Any Game Makers Here?

All of the technical stuff is just busy work to bring a game into fruition. I would rather bypass all the programming and modeling and stuff and just have my game pop out of a microwave oven so that I can play it ASAP.

In fact, I would rather the whole technical process be skipped (wouldn't we all)?

Talk Game Theory and Game Mechanics, and then you are talking game design.

I don't see many posters here who are interested in just discussing game mechanics or other design features. I do see a large number of people who want to make their specific dream game, right now, no matter how much thought they've given to the actual design of it. There's nothing wrong with that on a public forum, but until they start developing the skills needed to produce the game it's all just fluff and no amount of design discussion will get them even a single step closer to what they want. Maybe your approach is different from what I'm interpreting it to be, but I personally think it would be kind of cruel to prod people into developing their designs into the greatest concepts ever just to know that, at the end of all that, they still won't be able to even begin to make it.

I do see lots of suggestions that people with nothing beyond a fleshed-out game design try prototyping with board games or pen-and-paper games, which sounds like it would fit pretty well with what you're advocating. But the vast majority of the "I want to make a game!!!" posters here seem extremely resistant to that. Whatever their individual reasons, they want a video game, generally at a level that might as well be a AAA title given how much they can actually do to produce it. If it's not a step that moves them an inch closer to a playable video game, they won't even pretend to consider it.

Maybe you'll have better luck. But I personally see all too many people come here already with "game ideas" who don't care about, or intend to develop, programming skills or other practical game-making skills at all. Unfortunately, discussion of game design and mechanics doesn't seem to interest them much either. It's just not what most beginners seem to come here for.

I'm baffled by how there are characters to model or AI to program if there isn't a game design. There's got to be at least fragments of a design there, even if it's all subconsciously chosen instead of consciously evaluated with theory.

Game design theory can get really deep and fascinating; it's a topic I love, and love to talk about. But the heart of game design is always going to be the emotional thought "Wouldn't it be cool if...?" This is true for any piece of art or entertainment that anyone is inspired and driven to create. It may not require any original mechanics to accomplish that "wouldn't it be cool if...?" A lot more of the creative process is about blending and remixing things we've encountered than creating anything unrelated to any of our experiences. The human mind does a lot better at reacting to prompts or other input than it does at generating ideas in a vacuum or onto a blank page.

When I look through the posts here, I see a lot of discussion on how to do this technical thing, or that technical thing. I see people want to make a cool MMORPG or a cool FPS. But I don't see much talk on making games.

Keep on reading then.

There are some talented game designers around here.

That being said, most developers have their own idea of what game they are doing, and they only bring very specific problems to get suggestions. Thus, you may not read much about the general game idea, but that may be because they have a strong idea already in motion and just need to fix very specific corner cases.

1. To me a game maker is like the person who made UNO, or the person who made CHESS.
2. When I look through the posts here, I see a lot of discussion on how to do this technical thing

1. That's a game designer. Game "maker" could be more broadly inclusive, to include anyone involved in the making of games (programmers, artists, producers, etc.).
2. When you say "here," do you mean gamedev.net overall? Because there aren't a lot of such technical discussions here in the game design forum. Maybe your post was moved here from some other forum?

I think you are seeing a lot of technical questions because they are "harder" and game design is "easier." Now I put those in quotes for a reason because excellent game design is difficult but the overall act of game design is not. EVERYONE has ideas for a great game. It's easy. What is HARD is making those ideas a reality. Ask anyone to come up with an idea for a video game and they can. Ask anyone to program an AI and most people CANNOT. People ask technical questions because they are the hardest to figure out on your own. Game design questions are usually answered by individual thought and reflection.

I don't think of game design as having ideas. In fact, most successful game designers I've seen aren't the ones with the big ideas. Rather, it's really a matter of saying YES/NO to these ideas, and shaping the product accordingly so that it remains coherent.

Tossing feature ideas around is easy, but defining the minimum viable product (MVP) is significantly harder. Likewise, defining extra features not by "how cool they sound" but by "which objectives they meet" requires more thought/skills.

I tend to think that game design is harder, because, as a developer, when the requirements are clear, it doesn't take that long to figure out how we're going to architecture the work (by not that long, I mean, relative to the project's scope obviously).

Game design is much more subjective and requires to own a vision, and sell the idea. It is cross-functional and requires many different skillsets.

As a matter of fact, most of the problems developers tend to have comes from unclear design.

In fact, I would rather the whole technical process be skipped (wouldn't we all)?

Talk Game Theory and Game Mechanics, and then you are talking game design.

It's become apparent to me that some of the top experts in our community have skills related to 3D graphics programming. The sub-forums accommodate the number of people who encounter specific problems and it also represents how focused the community is on each topic. Anything specific would look better in the most specific sub-forum.

If you have an idea that would require a dynamic understanding of how video games work to respond to it goes here, I've seen plenty of people talk about what you're looking for here.

Actual games go here or indies sub-forum. I'm actually not too sure about this, I should take a closer look. It seems like this wouldn't be a very good place to actually advertise a completed game, it's not that easy to find. I had to look around a while to find gamedev.net in the first place.

Yeah, not a lot of technical questions in the Game Design portion of the forum. And the reason a lot of technical questions get asked is because they are relatable. Just about all game engines have some form of lights, textures, physics. Once you get to the nitty gritty implementation of a game, the code gets a lot more specific, so asking the right questions and getting the right answers gets a lot harder.

Though another sad thing, is that game designers often jealously guard their designs, afraid of poaching and stealing.

Other times, its because for small games, the designs are often organic and changing. One internal company game jam I did, the initial concept, and the final product at the end of the jam ended up very different. We had to work with the restraints and roadblocks we encountered, and we made a fun game at the end of it.

An afterthought.

1. To me a game maker is like the person who made UNO, or the person who made CHESS.

1. That's a game designer. Game "maker" could be more broadly inclusive, to include anyone involved in the making of games (programmers, artists, producers, etc.).

Or did you (Tutorial Dr.) actually mean by "game maker" someone who designs board games and card games rather than electronic games?
...Not quite sure what was the point of your original post... A lot of us here have made games, or are making games.

but I personally think it would be kind of cruel to prod people into developing their designs into the greatest concepts ever just to know that, at the end of all that, they still won't be able to even begin to make it.

Good point. I know both sides matter, and I guess they should be mentioned side by side.

But the heart of game design is always going to be the emotional thought "Wouldn't it be cool if...?"

Yes, good point. That is what should make making games fun (trying to do that cool idea you have).

When you say "here," do you mean gamedev.net overall?

Yeah, overall (after looking through the forums a bit). Perhaps the game design forum isn't the place for game theory and game mechanics discussion?

I think you are seeing a lot of technical questions because they are "harder" and game design is "easier."

Good point. Although I guess the issue is establishing the difference between what is Game Making and what is Game Design. Now that I think about it, it would be the difference between making an iPad and designing an iPad. The factories make it and Johnny Ive designed it. It took a certain amount of consideration on how things would come together during the design part, but once that was done, the making part was just a step by step process.

Likewise, defining extra features not by "how cool they sound" but by "which objectives they meet" requires more thought/skills.

Yes, exactly! The reason iDevices were better when Steve Jobs was around. That is my issue, I don't see much thought and consideration going into making/designing (both) except for the time takes to do the technical stuff to get it going. The reason EA still makes the same game with a new title every year. Not many new games being made (although I have seen some indie games that are branching out). I mean, who is making a new genre these days?

Though another sad thing, is that game designers often jealously guard their designs, afraid of poaching and stealing.

Ahh. I can see why that would be an issue as to why specific game design aspects aren't mentioned. That must be it! People want to get their stuff working and going, keeping it a secret until it is finished. So they come here to get technical help, meanwhile being cautious not to reveal what they are working on. I guess that explains it.

Or did you (Tutorial Dr.) actually mean by "game maker" someone who designs board games and card games rather than electronic games?

I honestly think they should go together (table-top game making and electronic game making). I mean, for a game to even be considered a game in the first place (according to game theory) it must first meet certain criteria.

I honestly do wonder how many people who actually work in the industry (of making electronic games) actually know game theory. I didn't know that such a thing was so studied myself. Even knowing game theory will help you to play games better, and to actually be able to tell whether a game is actually a good game or not.

I am sure that knowing game theory is not necessary to creating something fun, but even if it is unintentional, you are going to have some element of game theory in your game, it would help to understand your game as pertains to game theory so that you can fix issues with your game (game play issues). I am not talking about technical issues, but issues like, "I don't like this feature," or ,"You should do it this way..."

I honestly do wonder how many people who actually work in the industry (of making electronic games) actually know game theory.

I once asked a programmer to explain it to me. It's a mathematical study about statistics and probabilities. Or is that not what you're talking about?

And yes, the game design forum is the right place to discuss game mechanics.

Perhaps the game design forum isn't the place for game theory and game mechanics discussion?

The game design forum is the best place for game theory discussion, if you're not getting into numbers or sales concerns. We do discuss things like player motivation and satisfaction, different player types, common flaws of existing genres, how and why to hybridize two genres, how to brainstorm game design ideas, how to ask for feedback on and revise game designs, etc. On the other hand if you want to talk about plot and character design, that would be more appropriate to the writing forum. And if you want to talk numbers or hardware like phone-specific or tablet-specific or wiimote-specific design, there's probably a more appropriate technical forum.

I mean, who is making a new genre these days?

Indies. That's how it is in all the entertainment industries now; the big companies are conservative, the little ones gamble on innovations. A commercially successful innovation will then spread into the next generation of designs. Memetics in action.

Though another sad thing, is that game designers often jealously guard their designs, afraid of poaching and stealing.

Ahh. I can see why that would be an issue as to why specific game design aspects aren't mentioned. That must be it! People want to get their stuff working and going, keeping it a secret until it is finished. So they come here to get technical help, meanwhile being cautious not to reveal what they are working on. I guess that explains it.

Hmm. Well, that happens. But sometimes its more prosaic than that - usually if someone does present a specific game design they don't get all that much useful feedback or encouragingly enthusiastic responses. Take a look at the last game concept I presented for public feedback, and take a look at how little feedback I actually got:
http://www.gamesprout.com/ideas/5212baa4e3211cd266000029/design_document

Then on the other hand, when you get a lot of input by taking a survey about something simpler, like what kind of feature X they'd like to see in a game of genre Y, they're all going to disagree with each other. That's interesting to read, but it's questionable how useful it is.

I once asked a programmer to explain it to me. It's a mathematical study about statistics and probabilities. Or is that not what you're talking about?

What I learned about game theory I learned from a panel at PAX:

After watching several of their videos, I realized that I see game mechanics in games all the time. I also realized that AAA companies don't really diversify their mechanics, but make formulaic games that sell. I also realized that the reason their games sell is because of certain manipulative mechanics.

What I mean about manipulative mechanics is that they use mechanics that manipulate you into playing their game over and over (the addictive element of games, which you can intentionally add to your game if you understand game theory and game mechanics well enough.

In fact, one guy on that panel makes a bunch of money using what he knows about game theory to predict things in the stock market.

I honestly think that if indie developers learn more about mechanics and how they affect a game they could very well make easily better games than AAA companies without having to have the graphics of AAA companies.

I am still trying to find a good definition of game mechanics myself.

usually if someone does present a specific game design they don't get all that much useful feedback or encouragingly enthusiastic responses

I see what you mean after seeing your design document and a few others on that site. Haha. Hmm. I have to solve this dilemma.

So, I see now why Ideas alone don't make people very enthusiastic. Perhaps it is a good idea, but WHERE IS THE GAME?

This is a funny situation though.

If you have all of the game theory for a game and no actual game (the technical aspects of a game) then we are forced to say "Where is the game?"

On the other hand, if all the technical things are done and you have no game mechanics (according to game theory) we are again forced to say "Where is the game?"

For example, if I were the one who invented the game of chess, I could have written down all the rules for the game, but if I did not have any pieces or a board to play the game on, then I can't really play it.

On the other hand, I could have all the chess pieces carefully crafted from ivory and a glass board, but if I did not have any rules and mechanics for these pieces, there is no game to play again.

I mean, who would play chess if the rules and mechanics were not solid? How fun are games that can be solved/beaten easily? Tic Tac toe is solvable. Even chess is solvable, although no one has solved it.

Imagine you and me playing a game and as soon as I see the rules I say, "Game over, I have solved this game, there is no point in playing it." Good game? Nah.

Of course there are people who get all mathematical about games, and I try to avoid them anyhow. I want to have fun when I play games. Of course, if I were making money off of my knowledge of game theory, I'd be as mathematical as I could be to come out on top every time.

I think the problem with game concepts themselves is that this site has so few users relative to the possibility space for games and most people only comment on topics that interest them. Thus no one ever provides any feedback unless you are super general about a relatively ubiquitous mechanic. When I tried to discuss MMOs here I got like 5 replies a thread but on mmorpg.com I got like 200 on many threads I made.

This forum is really rather useless for discussing particular game ideas. If you want a passionate discussion of specific game features you need to find a forum that is geared towards those types of games.

i think i may know what he means and maybe he understand it wrong, Most of us here have some kind of idea (game maker), but we aren't picking it out to discuss here instead we are throwing out problems while we try to archieve our goal, thats why it seems no game maker here but we actually all are. (Always chance some people are just here try to get technical advice for specific problem they encounter in an old-school idea project that they try to make experience out of it rather than brand new idea game making)

This is a really juicy topic. I think I am on to something though. I am found another panel on youtube called The Art of Game Mechanics by the Escapist Expo 2012.

I am getting so many more ideas for new games by looking into game design and game mechanics. There are so many new games to be made.

What i am talking about when I say Game Maker or Game Designer is what this panel is talking about. They aren't talking about code or anything, they are talking about mechanics and things and they are considered "Game Designers."

They also mention table-top games comparing them and contrasting them with electronic games.

I think I am going to make more post on Game mechanics, because this is making me more optimistic about making a game.

I see what you mean after seeing your design document and a few others on that site. Haha. Hmm. I have to solve this dilemma.

So, I see now why Ideas alone don't make people very enthusiastic. Perhaps it is a good idea, but WHERE IS THE GAME?

This is a funny situation though.

If you have all of the game theory for a game and no actual game (the technical aspects of a game) then we are forced to say "Where is the game?"

On the other hand, if all the technical things are done and you have no game mechanics (according to game theory) we are again forced to say "Where is the game?"

On the other hand, you could say that once a (playable) game exists, there's nothing left to design. Meaning, you can only design a game that doesn't fully exist yet. Design is the act of envisioning a game that doesn't exist, then development is the accompanying act of making that vision come into existence.

Personally, when you ask "where is the game?", I'd define "the game" as the experience of having completely played an existing game, but also as the simulation (envisioning) of having experienced a non-existing game. It doesn't have to be both, and maybe it's even impossible to be both, because it's impossible to experience a story you created (and remember creating) the same way a fresh audience would, and similarly impossible to play a game you created yourself the same way a fresh audience would.

This is a really juicy topic. I think I am on to something though. I am found another panel on youtube called The Art of Game Mechanics by the Escapist Expo 2012.

If you like that you should watch all the penny arcade extra credits videos too.