Design Methodologies

What is game design? It's a question that gets asked a lot, and the answer is generally completely different depending on who you ask.

The reason for this lack of shared response is the different methodologies present at different studios, and even within different designers at the same studio. What is right and wrong? To be truthful, no one method is the "correct" method, but there are definitely elements of each style that can be tied together to make a more rounded design approach.

Schools of Thought
Firstly lets consider the main thought process of how a game should be structured - generally there are two schools of thought in this regard:

• Scripted Design - tightly controlled, generally linear experiences where set-pieces are constructed to the player to engage with. This can be seen best in games like Half-Life and Uncharted.
  
  
  + Produces unique scenarios
  + Tends to be very narrative driven
  - Costly to develop
  - Can lead to limited player freedom
• Systemic Design - a set of building blocks are designed and then layered together to form a large potential outcomes. This is demonstrated best in games like Grand Theft Auto and Deus Ex.
  
  
  + Creates emergent play
  + Offers a lot of player choice
  - Creates emergent problems!
  - Can lead to a sense of repetition

Each of these schools of thought has their champions and detractors. Some despise the linearity imposed by scripted methodology, others enjoy the thrill of the rollercoaster ride it provides. However, great games are able to combine elements of both - so it might be a fairly scripted experience, but it offers lots of choice within each scenario for example.

Design Techniques

The task of actually creating levels and mechanics for a game can be approached from a number of ways. Again, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do this, but different methodologies have distinct advantages, and conversely their own disadvantages.

Paper Design - GDD
The act of documenting a game mechanic or level layout is a very traditional approach. It shares the vision for the game to the team in a presentable fashion. A good game design document can help cement this vision and encourage communication throughout the team - it can avoid confusion and act as a reference point.

However, paper design is very much the Grand Old method of game design, and can be seen as something of a dinosaur by many. Writing documentation isn't glamorous, and is fraught with potential issues. If the document isn't continually kept up to date with the latest changes, then people lose trust in it.

+ Specifically states the intent of a mechanic of level design

+ Tangible evidence of a particular idea
+ Great for communicating the vision to the publisher

- Time consuming to keep up to date

- Can lead to inflexibility: "that's not how it is in the GDD!"

- Doesn't prove that gameplay or level design is actually fun to play

Documents are definitely useful, but should be kept should concise and up to date. In 3rd party studios, good documentation is essential to keep the publisher up to speed. Beware - they should never become gospel.

Formal Structured Approach

Several designers (such as Doug Church) are pushing for a more rule based approach to game design - approaching it as a scientific method. The belief is that a good set of rules can be defined rules to create a game experience. There is some mileage in the pursuit of this ideal, as it does create a lot of desire to analyze approaches to design and look at what works and what doesn't. On the counter side, design is part science, but also part art. Art often relies on breaking the rules to find something more interesting. It's a fine line to tread, and there is a danger that the formal approach might "suck out the soul" of game design.

+ Highly analytical approach to games

+ Creates a set of rules that can be clearly states

- Can be very rigid

- Ignores the artistic process that relies on breaking the rules
- Might create identikit games without anything really original

I'm not sure how much mileage there is in following a strict set of rules, however, I do believe the pursuit of analysis is a great goal to have. If this method produces a set of guidelines for what tends to work well, then I believe it will have a useful place. It shouldn't be used to quash creativity however.


Iterative Design
Iterative design is the process of quickly prototyping an idea, then refining it again and again to produce a final product. This process forgoes any formality to concentrate solely on one element at a time and work to make that element fun. There is a danger that this process the elements won't fit together as a whole, so someone should always be considering the big picture. There is also the danger of overrunning time.

+ Pursues elements that are fun

+ Refines and polishes elements

- Can become endless

- Can result in chaos if not kept in check

- Can limit the amount that is done

- Must be careful to consider each parts place in the whole

The iterative process needs to be carefully managed. It needs to have enough room to breathe, but it needs someone disciplined enough to say when enough is enough.

Rational Game Design

Rational design breaks design down into a series of building blocks. These building blocks are then combined to create more interesting scenarios / combinations of mechanics - a bit like a giant Lego set.

The first step of rational design is to break the game into its core mechanics. Then you can start to work out how they interact with each other. Rational design fits very well into the Systemic Design school of thought.

+ Creates emergent scenarios

+ Becomes quick and easy to build new scenarios

- Can be difficult to test

- Can lead to repetition or lack of anything spectacular

Rational design is useful for creating stock scenarios for a game, but in order to make something unique, you may have to use elements that are unique to a particular scenario.

Empirical Method

The empirical method is the use of observation to inform design decisions. It can actually start before the game has even begun through the use of focus groups.

Once there is a game to actually play, then the process of usability and playtesting can begin. This is the act of bringing in external people to play the game, observe them, record their actions and interview them on their reactions to the game. Data can also be gathered using instrumentation to output exactly what players are doing where.

+ Invaluable information about where players are getting stuck
+ Information that can be used to improve the game significantly

- "Evidence" can be manipulated and used politically

- Focus testing can result in bland experiences if over-relied upon

Whilst I have my reservations about the use of focus testing, the art of usability and playtesting is absolutely invaluable - in fact I firmly believe that high quality games cannot be made without it these days. The only thing to be wary of is the misuse or bad interpretation of data. It is important to approach the data processing without any kind of agenda, otherwise it is easy to cherry pick information that backs said agenda and obscure you from the actual truth.

The Ultimate Method?
The ultimate method is to combine as many of these methodologies such that you get the advantages with each and hopefully avoid the disadvantages.

Document what you can, but do it in a concise way that allows quick iteration. Perform iteration, but make sure that you have an end goal and timescale in mind. Come up with a set of rules for your game, but don't let them blind you to something awesome. Create building blocks, but remember that unique elements will make your game stand out from the crowd. Playtest and expose your ideas to focus groups, but don't be swayed by popular opinion if it isn't right for the game.

Ultimately each studio has a house style, and each individual designer will have their own approach that may (or sometimes may not) fit with that. Just be aware that other methodologies may have some use to you that you might not at first be able to see. Don't be close minded - always be prepared to learn something from others.

Combine elements of all design approaches to gain all of the advantages