The “Designing Producer”
What a title actually means differs from company to company; especially the title of designer.
First a quick description of the title "level designer". You never know what a level designer does at a company untill you ask. All you know is that it's level creation related.
The thing is, at some companies a level designer does everything in regards to creating a level. They plan the design, create the graphics and implements the layout and gameplay scripting. At another company, there are different people for scripting and creating the actual game worl. It's most common to have dedicated graphics artists to make the art as well.
Anyway, what I wanted to discuss was the role of the designing producer. Some large companies merge the roles of producer and the role of game designer.
Producer:
- Makes sure stuff are made in time.
- Keeps track of the big picture.
- Communicates with all disciplines (design, code, art, etc.)
- Says: No, we can't implement that, it'll take too much time!
Designer:
- Handles the creative imagination part of the game.
- Keeps track of the big picture.
- Communicates with all disciplines (design, code, art, etc.)
- Says: We must do this, it's gonna make for a much better game!
So, by looking at my lists of what I think they do, we can see that they both share two critical tasks. They both keep track of the game as a whole and they both must talk to everyone, to make sure things are running smoothly and act depending on the status.
With this in mind, it would be wise to have the multi-class Designing Producer guy, because you don't have to worry about the communication between producer and designer and you might need less people.
The fact that the producer keeps track of the time and the designer handling the creativity doesn't necessarily work against each other, so no problem there.
But here's the problem, the last point of each role. The producers main job is to say no to doing things because it cost time and money, while the designer must push for the good stuff and really argument for having them made to create the best game possible. This "battle" is the constant struggle of measuring the "bang for the buck". Usually, the producer has the final say.
By now, one would think that then of course, you can't have a designing producer because it defeats the whole purpose of the producer and the game will never be finished in time, or finished at all, because the designer will always want to do more stuff and iterate them to make them better.

Hi, I'm a Producer
And here it is, at last, my opinion. The opinion that shapes worlds, the opinion that cures cancer and make blind people see again. I personally, am not too fond of the designing producer idea overall. However, I do think it works if, and this is a big if, you can find the right people for it. I think it requires very skilled people who are very honest with themself and with the project.
A designing producer can save a massive amount of time, because they can make decisions on the fly. The discussions and bickering between designer and producer can be held inside the head within a few minutes instead of out loud for several hours or days.
The issue at hand is that it's incredibly hard not to be more of one than the other. Me for example have often had the role of designing producer during many projects at the Game Development at the University as well as during the spare time. I'd say I do a decent job, but there are times I'm way too much of a designer and other times when I'm way too much of a producer.
Okay, so I've blah blah blah'ed quite a bit now. Summary; in general I think it's not a wise choice to have the designing producer, but if, IF, the right person assumes the role, it's a very good thing.
PowerPoint Games
I helped my girlfriend with using PowerPoint earlier and while screwing around with the animations and triggers it hit me that you can make for some decent kiddie-games in PowerPoint. And since then, I can't stop thinking about it. I tried going to sleep but I just lied there making plans for an adventure game that would be possible to do using nothing but PowerPoint. It's awesome!
It has support for graphics, sound effects, triggers, mouse clicks, timing and text as output well as input. With all those tools, you should really be able to do something!
So I just got up again, it's the middle of the night and I've been googling. There are actually quite a few educational PowerPoint games out there but they all seem to... Suck. Hard. Big time. That's too bad really. But one could ask, why make a "game" in PowerPoint when there's Flash, etc. My answer is; because of the fun of it and because it's possible.
I'm gonna prototype!
Update: 45 minutes later and I got a prototype "up and running". It's just a proof of concept, but it does what it's supposed to. You can click on the door, the lock, the key and the window with the ladder. You can climb out, get the key and unlock the door. Feel free to try it. Nothing fancy. I'm happy, maybe I can finally get some sleep.
Download The Castle Game
http://arcadeberg.com/files/2010/05/The-Castle-Game.pptx (16/5/2010)
Are we allowed to skew the trailers?
I've waited long enough now. I went to see the movie Kick-Ass on the day of its premiere but was too afraid to bring spoilers that I've been waiting with this post.
So basically, if you haven't seen Kick-Ass yet:
- You should.
- You might not want to read this post if you don't like spoilers.
Something that seems to be more and more common nowadays is to have the traileres for movies to be different from the actual movie in one way or another.
For example; some movie trailers for Inglourious Basters (best movie of 2009 IMHO FYI) had scenes in them that weren't in the movie. But the real kicker is Kick-Ass.
SPOILER ALERT
The trailers keeps presenting the character "Red Mist" as one of the many heroes in the movie while in the actual movie, he's a villain.
This was brilliant!
The trailers were still good enough for making me want to see the movie and once in the theatre I had no idea what was gonna happen because of the skewed perspective I'd previously been fed with.
There were also some other scenes that they'd changed the order of making it seem like other scenarios than they actually were, like when "the girl" said that she would definately sleep with Kick-Ass. The trailer makes it look like she doesn't know who he really is, while in the movie she does and it's a flirt with him. (That scene is not included in the embedded trailer.)
SPOILER END
So here's my question:
Can we do this with video game trailers as well? If so, would it be "okay" or would the consumers get angry? And can we only do it with the story and presentation, or can we skew the gameplay a bit as well, making it look more like an adventure game when it's really all about tearing limbs from enemies while bathing in blood?
The acceptance of Video Games
It's not something new for the year 2010, but I love the fact that we can see video game culture pretty much everywhere. Not as much as with movies and music, but we're getting there.
There was a sort of parade in Gothenburg yesterday where students made their carts and stuff and even though most of it was utter crap, there were some things that really made me smile; like seeing Luigi driving in Mario Kart and giants goombas.
Maybe we can't count students as the general public, but I still enjoy how the media grows and how almost everyone, young as well as old ones enjoyed and understood most of it.
- I wanted to jump it!
- Even some Farmville-references were there.
Teh importance of spelling
This might seem like an obvious thing, but here's a tip when developing games:
CHECK YOUR SPELLING!
Depending on the environment you work in, different amounts of text input is needed to make things work. For the designer it can be none existing because everything is drag 'n drop, or it can be mid-range and requires you to enter some asset names and stuff or it can be "extreme" and require you to do actual text scriping/coding.
Pretty much regardless of the environment, and regardless of your position, you should try and make sure to spell things correctly, and at very least, always spell it the same way.
If members of the development team are required to write the same thing as someone else it's an must that they use the same system, which is preferably correctly spelled English.
If there are problems with having the entire team spell things the same way, you can lose countless time on trouble shooting why things aren't working.
It's spelled platform, not plattform. If you're gonna write plattform, at least do it all the time. And make sure not to be sloppy and write plattfrom. If you're unsure if it's spelled movable or moveable, look it up or chose one and stick by it.
As I said, it may sound obvious but then prove it by never making that misstake and you'll make the world a better place.
Thanks in advance.
Cleaning Game?
There's been previous talks about how to implement gaming into the everyday life and activities and let me tell you one thing. I'd love to have a cleaning game.
Every day after work I start going trough my stuff (read: shit I've collected over the years), keeping some, throwing some away, trying to sell some of it and packing the rest. I would be enjoying the whole thing a whole lot more if there was a system monitoring my choices and giving me points for every item I donate to the poor, etc.
Heck, if there was such a system, I wouldn't let my place turn into the mess it has in the first place!
It's all about the Theory of Fun which I link a video about in:
http://arcadeberg.com/causerie/highscore-hurts/ (26/4/2010)
And talking about games and the real life working together, I found this today on Gamasutra. There's a company that's launching a thingymajing for the NDS that's suppose to help people work hard on handling their diabetes. Since I'm a diabetic I find this very interesting. It's not something I'll use, but it's interesting nonetheless.
[...]DIDGET converts blood glucose test results into reward points.
Players can redeem these points to unlock new levels, minigames, and items[...]
- http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28234/Bayer_Launches_Diabetes_Management_Game_for_Nintendo_DS.php
Here's the problem I see with this. The games unlocked in this package are probably gonna... Well... Suck... Hard... So very, very hard. I really hope I'm wrong.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that in a product like this you really have to create a strong incentive to actually wanting to unlock more stuff and I'm not sure they can do that. Great idea otherwise though.
But being a diabetic is not the only reason why I found this interesting. Dun dun dunnn! Stay tuned!
Looks the same, plays different
One of the biggest and most respected Swedish game journalist, Petter Hegevall recently complained a bit about Splinter Cell: Conviction on his blog. He says he doesn't like the game holding his hand while playing:
Easy game control is a good thing. Well-done game mechanics is another good thing. But when Ubisoft removes much of the charm of being stealthy and sneaky by rewarding me with the function to be able to shoot all the bad guys I see with the touch of a button - then I wonder, was it really a gameplay related point of the reward?
It works like that, the new system of Conviction. A possibility to win by putting out a small red marker to kill a whole bunch of enemies by pressing a button. In my world it becomes more of a punishment, because I play stealth games to get to feel really über-awesome to sneak up on every enemy - and kill them silently.
[...]
This is surely wonderful for many when Conviction turns into a cool movie, complete with the Jason Bourne-influences and everything.
(Translated from Swedish) - http://www.gamereactor.se/blog/petter/#162263 (18/4/2010)
I disagree and I think he just doesn't get it. It's weird, really. I respect him and he usually writes good stuff, but this time I'm just no sure what he's thinking. He complains about the game turning into a movie instead of game, because of the feature to "mark" several enemies and execute them with a press of a button. I see it another way. All they've done is that they've moved and refocused the gameplay.
To be able to execute this technique you first need to perform special actions, like killing someone in stealth close combat, so the stealth gameplay is still very much there and heavily encouraged. The gameplay now focuses on preparation, placement of Sam Fisher (the avatar) and the execution/activation of a planned attack. That for me, is still a whole lot of fun, interactive and not in any way "automatic" or a movie.
Basically, they've just done the shooting aspect of the game more streamlined, which still isn't the entire game, thanks to the stealth, the gadgets and the maneuverability.
Sure, one could argue that the result is a less fun game if you're looking for a precision shooter. But I'm pretty sure the devs knew the game inside and out when designing the levels and scenarios, so claiming that the game became too easy just because of this it strange, because it's a result of many things.
Spectator Game?
At work today some of us were talking about sports like ice hockey, soccer and curling and one of the other guys mentioned that the games are designed to be fun to look at.
Should we design video games to be "spectator sports"? Of course, the game have to be fun for the player as well, but should we spend resources on making the game more fun for the people not playing it as well?
It would help sell the game, obviously. Seeing a game that was fun even just to watch, you'd be more likely to wanting to experience more of it.
Take Rock Band and Guitar Hero for example. And Singstar for that matter. They're games that usually have more people than the game can handle at once, so people pass around the instruments at parties and such. But if you ask me, they're not fun to watch... At all!
A lot of improvements could be made to make the game more enjoyable to watch. At least, that's what I think. Although, admittedly, I can't think of any excellent ones at the moment.
Games like Grim Fandango are great to watch, because they in a way present the same value as a movie.
But here's a question: Except for cinematics and things very similar to that, what makes a game enjoyable to watch? The game being unpredictable? Cool effects? Awesome one-liners? Amazing graphics? Ninjas? Or is it something completely different that's the secret ingredient?
I don't have a definite answer, but I think it's safe to assume that there are many different ways to go.
Play while installing
Just like everyone I hate having to wait for games to be downloaded and/or installed on my computer or console.
This may already be used in same games that I didn't know about. If so; that's great. But I would love for games to be playable before they're completely on the harddrive. The actual game logic is never all that big, it's always the content, like art and audio that takes a great amount of space.
So why not make sure that the "level 1 data" is handled first, so you can at least play that while waiting for the rest?
When installing Microsoft Office 2010 (Beta), they do just that. You can start using the stuff immediately and to be honest, I don't know what's being done in the background.
I bet you feel like a better person now after reading this!
...
“Outside the game”-expectations
When we see a door we expect us to be able to open it. When we see a key we expect to pick it up. When we get a pistol we expect to use it to kill stuff. When there's a hallway in Resident Evil, we expect it to be scary as hell.
There are all forms of expectations when we play games. Many are based on other similar games, like when playing an FPS you keep comparing it to how other FPS games work. If you get a handgrenade, you'd expect to throw it. Not to pull the pin, hold the grenade and then die.
Whenever I play a new Mario-game I can be sure of a few things. Like that it'll be accessible, charming and that I won't pee myself because of fear. Hopefully I won't pee myself at all, come to think of it. Anyway, my point is we always have references while playing and we base our expectations on those.
One of the most brilliant ones I've ever played is in the "Lost in Nightmares" expansion for Resident Evil 5.
Back in -96, the first Resident Evil was released and while the game became a hit, there was one part in particular that came to become an instant cult classic. I'm talking about a hallway in which dogs jump in from outside through the windows. The first time around, players weren't ready for it and it scared the living shit out of them, me included. I remember actually having nightmares... Come on, I was 10 years old.
Whenever people talk about scary moments in games, that scene is brought up.
All of the following Resident Evil games of course had more (in amount) scary moments but I don't think anyone was as effective.
In the Lost in Nightmares expansion, you're playing in an estate extremly similar to that in the first game and to the right of the main hall, just like in the original, there's an identical hallway and guess what; it gave me the chills. In addition, you also hear dogs barking. Not nice!
Déjà vu in all its glory. When walking in the exact same corridor again, you get that eerier feeling if knowing that you're in a very, very scary place, but because it's something new at the same time, you do not know what's gonna happen.
It's an excellent example of a good use of the references players that knows about the first Resident Evil have.
If you haven't played it, I'm not gonna spoil what does, or does not happen...
























