- that was a great post. You anticipated some points I intended to bring up -- so I'll just address them here. Even though I'm going to talk mostly about video games, rest assured that this will all eventually relate back to board games.

Scurra wrote:
But the important point was that the technology was very first-generation, and this meant that it almost didn't matter how crudely the ideas were implemented - the novelty factor outdrew everything. And this meant that "one-guy-in-his-bedroom" could produce games that would be accepted by the market simply because presentation wasn't the overriding factor. (MK--emphasis added)

Scurra wrote:
No longer could OGIHB do everything as the users of these machines demanded hi-res graphics, multi-channel sound and so on.

Scurra wrote:
The result is that buillding a video game today requires a team - it's not an optional component. You need specialists in a lot of fields to produce something that will compete with the best. (That's not to say that innovation doesn't exist, but it can struggle to break free without some heavyweight support. Or it can be enjoyed on the first-generation level by those people willing to look for it. For which we can at least thank the 'net!)

All very true. However, things are not quite as cut and dried as they might seem. Mods and middleware make it possible for hobbyists to produce fun games. They don't do it from scratch, and it might take a small team, but they can do it. Board game production is not much different: I'm no artist, so if I was to produce a successful print-and-play title, I'd need to consult with a graphic designer. In other words, I'd need a small team.

Even more compelling is your point that we can still find innovative games on the web if we're willing to completely overlook sexy graphics and sound.

So, my question now becomes, "Why do we demand this of computer games"? The answer, I think, rests with the very first games available: Space War and Space Invaders.

Yes, these are "games" in some sense, but more accurately, they are "simulations". These titles set the stage for almost every "video game" to come. Nowadays, video games are almost exclusively simulations: of combat, racing, dating, you name it. Simulations become more enjoyable the more closely they resemble the reality they represent. Therefore, video game designers and programmers put the bulk of their efforts into improving the simulation, and game design comes as an afterthought (this is not true for all studios, of course, but I can tell you from experience that most places spend a lot more time worrying about problems like realistic fog and shadows than they do actual game mechanics).

Simulations are fun, but they are only the tiniest slice of the gaming pie. So, my next question for you all is this: is there any real reason that computers cannot succeed with more table-top style content, and if so, what creates these limits and how can we design around them?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you might have.

In order to keep the focus on this question, I'm moving it to a separate thread.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Game design crisis

On my point of view, video games are now facing a huge invisible crisis. Video games are not games anymore, they are interactive movies. The problem is that they focus only on the graphics and appearance and nothing on the game it self. There is no game. My friend is currently playing "god of war" beside me, and it's just bash monster around and solve puzzle. It's pretty boring. This is why I only play old video games.

The reason why people cannot make less better looking and more interesting game is due to the technology and competition. If I make a computer strategy game that is very interesting with average 2D graphics, the people won't just buy it because they can get a better looking game with 3D graphics for the same price. The game LOOKS more COOL even if the game is not necessarily better.

Even the music in the video games does not exist anymore, it's now just ambiance music, there is no music score anymore. One of my friend asked my " why do we always remember the old video game's music but not the new ones?".

There is 2 things that can reverse the current. A limit in the technology can increase the focus on the game since you cannot make your game more baeutifull than your neighbord. We are currently reaching a tech limit with Xbox2 and PS3. Do we really need more power! do we really need to see the reflection of the background in the armor of your character when you play sould caliber?

An increase in the price of the game, due to many factor ( especially paying the overtime of devellopers ) can allow small companies to make good lowtech lowprice games that can hope to make competition with the poor high tech high price games.

Now for board games, can the same thing happen, I think no. Yes there will be a reuse of mechanics. But I think that for board games, especially speciallised ones, there is an enormous variety of games. In fact there is so much of them that you don`t know what`s good and what to buy anymore. So when you make a new game, there is lower chances that it gets known. But then again, the hobby shop generally have somebody who knows his games that can guide you.

My greatest hope, would be the the video game industry crash again for the second time and restart from scratch. It could allow independent devellopers to get back in the industry. Remember also that the high tech game can only be made by huge companies. So only the recent alterations in the economic system allows the fusion of big companies who can make these games. If theres is a change in the economy which make these companies fall appart, there will surely be a change in the video game industry.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut