Week 2 - Design Process

Design is a weird process. It’s one of the most creative experiences a person can participate in, but it also requires a rigid structure to be effective. For me, I have to constantly remind myself of the goals of a game during the design process. A good designer has to “consider how the elements in a game come together to create different dynamics” (Macklin and Sharp), otherwise you can’t see the forest through the trees.

This week’s class showed me that, even with a good concept, execution can become messy. In the number game we played, the overall gameplay was great but not perfect. Changing any small action created a huge difference. The same applies to our first project. I think that our general concept is good, but there are a few details that could drastically change the experience. This is where thinking in terms of “system dynamics” becomes very important. A game designer creates the rules and objects in a game, but they also need to understand “the dynamic relationships between them and what happens when they interact” (Macklin and Sharp). A game designer has to think two steps ahead and indirectly shape the actions of the player. This is what Macklin and Sharp would describe as “second-order play experiences”. A game designer gives the player all the rules, objects, and goals of a game, but it is up to the player to put them together into a meaningful experience. When McMillan began designing Children’s Village, he asked himself, “What would I, as a child, like to do”(Hune-Brown)? We as game designers have to put ourselves in the position of the player and think about how they will interact with the game.

I’m fairly creative, so coming up with ideas is easy. However, the execution of those ideas can be difficult, especially when they affect the core gameplay. The numbers game we played in class, for example, was a complete game already, albeit a simple one. Adding rules to that game was easier because we knew how the game played, and those rules did not change the core gameplay. It was easier to think in terms of how a player would interact with the new rules. The game was very different after the rules changed, but the actions and goals were relatively the same. Designing rules that change the entire experience for an incomplete game is much more difficult. The hardest part is how to make the experience interesting. And, again, we have to remind ourselves, “What would the player want to do?” Often the players themselves are not sure. Any kid can (and probably will) tell you if a game is fun or not, but they might not know why it is or isn’t fun. It’s up to the designer to recognize what can be changed to improve the experience. Which, in less glamorous terms, means multiple rounds of testing. My team and I found that, when you take a theoretical design into practice, many unexpected things happen that then have to be designed around. It’s a long and tedious process, and, if you're not careful, you’ll get lost in the trees and never find the forest. 

Hune-Brown, Nicholas. “From Ball Pits to Water Slides: The Designer Who Changed Children's Playgrounds for Ever.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Aug. 2019, www.theguardian.com/news/2019/aug/09/ball-pits-water-slides-playground-design-eric-mcmillan-childrens-village-ontario-place-toronto. 

Macklin, Colleen, and John Sharp. Games, Design and Play: A Detailed Approach to Iterative Game Design. Addison-Wesley, 2016.