How does a gamer's and developer's view of playing games differ?

Jurgen

Hi

The only experience I have in playing games is from the "growing up playing games as buying or downloading it" point of view.
Games have inspired me greatly over the years creatively.

Yet, what can a developer get from playing a game?

It would make sense that, because they know how a game is put together, they may relate the game being played to their own projects.
In other words, the developer playing the game may recognize patterns of development, depending on what member of the development team is actually playing the game.

Yet, how do game developers interpret the games they play?

Kind regards

Jurgen

Chippit

I could write a whole bunch on this topic, but it's easier to just link to this:



That's a two-part series that addresses this question from a designer's perspective. It's similar for other branches of development too. Game programmers might be deconstructing the implementation of certain systems, and artists might be seeing through the facade of certain effects to see their skeletons. That's basically a good analogy, really. You develop x-ray vision after a while.

It's incredibly difficult to do this for video games, though, because one of the things games are best at is hiding their underlying systems from you with all the ways they lie to players and trick them. The deeper you get into making them, the easier it becomes to see the tricks.

There's something of a long-standing discussion about whether or not this actually taints a game developer's experience with videogames, because it's not an ability you can really turn off. But I think this is true in all fields, especially creative ones, and I also honestly feel that it heightens the experience rather than damaging it. But that's a whooole different (though similarly interesting) discussion.

Jurgen

:)
What I found interesting in the two clips was (amongst other things) that in the first few moments of playing the game one is exposed to the major theme of the game and it's mechanics.
So, it isn't necessary to play the game all the way through from a developers viewpoint unless the game holds enough interesting content that pretty much the whole game may be learned from.

I was planning on playing God of War Ghost of Sparta and making notes as I played the game through, yet now, having completed the game previously, I only have to play until the first end of a quest or "loop" of some kind to get a very good idea of what it's about development wise.

Thankyou Chippit.

Chippit

It's true that most games expose all of their mechanical systems within an hour or so, but even from a strict developer's perspective, there is merit in playing games further. For one, seeing well-designed games display their mechanics in new and different environments lets you see how the designers expressed the depth of those mechanics. For other things that run parallel to game design, like level and narrative design, good games keep doing new things right up until the end.

If, for instance, you're looking at environmental storytelling and you pick some of the best examples here (Bioshock, System Shock and definitely absolutely all of Dark Souls because it's the best example in existence and everyone should play it and I won't stop saying this ever and also I like using long awkward sentences with many conjuctions for emphasis), you won't be able to capture everything in just a short session. If you're looking for great level design, you might have to play all of Super Meat Boy or Metroid Zero Mission (or even, as much as people might deride it, Candy Crush Saga) to get an idea of why those particular games worked so well in their space. And playing just the tutorial of Portal or Ittle Dew's not going to expose just how clever their puzzle design is.

So it really depends on which part of the game you're looking to analyse. And, of course, if that's your sole motivation for playing games in the first place. Personally, as much as I do look at these things, at the end of the day I still play games because I like to. So definitely do examine what you're looking to get out of it too!

SUGBOERIE

I've played games for years. Appreciated them for mostly face value. But ever since I became a game developer (programmer) I appreciate the game on a whole different level mostly the technical sense of things. Like @Chippit mentioned

Game programmers might be deconstructing the implementation of certain system

I mostly marvel at some systems because I just try and think of how you'd actually have to do it!? Most recently was the camera movement in inFamous.

Tuism

X-ray vision is definitely one of those things - I've always had a photoshop deconstructive x-ray vision since I started, then now I developed breaking down visual effects and particles vision, then "how is the balance in this game" vision, then "how do they illicit this emotional response I'm feeling now?!" vision. I think it seldom detracts from my enjoyment of games - a bad game is a bad game and a good game will always give me goosebumps :)

ShadowBlade

I have this problem with music now.. It's hard to just listen to it as music when you're really analyzing everything :\ Same thing with games; ever since just starting to mod you look at games differently. Lots of the magic and wonder is lost :P

Scratch17

ShadowBlade said:

ever since just starting to mod you look at games differently. Lots of the magic and wonder is lost :P

Agreed. But, for me, a lot of times the 'wonder' behind the game doesn't come so much from the game's mechanics or the underlying systems, but the world that gets created. Bioshock Infinite was like that. The mechanics are really straight-forward: basic FPS with a mana-like element that's supplementary to the gun play, pretty up-to-standard AI and a few extras in the form of the sky rails and the tears. But I pre-ordered the game for one thing: to see the world of Columbia. It was a beautiful setting, a great idea, the explanations and the mystery behind how this place is born, the characters, the art and music of the world; I still marvel at all that stuff.

I think game devs and designers can (and can learn to) understand the underlying systems and variables that go into making a game, but I'll be damned if I can't enjoy the artistry of it all.

dislekcia

@Scratch17: I felt the other way around with Bioshock Infinite... The game built around that interesting setting just constantly disappointed me because I couldn't understand why they made the decisions that they did with it. Like, why have all this gorgeous scenery and buildings that move around and then force you on a linear path through it all? Especially with how the resource collection basically meant you'd walk into a gorgeous new area and immediately ignore it to root around in the corners of the level for things you had to tap A 3 times to pick up... Don't even get me started on the combat.

I feel like being a designer means I get to appreciate elegant systems when they appear, so things like FTL, Spelunky or Sokobond make me go "damn, that's amazing". And I can enjoy them on a completely different level because I have the tools to appreciate that work differently. I don't find it hard to enjoy a good game, but often a game can be marred if it's got a poorly-implemented element in it (and I'm not just talking jumping puzzles).

AngryMoose

dislekcia said:

why have all this gorgeous scenery and buildings that move around and then force you on a linear path through it all?

That was likely a technical limitation, not a design choice.

Scratch17

@dislekcia: You make a good point about the resource collection. But that was kind of a remnant of the old Bioshock games, where scrounging around in bins and abandoned suitcases was useful and, more importantly, thematically relevant. And the 3 button presses is a bit annoying in that regard.

I guess a good portion of Columbia was just 'pretty skyboxes' in that regard. Linearity isn't inherently bad, and I can understand that the designers felt like, since they're going to be putting you on a mostly linear path, they could try to make it a bit more vibrant.

As for elegant mechanics, you're right. Stuff like Spelunky are great because of those elegant, simple systems that make for good gameplay and lasting appeal (which could possibly be linked to its rogue-lite nature, but still). There's that saying, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."