Chris Crawford on Education of a Game Designer

[DFG]

http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Game%20Design/The_Education_of_a_Game_Designer.html

Seems like some solid advice to me. I am starting to dig what this guy has to say. A tad egocentric for me, but his writing really hits a chord. Half through his book on interactive stortelling at the moment.

[Christian]

Well, i had readed most of the stuff that he says, and let me tell you that he is the most important game designer in the world, heh, why do i say this?, because he is the only one who writes really important things about game design.
Read his first book, its online for free. It may be a little outdated but still is very important because it contains the basics for understanding games.
I recommend everybody to learn what he has to say (about games i mean, not interactive storytelling, i cant recommend on that because i havent read anything about that subject).

[cheese_phantom]

Crawford was one of the sources that convinced me that I have to learn programming. His book on game design is quite a good one and I think it has been re-printed a few years ago (as "Chris Crawford on Game Design").

However the book on Interactivity is not so much my favorite, maybe because of the debate that it is part of, this Ludology-Narratology thing. Also other parts of his website are almost dedicated to this problem of interactivity and sometimes it is simply not too brilliant (and I agree, a tad too egocentric). The website goes also too much into linguistics (mostly the American tradition, Sapir-Whorf and early-Chomsky??) and it is actually too difficult for me to understand its relation with programming languages. AI, parsing, the Holodeck... it's too complicated for me at the moment. Personally, I think I have to ignore this for a while. Though it might be interesting and challenging for those who are more advanced.

[Christian]

About storytelling, hes making a tool for making interactive storytelling, that is, an interactive story, like a game but not a game, where you choose what to do and what to say, and everytime you play it is different, thats why its so complicated to understand, it is really a complicated thing, but only for those people that want to make a storytelling software, not for game designers, the other things about games that are in his on-line library are understandable, not so complicated, and really important, outdated maybe, but still important.

[DFG]

>tool for interactive storytelling

Yes, the fabled Erasmatron. He just may be groundbreaker for a whole new entertainment style of the future. I see a huge demand for it - the mainstream fiction audience.

[adamw]

Chris Crawford. Groan. He'll be the first one to agree with you that he's the most important game designer in the world. He's been saying it about himself for years. But he falls short in actually *doing* any great game design. After Eastern Front, he basically flopped.

But he is shrill. I'll give him that.

[Davaris]

Heh! I was thinking something similar, but I thought better of saying anything. They can't sue you for thinking can they? :)

[svero]

Read his first book, its online for free.

where is that?

[DFG]

http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html

[Escapist Games]

I got involved in the computer games industry back in the early 80's, and in those days Chris was a top designer and very well respected. If memory serves he helped found the Computer Game Developer's Conference (which only had a handful of attendees the first couple of years), and his lectures and writings were always highly regarded.

But with the exception of "Balance of Power", Chris's titles were never particularly commercial. At one of the early GDCs he debated another Chris, Chris Roberts (who had just designed "Wing Commander" for Origin) claiming that gameplay is far more important than graphics. Mr. Crawford wore a really tall Seuss-like hat to the debate and he was doing "okay" until his opponent asked, "If presentation isn't important... why are you wearing that ridiculous hat?" The audience laughed for a long time and the debate never really got back on track after that.

Chris is a *really* smart guy and while I respect the fact that he made intelligent games for intelligent people, his titles didn't make money and publishers eventually lost interest.

Chris then started to complain about the death of creativity and the death of the industry. I was Producing and Designing games for Cinemaware at the time so his rants about "bad games with pretty pictures" kind of irked me. I was having a blast, and there were a lot of us in the industry who were trying to give games some commercial appeal by using great graphics, music and sound to make them more cinematic and immersive. It worked, of course, and I think Chris kind of threw up his hands at that point and gave up on the industry. He quit the GDC in a huff and stopped publishing his newsletter. I kind of lost track of him for awhile, but he has apparently been working on interactive fiction. (He now claims that you can't tell stories in computer games.)

Of course, the epilogue to this tale is that here I am 20 years later bitching and moaning about the death of the industry and the loss of creativity. That's why I am so interested in the indie scene.

[Anthony Flack]

It seems to be a common mistake - people correctly identify that "gameplay" (whatever that means to you) is the most important, fundamental element in making a good videogame. And then go on to (totally wrongly) conclude that presentation therefore isn't particularly important.

Solid gameplay is the foundation which everything is built on, and if there are problems there, everything will come crashing down. But once the foundation is in place, it's the presentation which will put it over the top and make it a kick-arse experience for people.

[svero]

Im not sure what anthony means by presentation... but to me presentation and gameplay are not mutually exclusive.

Take that new EA game Phlynx. Its basically bust-a-move. And not terribly unlike aqua bubble or any others in the genre. However.. it uses the balls/bubbles dropped by knocking higher up bubbles off the board as kind of a progress bar. Now there's a whole lot of ways that could have been done. A percentage.. a bar that fills up etc... But they chose to bounce those balls off a slanted surface and then fire them up at sort of a bolt in a column on the left side of the screen. The whole effect with the little clacking of the balls, and the metallic ring when they hit the bolt, etc.. is all really nice and physical feeling, and I find that it really adds to the overall "fun" of the game. I want to make those balls fall because I want to see that happen. And yet the rule could have been presented in many ways that were less "fun".. for lack of a better word.

[Laser Lou]

I read his somewhat recent book "Chris Crawford on Game Design." He didn't say that graphics weren't important. Instead, he pointed out that graphics should be added to a game to support the gameplay, that they shouldn't be there just for the sake of looks. He gave an example of shadow effects in steatly fps games (i.e. Splinter Cell) as a good use of graphics.

[Christian]

Yes, exactly as Laser Lou says. Chris Crawford never said that graphics where not important, he moaned that game devs FOCUSED on graphics instead of interactivity, he allways said that graphics should support interactivity, he moeaned about that most games are a vehicle of good graphics instead of good interactivity and that games could be so much better if developers focused on making new game designs focused on interaction. But i think that he is very misunderstood among some people, maybe his attitude bothers some, not me, i only care about his ideas on game design.

[dustinh]

Yes I'll agree with the above comment, he is misunderstood I feel. His book has excellent advice on the basis of game design. I don't really see it so much as ego-centric either as I went in realizing it was him telling his stories and his experiences so what I guess could be ego-centric really didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. I'd recommend this book to anyone getting into game design, it is ironic that now we're all bitching about what he was forever ago :p

Now the interactive storytelling one I haven't finished and am having a hard time grasping... :confused:

- Dustin

[Laralyn]

IMHO, he's right on target when he recommends making your own games to both hone and prove your skills. That makes a huge difference when you're trying to get noticed as an entry-level designer. The more polished it looks, the better your chances of getting someone's attention. It also helps to have great documentation for it, and to be able to talk about how your ideas changed as you moved from documentation to implementation.

On the other hand, while I personally always like working with folks who have experience outside the game industry, it can make your life a lot harder. Even if your non-game work is in a very related industry (like film), your mileage in that industry won't count as mileage in games. You can work for 5-7 years outside of games and be a manager--even of software development processes--and you're still likely to come into the game industry as Assistant Designer. You'll probably work your way up the ranks more quickly than folks who are just out of school, but it won't help you right off the bat.

(And I think this is my first post here... so hello. :) )

[Anthony Flack]

Im not sure what anthony means by presentation... but to me presentation and gameplay are not mutually exclusive.

Probably a broader definition of "gameplay" than I intended. Which always happens in these sorts of discussions; it's such a nebulous word.

To me, what you describe is a good example of how presentation can make all the difference. Although with an extra twist of presenting an arbitrary gameplay "rule" in such a way that it makes perfectly good mechanical sense. That's always nice. Good presentation should make the game easier to understand.

Anyway, I don't think graphics need to be in the service of interactivity, either. A game's graphics do need to present all the relevant information to the player in a clear and concise form. But beyond that, their mission is to elicit an emotional response of some kind. Give the game some heart, you know.

I actually don't think that game graphics have been focussed on any more than game design. Experimenting with either have largely been neglected in favour of reiterating what already works.

[fog4711]

I really liked Chris' book and found his advice sound. However I got the impression that breaking into the traditional games-biz is not what people here want to do. I certainly have no such ambitions. I'd rather create my own independent company than work for e.g. EA. I'm not even expecting to get rich. I'd be quite content with making a living. What do the rest of you here say?

Are you doing indie-stuff just in order to get discovered by some big company and subsequentely elevated to rock-star status?

:cool: fog

[Jay_Kyburz]

It's clear to me that graphics is what "sells" games. Design may be what makes the game fun but it won't get a punter to pull out their wallet.

If you have a look at the mainstream industry a huge amount of time and investment is put into graphics. We even have to buy a new graphics card every 2 years.

Marketing is all about magazine cover images and kick ass demo movies. It's never about how cool the mechanics are.

[Davaris]

Are you doing indie-stuff just in order to get discovered by some big company and subsequentely elevated to rock-star status?

Most people here want their own company that pays the bills. Unfortunately this isn't so easy. :)

It's clear to me that graphics is what "sells" games. Design may be what makes the game fun but it won't get a punter to pull out their wallet.

Yup. If it aint pretty it won't sell.

[DFG]

It's clear to me that graphics is what "sells" games. Design may be what makes the game fun but it won't get a punter to pull out their wallet.

What about a really pretty Myst game that nobody likes because the game design is played out?

Bejeweled's graphics (the original) are nothing great but it has sold better than 90% or more of the games in the retail stores.

Instead, he pointed out that graphics should be added to a game to support the gameplay, that they shouldn't be there just for the sake of looks.

I am of that school of thought as well.

[Jay_Kyburz]

Well I would argue that the first Myst game sold well because if the graphics and not the crappy puzzles, there were plenty of Point and Click adventure games around at the time. Subsequent Myst games haven't done as well because the graphic are lagging (in the same way as the game play is lagging).

I also don't think you can compare Bejeweled with retail games. How did it look compared to competing products at the time? I bet it looked better that most.

[Christian]

it is really true that grahpics are important, but they dont sell the game, thats the job of the marketing people. They are important in that it gives us the identity of the game, the first imrpession of the game is important, if it looks bad, we wont get close to it, but if it looks good, nice, we MAY get a little closer look, because even if a game looks good, we dont buy all good looking games, we buy games that are fun to us. Even if you make a really fun game, you may loose customers because of it bad presentation.

[merovingian]

Said article seems like good advice to me. You have to take Crawford with many grains of salt though. For instance, his holy grail of interactivity was blown to shreds by the Japanese dating sim crowd - he wanted perfection, they wanted results.

He is at times inspirational, and at others merely annoying.

And at one time, he was the only source of game design wisdom out there. Now, there are plenty more...

[gcarlton]

Yes, the fabled Erasmatron. He just may be groundbreaker for a whole new entertainment style of the future. I see a huge demand for it - the mainstream fiction audience.

Is he still banging on about that thing? Apparently there is a huge demand for it, but its always several years away. ;)

His main success recently has not been in making any amazing games, rather in selling books about how others could make amazing games. On the other hand there are so few design books out there that anything is worth a read.

[Anthony Flack]

Instead, he pointed out that graphics should be added to a game to support the gameplay, that they shouldn't be there just for the sake of looks.

I am of that school of thought as well.


That's pretty much what I'm arguing against. T'ain't nothing wrong with the sake of looks. I don't want the graphics to wreck the gameplay, but I do want the game to look as cool as it possibly can. I do honestly believe this is important, and I don't think that makes me a shallow person.

If you have a look at the mainstream industry a huge amount of time and investment is put into graphics. We even have to buy a new graphics card every 2 years.

I actually think gameplay and graphics are focussed on about evenly. In the gameplay realm, we are seeing the same sorts of games recycled, with finer and finer adjustments being made to the core mechanics. Plenty of attention to detail - they generally aren't slapdash efforts - just not much innovation. Well, it's largely the same with graphics too.

[KNau]

What about a really pretty Myst game that nobody likes because the game design is played out?

That's a bit of a misconception, though, since adventure games still do respectable business in the PC market, averaging about 100,000 - 400,000 units sold for successful titles. That's nothing to sneeze at and is considerably better than most budget FPS clones do.

I like Chris Crawfords idea of games focusing more on "processor intensive" aspects like AI as opposed to "graphics intensive" features. Shadows and bump mapping are pointless in a game with lousy AI and poor interactivity.

I bet that from a business standpoint developers are probably better off with an old-school engine that's pushed to it's limits in AI, physics and evolving story and level designs as opposed to focusing on graphics to the detriment of everything else.

I think the Grand Theft Auto games are a perfect example of such. The character models and level art substandard but there is so much emphasis on creating an open "world" for the player that it overshadows the limitations of the graphics.

Trouble with Crawford's dream storytelling project is that by the time he gets it done the mainstream will be caught up with his storytelling ideas and have the graphical edge to trounce his creation commercially.

[Omega]

Wrong forum (should be a graphic/game design forum)

[Ska Software]

Yeah yeah...

I know tons of people bought Doom 3 because of its revolutionary gameplay. :rolleyes:

I used to be a total idealist of the gameplay over graphics camp, but now I'm all about really good graphics. And my graphics are still really bad. But they're a lot better than when I started.

[Abscissa]

I know tons of people bought Doom 3 because of its revolutionary gameplay. :rolleyes:

Doom 3 sold simply because it was id. Brand awareness. I really don't think gameplay OR graphics had all that much to do with it.

[soniCron]

Doom 3 sold simply because it was id. Brand awareness. I really don't think gameplay OR graphics had all that much to do with it. Either way, it was neat, even though it didn't play well. I have to admit, though, I hate the sharp, dark shadows generated by that engine! :)

[Black Hydra]

It seems almost as if Chris was suggesting a route similar to many other indie developers. Build up your experience by making games, and becoming an indie game designer seems to be a very good way to build a lot of knowledge about game making.

[Jay_Kyburz]

I'm already in the games industry and I'm making indie games to learn more. I'm currently a Producer and have been a Lead Designer and Lead Artist. Making indie games teaches me about coding, sound, marketing, etc..

[Black Hydra]

I once read in an article from Harvard's Buisness website that "those taking courses in entrepreneurial business were simply procrastinating" and that "the best education comes from doing, not studying"

So, to apply a similar idea to game development doesn't selling an indie game really provide a low cost education in game making?

[Laser Lou]

I think that we techies can to be overly precise when interpreting practical rules of thumb. I think that most game developers do believe that the quality of the graphics in a game is important. However, that doesn't mean that extra graphics should be added just because it looks pretty; if it doesn't support the gameplay, it will probably detract from the gameplay.

Edit: I found this in a poll in Firaxis' website (www.firaxis.com/community/polls.php):

4. Graphics or Gameplay?
Percent Answer
2% It’s gotta be pretty
49% Balance is the key
49% Who cares about graphics?

[Savant]

4. Graphics or Gameplay?
Percent Answer
2% It’s gotta be pretty
49% Balance is the key
49% Who cares about graphics?
This, however, is just the party line. People always say that gameplay is king over graphics and they don't care about the graphics. However, hand them an ugly game with great gameplay and see how many sales you get...

[Abscissa]

Either way, it was neat, even though it didn't play well. I have to admit, though, I hate the sharp, dark shadows generated by that engine! :)
Interestingly, I saw an interview (forget where) in which Carmack himself said the very same thing about the shadows. But in much more technical terms, of course ;)

I once read in an article from Harvard's Buisness website that "those taking courses in entrepreneurial business were simply procrastinating" and that "the best education comes from doing, not studying"

So, to apply a similar idea to game development doesn't selling an indie game really provide a low cost education in game making?
Yes, without a doubt. It's the cheapest AND most effective education. (I've long been a strong opponent of classroom-based "learning".)

[Omega]

This, however, is just the party line. People always say that gameplay is king over graphics and they don't care about the graphics. However, hand them an ugly game with great gameplay and see how many sales you get...

Yes, I remember learning from several sources that if you want some information for a serious study, you never ask people what they are doing/have done in a study--you have to observe them. When you poll people for what happened instead of observing them, you could actually get information that is the opposite of what happened and the person doesn't realize it. So, you would give people a hypothetical hour on your computer and have links to 10 different games on your computer. You would observe (without being in the room) what games they play. If you stay in the room they might think they have to close one game and continue to the next, but if you leave, but set up a web cam or screen capture utility, they might do what their instinct is and play that first , pretty game they click on for the entire hour. That would give you the best results of how graphics matters or not in game selection.

[Black Hydra]

Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to play a beautiful boring game.

A few people will put up with an ugly fun game.

But, as with most people, lots of games are fun so why not play one that is also beautiful?

I guess it is similar to those people that say physical attractiveness isn't important in a mate, and that personality is more important. However get those people to pick between an ugly person and a beautiful person with similar personalities and you already know who they will pick.

Like Anthony said, gameplay is most important but that certainly doesn't mean presentation is not. I think some programmers have a hard time thinking in terms other than boolean :D

[Laser Lou]

Black Hydra, you hit the nail on its head.

[Abscissa]

Yes, very well put, Black Hydra.

[Ska Software]

"the best education comes from doing, not studying"

I'd say the best education comes from failing.

[Savant]

Failing being a side effect of doing.

[Laser Lou]

I contacted Chris Crawford about this discussion. Here's his reply:


Thanks for the link. I looked it over and decided to offer a reply, but I am required to wait 48 hours before doing so. I therefore request that you post this response to the page:


I am surprised and pleased that people are still reading my stuff after all these years. Most of the essays on erasmatazz.com are 15 years old. How times don't change.


I'd like to correct a few minor errors of fact. First, one chap speculated that "Chris Crawford on Game Design" was a second edition of "The Art of Computer Game Design". It is not. I started from scratch on that one.


A side note for all those people who think I'm an egomaniac, that title was forced on me by the publisher. I wanted to call it "The Art of Computer Game Design, Second Edition", but they refused because it really was a completely new book, and they insisted that my name had sales value. Right.


Somebody mentioned that I walked out of the Game Developers' Conference. Not quite: I was kicked out. The existing board, consisting of Nicki Robinson, Anne Westfall, Ernest Adams, Tim Brengle, and Susan Lee-Merrow, confiscated my stock and then sold the conference to a commercial outfit for $3 million. They each pocketed a cool half-million dollars and left the community to the tender mercies of the commercial outfit, who promptly raised the admission fees and reduced the expenditure on the attendees.


My work on interactive storytelling has been held back by the market. About once a year somebody approaches me and wants to commercialize the Erasmatron technology. We spend about three months building a business plan, recruiting partners, and so forth, and at some point they conclude that the market won't sustain it, so the whole thing collapses. Moreover, I have been busy teaching, writing books (not a good way to get money), lecturing, and participating in a NASA research effort on the Leonid meteor storm of 1999.


I began serious work on the fourth generation of the Erasmatron technology about a year ago, and the software is now well in progress. I'm writing the thing in Java to be platform-independent and I have added a major new technology, called Deikto, to the architecture. This is the culmination of all that crazy work on linguistics that some of you find so confusing. I'm hoping to have alpha by January 1, 2006, and an actual working storyworld to show sometime in late 2006. In the meantime, I have again been approached by a new group with a particularly unexpected application of the technology. It may well pan out into an actual contract.


Lastly, to the chap who considered that my work will be overtaken by the mainstream, I can only say that I've been monitoring the state of research and development into interactive storytelling and, even giving away ideas with my book, I am still moving forward faster than anybody else I can see, with one exception: Michael Mateas and Andrew Stern and their project Facade.