Bad Game Designer, New Twinkie Database!
Good Lord, all I have to do for GSW nowadays is cut and paste things that people email to me. I like this 'Web 2.0' approach! This one is from Ernest Adams: "I'm going to mention it in my next Designer's Notebook column anyway, but I thought I would mention that the long-promised database of Twinkie Denial Conditions is now online."
Ernest continues: "Well, I SAY "database," it's that kind of database known as a "flat file." Anyway, I've organized them by topic and when you click on one, it takes you straight to its description in the original column." For those not aware, the concept of the Bad Designer, No Twinkie idea is: "Even great games can include design errors. Here’s a list of things not to do."
It's explained further: "These are all the Twinkie Denial Conditions described in my “Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie!” Designer’s Notebook columns. Each one is an egregious design error, although many of them have appeared in otherwise great games. I’ve organized them into general categories." Here's a random example: 'Wrecking a Game's Balance for the Sake of A "Cool Feature"'. Nobody said all of these conditions were fair, but they're generally pretty damn readable!
Comments
I dunno about this guy, I mean come on... does Ernest make a living out of pointing out mostly obvious, superficial faults in games like we all do? Or even worse, stuff that he personally doesn't like ("this game is too dark", "this game is too self-referential") but still labels "design errors"? It just seems to boil down to "Oh yeah, bad things are bad, so instead of doing it wrong, fix it!"
Posted by: rusmas | January 12, 2007 3:22 AM
Yeah, most of the points in this list were pretty obvious. It might seem the guy over at Game Truth (which GSW linked to a few days ago) might be on to something:
http://gametruth.wordpress.com/2007/01/08/the-unimportance-of-hiring-earnest/
Posted by: fluffy bunny | January 12, 2007 5:15 AM
Ernst Adams won my respect with his visionary column about wonder in gaming some month (years?) ago, which I can't remember the name of, or even exactly what it was about, now. But I remember the name, and most of these points, while obvious, needed to be put into words anyway.
I do not agree with all of them (it does not always make sense to make saving perfectly flexible, that would break the roguelike design model for one example), but he's usually right.
Or to be more accurate, I'd say what he's written needs to be followed by everyone who is composing a schlocky game because his corporate overlords say he has to, and he has no solid design vision other than improving upon something already on the market, because then at least we shouldn't get a bad game out of it. Game design is a field so infinitely versatile that every single one of Adams' points can be individually, and successfully, defeated by a determined designer with a sufficient level of genius, but unless you have an explicit reason in mind that a point doesn't apply to you (and you'd better be damn sure of it), then it probably shouldn't be broken by you.
Posted by: John H. | January 12, 2007 9:13 AM
How boring games would be if this moron was in charge…
Everything would have to be set completely in reality, no more big stone puzzles etc just because the character shouldn't be able to lift such a thing.
Then again the idiot doesn't even understand the post-modernism in metal gear solid's serious characters referencing the fact its a game at many points.
IDIOT!
Posted by: ggggHE | January 13, 2007 3:09 AM