Advanced Game Design - A Systems Approach (Sample)
Advanced Game Design - A Systems Approach (Sample)
Make sure to connect with us!
informit .com/socialconnect
Advanced Game Design
A Systems Approach
Michael Sellers
Compositor
codeMantra
Dedicated to all those creating and becoming the next
generation of game designers.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents at a Glance
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Part I Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1 Foundations of Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Defining Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiv
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
A Combined Approach to Game Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Where This Book Came From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
What This Book Is and Isn’t About . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Goals of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How to Read This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Part I Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1 Foundations of Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ways of Seeing and Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A Quick History of Systems Thinking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Systems as the Process of the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2 Defining Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
What We Mean by Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
A Brief Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Defining Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Wholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Any book is a journey in the writing. I would like to thank all of my family members, friends,
and colleagues who have over the years helped me sharpen my thoughts on game design and
who urged me, sometimes forcefully, to take this journey. In particular, I’d like to thank Ted
Castronova and Jeremy Gibson Bond for their continuous support; my students in the Game
Design program at Indiana University for playtesting this book with me; and most of all my wife,
Jo Anna, for her unwavering love, support, and inspiration across many years and adventures.
I’d also like to thank Kees Luyendijk for taking on the role of illustrator and early reader for this
book, while also being a graduate student! I am grateful, too, to Laura Lewin, Chris Zahn, and
the rest of the editing team at Pearson Education for their guidance and support in making this
book a reality, and to Daniel Cook and Ellen Guon Beeman for being such generous, thoughtful,
and incisive technical reviewers. This book could not have happened without the hard work of
each of these individuals.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Michael Sellers is Director of the Game Design program and a Professor of Practice at Indiana
University in Bloomington, Indiana.
Sellers has worked as a professional game designer since 1994, with a focus on designing
social, mobile, and massively multiplayer online games (MMOs). He has started and run three
successful game studios and has also worked for notable game developers such as 3DO,
Electronic Arts, Kabam, and Rumble Entertainment as a lead designer, executive producer,
general manager, and creative director.
His first commercial game was the award-winning Meridian 59, the first 3D MMO, released in
1996. He was also the lead designer on The Sims 2, Ultima Online, Holiday Village, Blastron, and
Realm of the Mad God, among other games.
In addition to his work in games, Sellers has conducted and published original research in
artificial intelligence. His AI research, partly funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), focuses on “social artificial intelligence”—creating agents that
behave plausibly in social situations. As part of this effort, Sellers has published groundbreaking
work on enabling artificially intelligent agents to learn, form social relationships, and have
and express emotions based on a unifying psychological architecture.
Sellers has a BS in cognitive science. In addition to working on games and AI, he has worked
as a software engineer, user interface designer, RPG miniatures sculptor, and briefly as a circus
roustabout and movie extra.
WORKING AS A SYSTEMIC
GAME DESIGNER
One of the first questions people commonly ask when contemplating doing game design as
more than a hobby, more than a “wouldn’t it be cool if” activity, is along the lines of “How do
I even start?” Designing a game can seems like an impossible problem with no easy handles,
no obvious way in. The sheer complexity and impenetrability of the problem can make it seem
like the best you can do is leap in with both feet and hope for the best. That is, in fact, what
generations of game designers up to now have done. At some point, those of us who have been
designing games for decades just sort of made that first leap. For many the first few attempts
are utter failures. Rovio went through 51 attempts before hitting it big with Angry Birds—and
even this attempt looked like a flop at first (Cheshire 2011).
Failure itself isn’t a bad thing; anytime you try something new (which is most of the time in
game design), you are going to fail a lot. However, you can reduce the amount and duration of
failure by approaching game design systemically. Seeing a game as a system (containing other
systems) is a good way to crack the problem of where to start in the otherwise overwhelming
process.
1. I had this experience while working with Will Wright of SimCity fame. He is firmly a “nouns and verbs”
kind of guy, while I often approach designs from a more holistic-experiential point of view. It took a
while before we were able to understand each other’s perspectives.
HOW DO YOU EVEN START? 173
Despite strong opinions from some designers, there is no single “right” way to approach game
design. Our systemic view should make this clear: in designing a game, you need to get to the
point where you have fully defined the parts, the loops, and the whole of your design. As a
game designer, you need to be able to move up and down the organizational levels with ease,
shifting your focus between the parts, the loops, and the whole as needed. As a result, you can
start the design process with whichever of these makes the most sense and bounce between
them as needed.
Every game designer has their strengths; everyone has their “home place” where they start—
and then retreat to when making the design becomes difficult. You need to find out where your
game design home is and then work out ways to not give in to the temptation to stay there;
you also need to figure out how to work with others who approach game design differently
from you.
The doing of game design is the best way to figure out which parts of the process come
most naturally to you. Still, it is worth considering where you think it should start and working
from there.
Storytellers
Game designers who tend to start with the whole experience often paint an evocative picture
of the player’s journey through a game: how the player feels, what they encounter, and what
sort of changes they go through. Game designers like these can sometimes seem like expert
storytellers. They’re able to give you the grand sweep of the world…but they can run into trou-
ble. Games aren’t stories. “Telling” a game like a story can be a satisfying first pass at building
the world that the players inhabit, but ultimately the game has to be much more than that.
A storyteller needs to hang on to their talent for painting a mental picture of the experience
of a world but not get stuck there. If you are a storyteller, you need to build your talents for
creating working systems that have their own tokens, rules, and dynamic elements. You likely
have the thematic part in hand, but you need to support it with the structure of the underlying
game—and work with others who can help you do so.
174 CHAPTER 5 WORKING AS A SYSTEMIC GAME DESIGNER
Inventors
Many game designers are enamored of inventing complex mechanisms—things like clocks
with lots of gears, marble-run sculptures, and so on. These can be mesmerizing displays of
systems in action. Similarly, sometimes game designers come up with ideas for new kinds of
ecological or economic mechanisms and spend time playing with them. For example, the early
prototypes for the game Spore included lots of different simulation mechanisms, including
one that (with a bit of help from the player) simulated the formation of a star system from an
interstellar cloud of gas and dust.
But as fascinating as these inventions can be, they aren’t games. As with telling a story about a
game, designers will sometimes build a mechanism that scratches the “watch it go” itch, only
to realize that they left out the need for a human player. The designer may toss the player a few
scraps of things to do, but it’s clear that the mechanism or simulation remains in the spotlight.
If you are an inventor, you can do a lot to build fascinating dynamic systems—but don’t forget
that games must have human involvement as an integral part of the system and that players
need to have long-term goals and reasons to play the game (the whole of the game), or it will
be uninteresting to them.
Toymakers
Finally, some game designers are first and foremost toymakers. They love to make little pieces
or mechanisms that don’t really do anything but are still attractive and engaging, at least for a
minute or so. Or they might be among those with highly specific domain knowledge—things
like the climbing rate and ammunition capacity for a Sopwith Camel or the relative merits of
different sorts of swords in medieval (or at least fantasy) combat, or the types of coral on a
typical reef—or may just love digging in to find this kind of information.
Many game designers who start with the “nouns and verbs” of their design fit into the toymaker
category. Maybe you want to make a game about cells in the immune system attacking
invading viruses, and so you start with what you know (or anything you can find) about how
a T-cell works. What the player does and why this is engaging or fun are questions that you
may not think about right away or that you may have difficulty finding answers for. Having the
ability to ground your design in specific parts and behaviors—tokens and rules, nouns and
verbs—helps you create prototypes quickly. However, to make it into a game, you need to find
ways to build interactive systems and find some goals for the player to pursue and experience.
No matter which part of the game design process you prefer, you will need to extend yourself
into the other areas and learn to listen to and work with those who see the game design
process differently from you. A lot of game design comes down to being able to communicate
your ideas, hear other people’s ideas, and generally work together with those who have
strengths that are different from yours. Understanding game design as systemic design
helps illuminate these different views on games as systems and on game designers as system
designers. That understanding should help you refine your skills and look for others who
complement them.
A large part of doing game design is in the oft-repeated phrase “find the fun.” You may start
with a cool toy, an intriguing mechanisms, or a compelling experience—the parts, loops, and
whole of a game—but you will need all three elements plus engaging interactivity to build a
fun game. To do that, you need to apply your knowledge of systems to creating game systems
and games as systems.
■ Comprehensible: As a designer, you have to understand your game as a system and the
systems within it. Of course, your players have to be able to comprehend it, too. This is why
both design documentation (for you) and presenting the game in such a way that players
can build a mental model of it are so important.
■ Consistent: Achterman points out the importance of having “rules and content [that]
function the same in all areas of your game.” It can be tempting to add an exception or a
special case to fix a problem, but doing so tends to decrease the resilience of the system
(which sets up the game for later problems) and makes it more difficult to learn. (This is
similar to the discussion in Chapter 3, “Foundations of Games and Game Design,” on
elegance.)
■ Predictable: Game systems should have predictable outputs for given inputs. While
making games predictable helps players build mental models of the games, it can also
be somewhat at odds with designing systems for emergence. Being predictable should
not be taken as meaning that game systems should be obviously or boringly mechanistic.
However, neither should your systems produce wildly different results for similar inputs,
much less become brittle and break down due to unforeseen circumstances. You should at
176 CHAPTER 5 WORKING AS A SYSTEMIC GAME DESIGNER
least be able to know that you have accounted for any edge cases that might hurt a player’s
experience or provide them with a gap in the system to exploit to their advantage.
■ Extensible: Building games systemically typically makes them highly extensible. Rather
than depend on custom-created content “set pieces” (e.g., expensive hand-created levels),
as much as possible you should create game systems such that content can be reused in
new ways or created procedurally. You want to create parts and loops that can be used
in multiple ways, not a single-use arc that makes for a complicated rather than complex
set of relationships. While in a loop the parts affect each other cyclically, as veteran game
designer Daniel Cook said, “An arc is a broken loop that you exit immediately” (Cook 2012).
Designing in terms of loops rather than arcs also makes it easier to take a system and add it
to a new game or put it in a new context, where it acts as a part in a new larger system. For
example, you may decide that you want to add a whole new class of buildings for players
to construct; if you have a general “building construction” system in the game, this is
much easier to do than if you have to hand-craft another one. By designing game systems
carefully, with only the needed parts and sufficient loops between them, you will be able to
extend the systems internally or extend their use externally far more easily than if you rely
on more static content or fractured, separated systems in the game.
■ Elegant: As discussed in earlier chapters, elegance is often a hallmark of systems. This
quality sums up the ones above. It goes beyond but is related to the quality of consistency
discussed above. The following are some examples of elegance:
■ Creating a diverse space for players to explore based on only a few rules (Again, Go is
the archetypal example of this.)
■ Having systemic rules with few exceptions that are easy to learn, where both
predictable and emergent behaviors are possible
■ Enabling the system to be used within multiple contexts or to have new parts added
within it
There is a great deal to be learned from studying tabletop games, even if you never plan
to design one. Designing for situations in which the only “computing power” is in the
players’ heads and where all interaction must happen using tokens the players can physically
manipulate presents a significant challenge. It constrains what you as a designer can do to
bring a game concept to life and highlights the relationships between the game’s tokens
DESIGNING SYSTEMIC GAMES 177
and rules, loops, and overall experience. Digital games can hide a lot of game-designer
laziness behind flashy graphics and narrative cut-scenes; tabletop games do not have
that luxury.
In speaking to university theatre students, actor Terrence Mann said, “Movies make you famous,
television will make you rich; but theatre will make you good” (Gilbert 2017). There is an analogy
here to game design (not that any particular type of game design will necessarily make you rich
or famous): designing tabletop games has the same sort of relationship to designing digital
games that acting in theatre does to acting in movies. Like theatre, tabletop games are closer to
the audience; you as a game designer can hide less, and must hone your craft in designing for
this environment.
This is not to say that all game designers must design board or tabletop games, though it is
good practice. But if at times you wonder why so many board games are used as examples
when “modern” games are typically played on computer, this is the reason. Tabletop
games have undergone every bit as much of a renaissance in the early 21st century as have
digital games. As a systemic game designer, you can learn from both, and you may well find
that designing tabletop games challenges your skills in ways that designing for games run on
the computer does not.
This is necessarily an iterative process between designing the parts, the loops, and the whole.
At first, this process may be iterative in your head, on a whiteboard, and on scraps of paper
and then in documents and spreadsheets. Once the game begins to take shape, the iterative
cycle of prototyping and playtesting discussed briefly below (and in more detail in Chapter 12,
“Making Your Game Real”) becomes important: it is far better to prototype fast and playtest
early than to hope the idea you have in your head will spring forth fully formed like Athena
from Zeus’s skull. (They never do.) This process is the game designer’s loop shown in Figure 5.1
(which is the same as Figure 4.3).
As stated earlier, it is possible to begin at any point in the systemic structure: with parts, loops,
or the whole experience—as long as, having started with one, you move to the others so
that they mutually support each other. With that reminder, for convenience here we will start
with the whole, the architectural and thematic elements, and then move to the functional
looping aspects, and finally move to the parts.
178 CHAPTER 5 WORKING AS A SYSTEMIC GAME DESIGNER
Game Design
Input
Player
Game
Designer
Feedback
Feedback
Figure 5.1 The game designer’s loop enables you to iteratively design and test your designs
Many times, game designers or entire development teams will launch themselves into the
game development process without stopping to entirely clarify what the “whole experience” is
that they want in their game. Questions of theme and vision seem frivolous; the team wants to
get to making the game! However, as you will see in Chapter 11, “Working as a Team,” having a
shared, coherent vision of the game your team is making is the single most important indicator
of success.
There are multiple aspects of any overarching vision, as discussed in the following sections.
These aspects represent and point to more detailed elements that have to be articulated to get
an idea of what the game will be.
DESIGNING SYSTEMIC GAMES 179
To fill in the world somewhat, what are the major events in its history—those that are applicable
to the players? If you’re a storyteller, you may have to resist the urge to write 100 pages of world
lore. If you have the time and money, and especially the experience to know what’s useful
and what’s not, then you can indulge yourself in this; you will likely add important details to the
game world that make it come to life all the more vividly. But if you have any time or budget
constraints, or if you’re just starting out, you should avoid the siren song of diving too deeply
into the backstory. You need to know what the world is and what it’s about, but to start with,
you can do this in a page or two of text. You shouldn’t write any more than you need to support
the rest of the design. Later, as the game is beginning to come together, you can flesh out the
deep, tragic history of the city where the streets hold a million secrets.
Understanding your game’s world and (some) of its history will also help you begin to define
major events that happen in the game, the player’s goals and progression through it, and “key
moments”—short moments or stories that you can tell that help communicate meaningful,
climactic points for the player.
In Chapter 6 we will look in more detail at the process of designing and documenting the
gameplay experience as a whole. For now, keep in mind that it doesn’t matter so much whether
you start with a high-level, blue-sky creative vision that you then support with underlying
180 CHAPTER 5 WORKING AS A SYSTEMIC GAME DESIGNER
loops and parts or whether you arrive here after first nailing down those dynamic and specific
aspects; either way, you will iterate back and forth between them as you refine your ideas. What
matters is that before you begin developing your game—before you assure yourself that you
know what the game is—you have this theme and vision, the whole of the player’s experience,
clearly articulated and shared by your team.
In creating a space for the player to explore and inhabit—rather than a singular path for them
to follow through the game—you need to define the game’s systems. These systems need to
support the theme and desired player experience, and they must work interactively between the
game and the player. You need to specify and create (via iterative prototyping and playtesting)
the player’s core loops, explicit goals, and the way they progress through the game.
Creating systems like this may be the most difficult part of game design: it requires that you
envision the system as it uses the game’s tokens and rules to create an experience that is
hard to see clearly in advance. Of course, you don’t have to do this all at once—which is why
prototyping and playtesting are so important—but being able to imagine multiple looping
systems well enough to record their designs and implement them is nevertheless a daunting
task. For example, in many games, the systems controlling resource production, crafting,
wealth production, and combat all have their own internal workings, and all interact with each
other and the player to create the player’s experience. Getting all these to work on their own
and contribute to a systemic whole requires skill, patience, and resilience in the face of repeated
attempts when something just doesn’t quite work.
case, before the game is really a game, you need to situate the game’s functional loops into the
context of the whole—the game experience—and also create the structural parts of the game’s
systems.
You first read about the tokens, values, and rules in a game in Chapter 3. You will see them
again in detail in Chapter 8. For now, in terms of working as a systemic designer, you should
understand that the process of nailing down exactly what is going on in a game—getting past
the hand-waving descriptive stage and being able to implement the game—is vital. You don’t
have a game without it.
This aspect of game design is sometimes called “detailed design,” and it is where the game design
becomes entirely specific. Does that sword have a weight of 3 or 4? A cost of 10 or 12? How many
types of troops, or horses, or flower petals are there in the game, and what differences do these
numbers make to the overall gameplay? Tracking and specifying these structural parts of the
game has been called the “spreadsheet-specific” part of game design. This is a crucial part of
systemic design; it is in many ways how the game becomes real. Such specific design is needed
for balancing the different tokenized parts against each other to make the game a cohesive whole
rather than allow it to become separate systems that can fly apart.
The issues you need to think about here are how to specify tokens that represent the objects in
the game—the player, other people, nations, creatures, spaceships, or whatever the operative
units are within your game—and give each of them sufficient attributes, values, and behaviors
to define them. One way to think of this is to answer the question What is the smallest number
of attributes, states, and behaviors you can use to support the game’s systems and provide the
overall gameplay experience you want?
Related to this are the issues of how to make obvious to the player what the tokens in the
game are, what they do, and how the player can affect them. This in turn feeds into the game’s
UI/UX—how the board or screen is laid out to present the necessary information about the
game to the player. This cannot be specified until you know what the necessary information
is. At the same time, approaching this issue by asking what sorts of information you think the
player needs to know to play the game can itself help clarify the tokenizing process.
Chapter 8 talks about this process in more detail, including how to create complex objects,
game pieces, or tokens by having a small number of general attributes that interact with each
other to create their own subsystems within the larger game systems. Chapter 8 also discusses
the importance of inter-object behaviors and how to avoid “easy win” or other gameplay-killing
tokens in your games.
be able to dive into any one in detail, depending on what’s needed by the game design. It’s
important that you not focus on any one level to the exclusion of the others; you also don’t
want to continue to work ineffectively on any one of them. When you find yourself pushing on
one level without any real effect, it can often help to switch and work from the point of view of
the other levels to help reveal what you need in another. If you can’t quite get the experience
down, explore the tokens and how they work; see how they inform the experience. Or if you
have the experience clearly in mind but can’t quite specify the tokens, see what the systems tell
you about how those have to work. At the same time, don’t let yourself avoid tokenizing your
systems, making sure there are interesting interactions, or ensuring a cohesive theme because
one or more of these aren’t in your comfort zone as a game designer. All of these are necessary
for any working game, and all are necessary activities for a systemic game designer.
Whole Game
Looping Systems
Figure 5.2 As a game designer, you need to be able to see the parts, the loops, and the game’s
whole experience all at the same time and zoom in on any one of them as needed
You can follow the same systemic structure for analysis as for design. It involves looking at the
whole experience, including how you build your mental model of the game; the game’s internal
and interactive loops; and the rules and tokens that make those up. By carefully identifying
and separating these, you can gain insight into the decisions made by the game’s designer and
improve your own designs as a result.
When beginning to play a game for the first time, examine how you go about building your own
mental model of it: Do you understand the setting and theme? What surprises you about it?
What concepts about the game did you find to be important, incomplete, or hard to understand
as you learned the game? How might the game have increased your engagement early on?
ANALYZING GAMES FROM A SYSTEMS VIEW 183
While playing and after playing, think about the whole of the experience you had. What kind of
experience and feelings do you think the game designer was trying to elicit in you as a player?
Were there particular aspects of the game that supported or detracted from your experience?
What visual and interactive elements of the game support its theme and the desired player
experience? What can you infer about the game designer’s intent for the game, based on the
art style and interactive aspects?
What specific game systems can you identify in the game? Are there systems that operate
independently of the players, or do they all rely on the players doing something first? The
board game Power Grid is a great example of a (nondigital) game that has systems that
operate mostly outside player control. For example, in this game there is a simple but highly
effective depiction of supply-and-demand economics: as players buy more of any one kind of
fuel, the price for it goes up until its supply is replenished on the next turn (see Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3 The board game Power Grid, showing the track representing prices for the resources coal,
oil, trash, and nuclear fuel. As players purchase each and supply decreases, its price rises. Supply is
replenished each turn, driving prices lower if the fuel is not used
Continuing with the analysis overview, as a player in a game, how do you progress, and what
reinforcing loops can you identify? What balancing loops are there that push back against
player advancement or that keep one player who outstrips others early on from simply winning
the game?
What are the primary forms of interactivity in the game? How does the game allocate its
interactivity budget? Is this a game of strategy and socializing, or one of quick thinking and fast
action? Do the ways you as a player interact with the game help establish the game’s theme, or
do they work against it?
184 CHAPTER 5 WORKING AS A SYSTEMIC GAME DESIGNER
Finally, what are the particular tokens and rules—the atomic parts of the game with their values
and behaviors? Do they support the desired gameplay experience or get in its way? Having
learned one system in the game, can you transfer how that works to another part of the game,
or are there lots of rules to learn, each with its own exceptions—so that you have to spend a lot
of time thinking about how to play the game?
Often the art style of a game is expressed in its individual tokens, sometimes in surprising
ways. For example, the tabletop game Splendor is about building up your business as a gem
merchant, starting with individual mines and ending with courting the favor of various nobles.
The physical pieces in the game are like poker chips. They represent individual gems, and each
has an unusual amount of heft. Their weight subtly adds to the desired experience of the game,
even though, like the rest of the art (and most art in games), it is nonfunctional.
As you analyze games by examining their parts, loops, and wholes, you will begin to see
commonalities across them, as well as how each is unique. Understanding the similarities and
differences will help you improve your own designs—avoiding the mistakes of others, spring-
boarding off their good ideas, and keeping your game design fresh and engaging.
As an example from a related creative field, making movies, Ed Catmull, president of Pixar, has
been open about the many gyrations that films at his studios go through. “All of our movies
suck at first,” he said when speaking to aspiring movie animators. He clarified that statement
by adding, “A lot of people don’t believe me when I say that. They think I’m being self-effacing
or modest, but I don’t mean it in that sense. I mean it in the way that the film sucks.” He went
on to discuss the many story changes that the movie Up went through during its development:
it started with a story about a kingdom in the sky with two princes who didn’t like each other,
who fall to earth and end up meeting a giant bird named Kevin. That version went through a
huge number of changes. By the time they completed the movie, he said, “All that was left was
the bird and the word ‘up’” (Lane 2015).
The same sort of thing happens in games. While your game may not change as drastically as
a movie like Up, you must be prepared for many iterations—many cycles through the creative
process. This means you have to be willing to test your ideas over and over again, learning and
changing them as you go. And it means you have to be humble enough to change an idea or
throw it out if it isn’t working. Iterating and “finding the fun” inevitably means throwing away
SUMMARY 185
a lot of work—drawings, animations, programming, design documents, and so on. You cannot
cling to something you have worked on just because you put a lot of time into it. If you do, you
will be settling for an idea that is okay (or mediocre) when with a little more work and polish it
could have been great.
To iterate effectively on game designs, you need to make them real. The only way to do this
is to make early versions—prototypes—and test them. You may start with drawings on a
whiteboard or pieces of paper and coins being pushed around on a table—anything to start
actually playing with the idea you have. Most of your prototypes will be varying degrees of ugly
or unfinished, converging on the full, finished, and polished product at the end. The point is
to take your game design out of the realm of ideas and into real implementations that can be
played and tested—and to do so as quickly and often as possible.
Playtesting is how you validate your prototypes—or, more often, how you find out where
your game design is broken. Developing a game designer’s intuition for what will work or not
is important, but even for the most experienced designers, it is never a substitute for testing
the gameplay on players who have never seen it before. As Daniel Cook has said, without
implementation and playtesting a game design remains an “ineffectual paper fantasy”
(Cook, 2011b). You will need to test your design ideas with other people early and often to
keep your game on track.
We will return to the topics of prototyping and playtesting often in the following chapters,
particularly in Chapter 12. For now, understand that a core aspect of working as a game
designer is having the humility and creative flexibility to test and refine your game design ideas
based on what others think of them. You will need to make fast, often ugly prototypes, and
you will need to test them with potential players repeatedly during design and development.
The bright shining idea you have in your head will never survive contact with reality without
change—most likely a lot of change.
Summary
This brief chapter provides an overview of what it means to work as a systemic game designer.
While getting started on a new game design can be truly daunting, by breaking down the
game into its parts, loops, and wholes—not necessarily in that order—you can begin to get a
handle on defining the game at each of those levels.
The coming chapters add more detail to the topics discussed here. Chapter 6 examines the
whole of the game experience in more detail—how you discover it, document it, and set up for
creating the underlying systems. Chapter 7 revisits the game’s functional loops, this time using
the knowledge of systems thinking and game loops to specify the particular loops for your
game. Then Chapter 8 looks again at the game’s parts and how to create these “spreadsheet-
specific” tokens, values, and rules.
This page intentionally left blank
INDEX
D producers, 366–368
programmers, 369–370
daily active users (DAU), 351
QA (quality assurance), 370–371
Dark Age of Camelot, 249–250, 313
UI/UX, 369
Dark Souls, 297
of game design, 117–119
data-driven design, 290–291
product development, 359–360
DAU (daily active users), 351
development teams
De Mundi Systemate (Newton), 29
art and sound, 371–372
Deadlands, 252
game designers, 368
deadlock, 238
organization chart, 366
deciders, 57–58, 223
other team members, 372
decisions, meaningful, 107–108
producers, 366–368
decoupling cost from value, 336–338
programmers, 369–370
dedication, 134
QA (quality assurance), 370–371
deliverables, 262
UI/UX, 369
demographic profiles, 202–203
Dewey, John, 91–92
depth
Diablo II, 247
concept document, 215
The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
interactivity, 167–168
Systems (Galileo), 28–29
systemic, 83–86
“Diamond Sutra,” 87
Descartes, René, 16, 28–29
digital games, 176
design documents, 287–289
digital prototypes, 387
design process
distance
designer’s loop, 181–182
articulatory, 125
game analysis, 182–184
semantic, 125
for game parts, 286–287
distributions, 305–307
iterative nature of, 177–178
DLC (downloadable content), 211
structural parts, 180–181
documentation, 261
systemic loops, 180
concept documents, 193–194
thematic architecture of, 178–180
concept statement, 195–196
design tools, 260
depth and breadth, 215
rapid prototyping tools, 260–261
detailed design, 212–214
spreadsheets, 261
elegance, 215
whiteboards, 260–261
game+player system, 214
designer-based balancing, 297–298
genre(s), 196–200
designer’s loop, 5, 128, 232–233
product description, 206–212
detailed design (concept document), 212
questions to consider, 216
core loops, 212–213
target audience, 200–204
interactivity, 213
themes, 214
narrative and main systems, 213
USPs (unique selling points), 204–205
objectives and progression, 213
working title, 195
deterministic thinking, 16–21
design documents, 287–289
development
mockups, 263–264
development teams
prototyping, 263–264
art and sound, 371–372
spreadsheet documentation, 261, 268–269,
game designers, 368
289–291
organization chart, 366
system design documents, 262
other team members, 372
422 DOCUMENTATION
gluon field, 42 I
Go, 84–86, 98, 130, 142–143
“iceberg” approach, 382–384
goals
iconography for loop components, 223–224
defining, 258
ideation, 188. See also blue-sky design
emotional interactivity, 150–151
identity
identifying, 376–377
systems as things, 87–88
player goals, 109–111
Theseus’ ship paradox, 38–39
playtesting, 392
idle games, 198
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 30
ilinx games, 91, 164
Gone Home, 161–162, 206–207
immersion-creativity motivations, 201
Google Docs, 261
implicit goals, 109–110
greedy reductionism, 18–19
individuals’ needs, balancing with team
Greenspan, Alan, 74
needs, 363
Griesemer, James, 155–156
inflation, 246–248, 342
“grinding” gameplay, 259–260
information distortion, sample size and,
The Grizzled, 147
301–302
grouping, 145
instant goals, 110
growth, limits to, 72–75
integrative levels, 42
Guitar Hero, 196
intentional choices, 127
interactive loops, 137–138, 225–226. See also
H gameplay loops
action/feedback interactivity, 138–141
Habitat, 342
moment-to-moment gameplay, 141
habituation, 254–256
present-tense action, 139
Halley, Edmund, 29
reflexive attention, 139
Halo 2, 155–156
stress and reward of fast action, 139–141
Halo 3, 155–156
blending types of, 142–143
heating an oven, 23–25
cognitive interactivity, 141–143
hedonic fatigue, 254, 255
core loops, 127, 156–157, 226–227
heliocentric model of solar
concept document, 212–213
system, 28–29
examples of, 227–231
Hidden Order (Holland), 31–32
game mechanics, 220–232
hierarchy of loops, 233–235
cultural interactivity, 152–153
history
designer’s loop, 128, 181–182
of game design, 117–119
emotional interactivity, 147–152
of systems thinking, 28–30
challenges of, 151
Hobbes, Thomas, 38
context, 150
holistic thinking, 21–22
models of emotion, 148–150
Holland, John, 31–32
situations and goals, 150–151
homeostasis, 82
flow in, 153–155
Homo Ludens (Huizinga), 90
social interactivity, 143–146
For Honor, 188
game-mediated social interaction, 144
hooks, 131
techniques for encouraging, 144–146
“house rules,” 101–102
time-scale view of, 155–159
Howe, Chelsea, 157
core loops, 156–157
Huizinga, Johan, 90
cycles of engagement, 157–158
hydrogen atoms, 39
narrative and interactive engagement,
hypothesis-driven analysis, 17
158–159
428 INTERACTIVITY