Gamasutra – Formal Abstract Design Tools

Design is the game, in basis it could be defined as the superglue holding together all aspects of development (code, art, levels, etc). However it tends to lag behind the technical aspects that consist of a game, its less developed, less explained, harder to understand. The main reason for this issue is that design has no fixed vocabulary, no generic mean by which to communicate, we lack an elaborate code that can be understood and juggled between different designers. Fun or not fun, that’s all we have.

That’s what design needs; if we had a generic vocabulary, a means by which to define, relay and analyse, then design as a branch of game development would see vast progress. Because of this, relating elements of a game to design becomes difficult; we can see if animators have done their job well, or if code has been done well by whether the features work or not. However when the crowds break apart, and it’s all said and done, few observe the design steps evident in the game, people are less likely to identify and analyse good unit balancing, however they’re more likely to notice bad unit balancing.

Formal Abstract Design Tools (FADT) – an attempt at creating a shared vocabulary between designers. I think the article explains this quite well so let’s reference it;

Examining the phrase, we have: "formal," implying precise definition and the ability to explain it to someone else; "abstract," to emphasize the focus on underlying ideas, not specific genre constructs; "design," as in, well, we're designers; and "tools," since they'll form the common vocabulary we want to create.

"Design" and "tools" are both largely self-explanatory. However, some examples may help clarify "formal" and "abstract." For instance, claiming that "cool stuff" qualifies as a FADT violates the need for formality, since "cool" is not a precise word one can explain concretely — various people are likely to interpret it very differently. On the other hand, "player reward" is well defined and explainable, and thus works. Similarly, a "+2 Giant Slaying Sword" in an RPG is not abstract, but rather an element of one particular game. It doesn't qualify as a FADT because it isn't abstract. The general notion that a magic sword is based on — a mechanic for delivering more powerful equipment to the player — is, however, a good example of a FADT, so the idea of a "player power-up curve" might meet the definition above.

So in basis we can summarise anything added to this vocabulary must be;

·         Precise and explanatory

·         Generic to games as a whole, not specifically

·         Relevant to design

·         Usable in design

It’s important to understand that this vocabulary alone, these tools are not the answer to a good game. They are simply stepping stones for refining a game, they can help you discover a game but you still have to journey the rest of the process with your own capabilities, with your own relevant approaches to producing fun.

This vocabulary isn’t set In stone, it may come from others analysis and breakdown of games but at its core the vocabulary is concocted around the actual playing of games and their reviewing. A good way to break this down is to briefly look at how things work together; study their impact on the experience and how design decisions in general push the player deeper, immersing the player more in the game world. After reviewing these things, we can come up with some FADT’s for our vocabulary;

INTENTION: Making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options.

Or in a simpler way of stating it; the process of accumulating goals, understanding the game world, planning and acting on it. This works to allow/encourage the player to do things intentionally.

PERCEIVABLE CONSEQUENCE: A clear reaction from the game world to the action of the player.

The idea of perceivable consequence is to basically teach the player right from wrong, or true from false in the game world.

The issue with this is avoiding situations where the designer forces a player into a consequence, this can be a difficult trap to avoid and a very easy one for designers to fall into; if you are to be punished for your choices, a player expects those choices to be their own, not pre-determined. This is sadly something many games fail to understand in modern games, this sacrifice of player control is performed to improve the flow of a story, but at what cost to the players immersion and experience? It’s hard to tell whether the positives of choice outweigh the negatives, or vice versa. Thus we are brought onto another world for our vocabulary;

STORY: The narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven, that binds events together and drives the player forward toward completion of the game.

It’s important to remember different tools work better (or worse) with certain situations. Dependent on your game, it might be more or less relevant to close off player choice in order to give a more critical story. This does make the outcomes more linear, but it also improves the narrative and flow of the story as a whole, in most cases at least. This is a hard decision for game designers; do we choke choice and provide depth to the story, or expand choice and sacrifice intended reactions by players.

RPG’s tend to approach this dilemma in an interesting but relevant method given their genre. Many RPG’s tend to fix choices throughout the story, but they open up intention to the player through their leveling, their skill trees, their equips etc. This gives the player a feel that their involvement warrants merit, that they have choices at their disposal and these choices have consequences. They story is still driven by the designer, but the experience is theirs to have, and they feel pushed to advance it.

Depending on the game, and usualy its genre, the method by which you mix these tools is different; a game like NHL can successfully incorporate story, intention and perceivable consequence all as one, however this doesn’t work for RPG’s in general, so they usually have to have a splitting point for the two, such as combat providing the intention, being driven by players choices and tactics, while still holding a fixed story, neither tend to contaminate each other negatively if done correctly.

It’s always important to remember that games are unique from books or films, such things tend to drive the viewer/reader to a preset expected outcome, an action is produced with a specific and planned reaction. Games are different, games are about empowering the player, you have to surrender to the possibility that a players interpretation may be different from your own, that a player might use weapon A instead of weapon B. Perhaps you wanted them to use weapon B, but you had to plan for the possibility that weapon A would be chosen even if you didn’t desire that outcome.

In conclusion it’s important to remember that FADT is subjective, it, like gaming is not written in stone. The choices are yours to make, things may be interpreted differently from designer to designer, and so may their relevance. But it cannot be questioned the validity of simplicity and understanding that something such as FADT could bring to designers as a whole.

I realise that a lot of this may seem boring to you readers, and for those that feel this way I might suggest starting off where we define FADT, that’s only a suggestion though, feel free to start anywhere really…. Huh will you look at that, it’s an article of choice.

Note: if you read this article backwards, it’s a story about how we started off with a reasonable generic vocabulary for designers, started to throw different definitions into the pool and then decided we preferred being primitive.