People say everywhere that "the idea person" can't be just that.. He has to do some other work AS WELL such as programming or art or sound etc etc.

If I understand correct Game Designer is the person who has the idea of the game, the vision what it will be and all the features and mechanics.

The 'person who has the idea of the game' sounds a lot like the fabled 'Idea Man' - a role which has no place in the games industry. The simple fact is, everyone has ideas, and the vast majority of those people think their ideas are better than anyone else's.

The Programmer has Ideas, and likes his own ideas more than he likes anyone else's. The Artist has Ideas, which he values more than anyone else's. Together, they can make a successful game and share the profit between two people - so why would they hire an Ideas Guy who does nothing but come up with ideas (which they will both like less than their own) while they're actually creating the product?

In order to be worth his salt, a Game Designer has to be able to demonstrate that his input on the project is going to result in a sufficiently better product to compensate for whatever sacrifices the team must make to include him - and by sacrifices, I don't just mean money. Creative input tends to be important to everyone on the team, doubly so if they are doing it on an unpaid basis. For that reason alone, no Game Designer can afford to be some kind of creatively monopolistic Ideas Guy - rather, he takes creative input from the entire team, fills in any gaps with his own ideas and collates it into something coherent and fun.

Fun is the key of course - that's the where the value of the Game Designer ultimately comes from. Not from his ability to write colossal design bibles that nobody reads. Not even in his ability to have Cool New ideas for Awesome New Features. The skill of the Game Designer is in his ability to identify gameplay issues, fix or even cut features that don't work, add features that do work, and create gameplay that is engaging for the target audience.

All of this is an iterative process. The notion of the Game Designer who locks himself away for months before delivering a giant, perfect, and final Game Design Document is complete fiction. It's incredibly difficult to design a fun game entirely on paper, so difficult in fact that no-one actually attempts to do this. All game design documents are evolving documents which are written largely concurrently with the rest of the game. As new features are implemented the Game Designer has to try them out, see how well they work. Maybe, they aren't actually much fun. Maybe an unexpected issue arises between two features, and the Designer has to make a decision as to how to resolve them. All without stamping all over the feet of everyone who has contributed ideas to the project.

Ultimately, as I think several people in this thread have already said, indie Game Designers are respected - once they have proven themselves. But then we're back in the same sort of chicken and egg situation that wannabe Game Designers face everywhere - you can't prove yourself unless someone will take you on, and no-one will take you on until you've proven yourself.

Unless of course, you can add something more tangible to the project, such as programming/art assets..

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1334886741' post='4933023']
People say everywhere that "the idea person" can't be just that.. He has to do some other work AS WELL such as programming or art or sound etc etc.

If I understand correct Game Designer is the person who has the idea of the game, the vision what it will be and all the features and mechanics.

The 'person who has the idea of the game' sounds a lot like the fabled 'Idea Man' - a role which has no place in the games industry. The simple fact is, everyone has ideas, and the vast majority of those people think their ideas are better than anyone else's.

The Programmer has Ideas, and likes his own ideas more than he likes anyone else's. The Artist has Ideas, which he values more than anyone else's. Together, they can make a successful game and share the profit between two people - so why would they hire an Ideas Guy who does nothing but come up with ideas (which they will both like less than their own) while they're actually creating the product?

In order to be worth his salt, a Game Designer has to be able to demonstrate that his input on the project is going to result in a sufficiently better product to compensate for whatever sacrifices the team must make to include him - and by sacrifices, I don't just mean money. Creative input tends to be important to everyone on the team, doubly so if they are doing it on an unpaid basis. For that reason alone, no Game Designer can afford to be some kind of creatively monopolistic Ideas Guy - rather, he takes creative input from the entire team, fills in any gaps with his own ideas and collates it into something coherent and fun.

Fun is the key of course - that's the where the value of the Game Designer ultimately comes from. Not from his ability to write colossal design bibles that nobody reads. Not even in his ability to have Cool New ideas for Awesome New Features. The skill of the Game Designer is in his ability to identify gameplay issues, fix or even cut features that don't work, add features that do work, and create gameplay that is engaging for the target audience.

All of this is an iterative process. The notion of the Game Designer who locks himself away for months before delivering a giant, perfect, and final Game Design Document is complete fiction. It's incredibly difficult to design a fun game entirely on paper, so difficult in fact that no-one actually attempts to do this. All game design documents are evolving documents which are written largely concurrently with the rest of the game. As new features are implemented the Game Designer has to try them out, see how well they work. Maybe, they aren't actually much fun. Maybe an unexpected issue arises between two features, and the Designer has to make a decision as to how to resolve them. All without stamping all over the feet of everyone who has contributed ideas to the project.

Ultimately, as I think several people in this thread have already said, indie Game Designers are respected - once they have proven themselves. But then we're back in the same sort of chicken and egg situation that wannabe Game Designers face everywhere - you can't prove yourself unless someone will take you on, and no-one will take you on until you've proven yourself.

Unless of course, you can add something more tangible to the project, such as programming/art assets..
[/quote]

You obviously didn't read the thread or even the OP.
Idea is just the 1% of the game designers process.
So what if the programmer has ideas too, You can't build a game efficiently on just an idea.. if you do then it can turn out to be anything.

You also don't understand the value of a game designer still.
Personally I would rather have a great game designer instead of a great artist in my team.

The game designer creates great gameplay while the artist just creates... eye candy.. makes the game more pleasant to look at.

And programmer? Well obviously it gets preferred over the designer since there's no game without a programmer.
But a programmer just puts the blocks ontop of each other.. builds code.

It's the designers job to tell him where to place the blocks so it becomes a great and fun game.

Just do yourself the favor and read the thread.

In movies for example.. There is 1 director. Sometimes more but most of the time it's just one. He directs the movie not the actors (programmers).
Actors should follow the GDD to the letter, no arguments. Only reason to not follow the GDD is if the director says otherwise.
...
and if a GDD causes 2 different teams to create compeltely different games then it was either a badly detailed GDD or the teams didn't follow the GDD correctly.

Ah, but the director doesn't write the screen play, that's a screen writer's job. If you give the same screenplay to two different directors you'll get two different movies.

Game Design Documents are just a starting point, and if you're suggesting otherwise then the hypothetical designer you're talking about is better than any who has ever lived; in the real world, experienced professional designers produce documents that are just a starting point, and if you gave their designs to different teams you will get different games.

You're welcome to do differently in your own projects, and you can disagree till you're blue in the face, but in the real world that's just the way things are -- and if you take some time to research professional design you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of supporting examples, such as the one I linked above where Quake changed from a fantasy RPG to a sci-fi FPS during development.


Maybe it's not the way things should be, and that's a valid point to try to make.
It's not the way things currently are, and disagreeing isn't going to change that.

In order to be worth his salt, a Game Designer has to be able to demonstrate that his input on the project is going to result in a sufficiently better product to compensate for whatever sacrifices the team must make to include him - and by sacrifices, I don't just mean money. Creative input tends to be important to everyone on the team, doubly so if they are doing it on an unpaid basis. For that reason alone, no Game Designer can afford to be some kind of creatively monopolistic Ideas Guy - rather, he takes creative input from the entire team, fills in any gaps with his own ideas and collates it into something coherent and fun.
Fun is the key of course - that's the where the value of the Game Designer ultimately comes from. Not from his ability to write colossal design bibles that nobody reads. Not even in his ability to have Cool New ideas for Awesome New Features. The skill of the Game Designer is in his ability to identify gameplay issues, fix or even cut features that don't work, add features that do work, and create gameplay that is engaging for the target audience.

Ultimately, as I think several people in this thread have already said, indie Game Designers are respected - once they have proven themselves. But then we're back in the same sort of chicken and egg situation that wannabe Game Designers face everywhere - you can't prove yourself unless someone will take you on, and no-one will take you on until you've proven yourself.

As a game designer, how do I get my foot in the door then? The view within a lot of indie teams seems to be that you must be able to contribute within some other role. But then there are others saying things (even within this thread) which negate this way of thinking;

"Everyone can be a designer, not everyone can be a programmer." - This is a fallacy. Everyone can have an idea, but not everyone can be a designer. This comes down to the difference between an "Ideas Guy" and a "Designer" again. I think it's safe to say that everyone involved in the production of games has their own idea for a game. That doesn't mean they have a workable design for a game, or even the ability to turn their idea in to one. Having "an idea for a game where you build and run a city" doesn't mean you could design SimCity or CitiesXL.

"Programmers have spent years learning to program, designers haven't." - This may be true. But not always. It is probable that a lot of designers have not spent years "learning to be a game designer" that doesn't mean they have not spent years learning to be a game designer. Programming, modelling, artwork, are all more discrete tasks so they're easier to define - "I have been programming for 10 years" - a game designer is as creative a role as a game artist, you do not wake up one day, decide to be a game designer, and have the prerequisite skillset. You have to be a writer, a salesman, a businessman, and a lot of other ill-defined things to be a successful game designer, and just like everything else (unless you're some sort of genius) you have to spend time learning to do all of these.

"Game designing is not a fulltime job" - True or false. Depends on your circumstances. In an indie team, I would say that it is less true than in a AAA studio. A game design team will spend months on the design fulltime, before handing it off to be built, with some corrective processes here and there. People in this thread have been saying that if I want to be a game designer for an indie team, I should turn up with no idea at all, and work on the team's idea. This means a lot of iterations and rework (unless you can prevent production from starting for a few months while the design is worked on). This isn't a part-time job. If you have a designer that can turn up and hand you a document and you think he's getting off easy and working part time, then you should be happy because a lot of time has gone in to that document that you are apparently unaware of.

You're welcome to do differently in your own projects, and you can disagree till you're blue in the face, but in the real world that's just the way things are -- and if you take some time to research professional design you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of supporting examples, such as the one I linked above where Quake changed from a fantasy RPG to a sci-fi FPS during development.

So, taking the quake example. If I, as a designer, had written up my GDD, handed it to the development team and left it at that (since I, as a designer, am really unecessary) you would have created a mediocre RPG rather than the one where I stayed on through all the reiterations and redesigns, and created quake.
A GDD is only a starting point. There are hundreds of examples sure where a design has been vastly different from the final product, but I'm sure you'll find thousands of examples where the Game design has not been. Within these you'll see trends whereupon a bad design document makes a bad game, a good design document makes a good game.

A good game takes good design. Whether this happens before or during production. Whether this is done by one "game designer" or the collaborative team, you still need good design. Working with a good game designer who can dedicate most (if not all) their time to the game design can make the production a lot easier, and make a better game, but (for indie teams) it is a lot harder to prove your worth as just a designer.

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1334899264' post='4933076']
In movies for example.. There is 1 director. Sometimes more but most of the time it's just one. He directs the movie not the actors (programmers).
Actors should follow the GDD to the letter, no arguments. Only reason to not follow the GDD is if the director says otherwise.
...
and if a GDD causes 2 different teams to create compeltely different games then it was either a badly detailed GDD or the teams didn't follow the GDD correctly.

Ah, but the director doesn't write the screen play, that's a screen writer's job. If you give the same screenplay to two different directors you'll get two different movies.

Game Design Documents are just a starting point, and if you're suggesting otherwise then the hypothetical designer you're talking about is better than any who has ever lived; in the real world, experienced professional designers produce documents that are just a starting point, and if you gave their designs to different teams you will get different games.

You're welcome to do differently in your own projects, and you can disagree till you're blue in the face, but in the real world that's just the way things are -- and if you take some time to research professional design you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of supporting examples, such as the one I linked above where Quake changed from a fantasy RPG to a sci-fi FPS during development.


Maybe it's not the way things should be, and that's a valid point to try to make.
It's not the way things currently are, and disagreeing isn't going to change that.
[/quote]

Did you ever stop to think that the reason most indys fail is because no one wants a game designer?

Right now the gaming industry is like the movie biz except there are no screenwriters/directors.
And the game designer = both the screenwriter and director in the game industry.

And your quake example is bad, Quake is one of the pioneers in gaming along with wolf, doom, duke nukem etc..
They could do whatever they wanted since there wasn't much games to chose between.

Games are still at a very early age..
In fact I think all games that were before World of Warcraft fall into the pioneers category.

Seriously, You're a complete follower/mainstreamer.
Great leaders and intelligent people think by themselves what is the wisest choice..
They don't do something just because most people do it.

Would you jump off a cliff because majority of people do that?

Right now the gaming industry is like the movie biz except there are no screenwriters/directors.
And the game designer = both the screenwriter and director in the game industry.

That's not at all true in my experience... Which companies have you worked at where there were no "screenwriter/director (equivalents)"?

To contrast the "indie scene", lets look at bigger studios. If we assume that the ideas from 'regular staff' like programmers and artists are ignored (which isn't true - they're the initial focus testers), then the "ideas people" - the people who will have a large influence over the direction of the game include:
CEO, Development Director, Producer, Assistant Producers, Art Director, Lead Designer, Gameplay designers, Level Designers, Mechanics (e.g. combat) Designers, Lead Artists, Lead Concept Artist, Lead Technical Artist, Lead Gameplay Programmer, Lead Engine Programmer, Lead Sound Engineer.

Starting from the same initial GDD, development will branch out in different directions, and will change significantly over the course of development (no-one uses the waterfall model where the product matches your very first plan). The main people involved in negotiating this branching path to a finished game are listed above -- different obstacles require different subsets of the above people in order to navigate them.

Yes there's one "director" -- the lead game designer is the respected visionary behind the game. The production team is there to keep the designer (and the rest of the team) in check and ensure this vision can actually be built on time and in budget. Design is so important that the lead is given a team of other full-time designers who can focus on refining small parts of the overall design.
Design can't be done in isolation for most games though (yes, there are games that transcend their implementation), but your typical game, like Uncharted/Mario/etc, is built in a way where the design, art and gameplay implementation (code) all come together as a cohesive whole that's greater than the sum of it's parts. The designers will need to work closely with the leads of the other disciplines to ensure they end up with a real work of art.

Seriously, You're a complete follower/mainstreamer. ... Would you jump off a cliff because majority of people do that?

Was that necessary?

[quote name='Sandman' timestamp='1334911815' post='4933114']Ultimately, as I think several people in this thread have already said, indie Game Designers are respected - once they have proven themselves. But then we're back in the same sort of chicken and egg situation that wannabe Game Designers face everywhere - you can't prove yourself unless someone will take you on, and no-one will take you on until you've proven yourself.

As a game designer, how do I get my foot in the door then? The view within a lot of indie teams seems to be that you must be able to contribute within some other role. But then there are others saying things (even within this thread) which negate this way of thinking;
[/quote]

By not aiming for a lead designer position for your first project, Level design can and is done for existing games, a designer doesn't need the help of anyone else to do that and if you are good at it you can join an existing indie team or even a AAA studio and work your way towards a lead position from there. (There are other paths aswell such as through QA or from a programmer or artist position, but those require that you pick up skills that aren't directly related to design). (This really isn't something that is unique for designers)

A GDD is only a starting point.

Precisely the point I was trying to make, yes. A design document is a starting point, and any non-trivial project will experience change during development.

Seriously, You're a complete follower/mainstreamer.

Stop trying to make things personal and misinterpreting people in the process. I actually think designers are very valuable and that they are important to the development process.
That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about the usage of a design document; it's a simple fact of reality (not my opinion) that designs are changed during development, and that a GDD is therefore only a starting point. This is how both the industry and established indies operate.

If you were arguing that this should be different you would be presenting a valid opinion.
What you've done instead is said that this isn't how things are, which is simply incorrect.


I'm not saying your opinions aren't valid -- you might have some good ideas for how the industry could work.
I am saying your idea of how the industry does work at the moment is wrong -- you've said a number of things that are simply outright factually incorrect. It's fine to have different ideas about how things should be done, or could be done in future -- but you need to let go of some of the incorrect ideas you seem to have about how things are done now and have been done historically.

[quote name='PyroDragn' timestamp='1334916470' post='4933132']
A GDD is only a starting point.

Precisely the point I was trying to make, yes. A design document is a starting point, and any non-trivial project will experience change during development.

Seriously, You're a complete follower/mainstreamer.

Stop trying to make things personal and misinterpreting people in the process. I actually think designers are very valuable and that they are important to the development process.
That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about the usage of a design document; it's a simple fact of reality (not my opinion) that designs are changed during development, and that a GDD is therefore only a starting point. This is how both the industry and established indies operate.

If you were arguing that this should be different you would be presenting a valid opinion.
What you've done instead is said that this isn't how things are, which is simply incorrect.


I'm not saying your opinions aren't valid -- you might have some good ideas for how the industry could work.
I am saying your idea of how the industry does work at the moment is wrong -- you've said a number of things that are simply outright factually incorrect. It's fine to have different ideas about how things should be done, or could be done in future -- but you need to let go of some of the incorrect ideas you seem to have about how things are done now and have been done historically.
[/quote]

Its not a fact.
Read my previous post again.

The majority of indie game devs fail because that is what happens when you try to do something very difficult. Most people fail in some way or another.

Having multiple roles in an indie team/small devs is very natural and is needed when you have a tight budget, and not many people
People have specialities, but are expected to pitch in where needed.
Not even programmers are spared from that (or even our economy/office-guy)

I would like to se even one example of any software project that was finished exactly like the initial design document... Have you done any software development at all?