Read on Twitter
Some Thoughts Here: I think this is a lovely peek into the complexities of game dev and the designer’s role in it. From what you’ve highlighted, the iterations are slow, educated guesses are happening, and that feeling you get from it isn’t the same as a fresh guest. https://twitter.com/danctheduck/status/1344357310399877120
So one thing I’ve been working with is approaching iteration like a game jam to build prototypes. You suggest prototypes, but what I don’t think happens typically is that the prototypes may not include input from the whole team.
Before making a prototype it is important to have input from all the teams to guide the process. Then making a prototype follows the shortest path to realize the designer’s vision. And we get art and sound and the other pieces in on the prototype.
Prototypes I've made in the past are typically buggy and use a lot of placeholder stuff. But the goal with this approach is to get as close to real as possible while maintaining a short loop. Get Sound sketches in and real art and get a feel for the real thing not the idea.
Then we test it with the stakeholders and other folks on the team. We tune the prototype and then get it to a place where it feels good to everyone on the team.
I think one part we are missing is bringing folks in from the community during this process. Folks on our community team can sometimes stand in and voice what they know about our community’s feels.
But it is also important to give the community a voice somehow to make sure it is working for them. Classically this is done in playtesting, but often it is done with a mostly finished product.
I’m curious what would happen if we brought community in early and allowed them to test and provide feedback before the vision has crystalized, when we can actually make meaningful changes to the system.
This process would be building a thing with a community rather than for a community. Your community voices are experts who help you guide your game towards feelings. They are the ones who should feel it and they can tell you if they do and sometimes why.
I think the veil of secrecy in games works against this. Transparency and trust with your community is essential. And creating with them is going to create something unique that won't land the same created with different folks and different communities.
I think there would be a lot of questions about how to choose these community ambassadors and how much to involve them and paying them for their time and expertise, but I believe they are a missing component in this collaborative process.
Game jam style like this creates a prototype that actually works for the folks it is intended for with short iterations that allow for feedback throughout. And then we refine. We replace systems that were too hacky to keep going and refactor to finesse the feel.
The prototype is the seed not the example. Instead of throwing it away and starting over, we grow and nurture it until it is a full feature, pruning, and encouraging growth in the right places until it is full and thriving.
My traditional coding background screams no at this concept, because it won’t be pretty. But it works! And the things I’m often the most happy with the feel were the prototypes and not the system that was built after the prototype.
Now, the fresh guest perspective is treated like it is the pinnacle of feedback. If you can get it right for them, then you’ve made it! But I think they are only one perspective in your audience.
While their perspective is important, I believe looking at how we move folks from fresh to beginner to fans, experts, and advocates is way more important. The fresh guests are the on ramps and the other folks are what keeps your community running.
So how do we support new folks with what they need so they can play in the feels of the experience? And once they are there, is there enough depth for them to stay and explore. And after that does it serve a need for them that keeps them coming back.
The game designer goes through these phases as well. They move from fresh guest toward each of these other states. All of them important. But they also need support in tuning those other states once they’ve moved past them.
Game designers are trained in perspective taking and I believe the rest of the team should be too. Taking on the perspective of folks in these other states is essential to tuning a state that they are no longer in. They practice empathy with their audience.
But what game designers are really good at are listening to feedback and discerning what helps us move closer to the goals of the design. They are the filter and pick out the important bits of what to focus on, but also the advocate for the feel of the system.
Having a diverse team with many different perspectives can also help us get there faster. But recognizing that our expertise is only a piece of the collaborative process is important too. We aren't just making art, we are conducting an orchestra to make interactive art.
So yeah, maybe we think about community voices as team members in the whole process. Maybe try the prototype as the seed and not the example. And maybe focus on supporting the journey of the community from fresh to experts and devoted fans.
