213: Method and Madness

[James Portnow]

Method and Madness

You've heard of Method Acting, whereby an actor attempts to "get into" a role by living as the subject he wishes to portray. But did you know it can work for game development as well? James Portnow explains the little known art of Method Design and how a trip to the firing range can help you make a better shooter.

Read Full Article

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Uhg mew brains are not in high gear I am seeing everything backwards here ><

?Unfortunately, when creating experiences for players, we designers frequently spring to ivory tower answers to these questions. We say things like "guns fulfill a power fantasy" or "the feeling of speed plays on ancient predator/prey instincts," but I'm not sure that's good enough. Yes, human psychology is a vital part of game design - I'd even go so far as to say that it's impossible to design a good game without considering the psychology of the player - but designing experiences without partaking in those experiences (where possible) seems like taking the easy way out.?
---
Does not mean you have to A reinvent the wheel or B make a movie or worse yet C reinvent movie making through gaming. Interactive films is what I think about when I think of modern gaming I do not think of fun, deep and rich gameplay and how it connects me with the game, its world and characters. It?s that subtle connection that makes gaming wonderful beyond all other mediums and it?s that connection that?s been spiraling down the tubes since gaming went corporate 10ish years ago.
============================
?Method Design is the practice of living the experiences you design to help you better convey that experience to players. But merely living an experience is not nearly enough to make it useful for designing a game; it requires careful introspection and a very specific way of observing your experiences. This is the heart of the Method.?
---
And IMO completely misses the mark?. You can?t just package a generic experience into generic gameplay and expect it to do well?.
===========================
?1. Don't look for realism. Instead, discover where reality and expectations don't jibe.?
The low points can be made fun if one would focus more on gameplay and how to make it fun again.
---
Using fancy words for gameplay is a bit disingenuous IMO you can?t turn a film project into a game and make it feel like a good game because from the outlook you started to make it as not a game but a ?experience? and through that short sighted rose colored view you?ve just made another generic interactive film.
=============================
?2. Discover where reality exceeds fantasy.?
---
But ?secrets?(hidden stuff) have been removed from games for the sake of reality or more over the realities of the game are far from fantastical. /incoherent rant
I see what you want to do and it?s not bad on its face IE making a intercut design that?s almost a part of daily life however I am constantly worried about ?results? I could frankly care less if you have a weapon, ect with a dozen animations it?s what that weapon dose and how the AI reacts to it that makes or breaks a game, look at Damnation it goes through the motions but because it?s not really built as a game its built as an ?experience? and you can see how well that did?.
====================================
?Training Introspection?
---
AArrgghhh either mew brains are dead today or are you talking in bloated shallow words, surprise and dissatisfaction are by nature fickle terms one can try and play averages with or work to make the experience practical for what it is and fun for what it?s trying to be.
I mean I see you are trying to describe a kind of screen play here? but I hate event music.
Seriously through seeing what film dose with scenes it?s not that hard to play out certain events and make them an ?enjoyable? experience but as I said above its the outcome the result after that I am stuck with, gaming is not a one off type of media like film is its cascading for every action/experience there is another I think devs need to be more focused on the ?WHOLE? experience rather than paint by number clichés that can so easily lead one into painting themselves into a corner?.
================================================
?For Experiences You Can't Experience?
---
It?s simple?.you don?t need to experience it?. And you do at try and cover reasonable facsimiles ..but I still think you are trying to make it out to be more than what it is?.
====================================
?A Final Word of Warning?
--
I am to jaded to follow anything remotely industry standard so you?ve filled my head with nothing?mmm?perhaps that why I suck so much?.
=================================================
?One of the dangers of the Method is that it's easy to fall into the trap of becoming a slave to realism rather than a creator of fantasy. Don't go adding Desert Bus to your game just because you lived it.?
---
Doom 3, Unreal 03,gears,quake 4,cod, ,ect,ect adnasusum gaming has in part become a slave to realism, the look and feel of the experience combined with copying film making elements has turned gaming from Quake 1-2 imagination driven concept and design that creates a deep and enriched game to Doom 3 and Quake 4 where realism more than artistic expression takes center stage , where bland realism replaces inventive and genius level design(so much so I can claim that doom 1 has better level layout design than 90% of modern FPSs without being laughed out of the room) where insipid realism infects weapon design and balance so much a game is simply ?pabulum-atic? or boring to play because the essence of gaming was ignored during the development cycle.

I mean look at bioshock it?s a mess pacing/item wise gun play is so so damages even worse than so so, if not for all the choices you are given it would be an interactive film much like DOOM 3 before it. But it sold well so it must be doing something right?..man can sell his soul for riches but is the price worth it?

What I am getting at we can do better, create a fully/richer experience for everyone not just the noobs who don?t know better, and yes I use the term we loosely since my coding style is slash and burn(cut and paste) it?s almost worse than my style of grammar >>
Research of it IE reasonable facsimile will bring you close to your goal you may can polish the visuals, ect with method design but it is only part of designing a audio/visual presentation and thinking of games like that, where interaction(be it with AI, how the weapon works in the world, ect) is 2nd or 3rd just makes for lulzy design IMO?..

Zippy speak brought to you today by Dyslexia, Dysphasia and ADD??

 

[Rykka]

I really well thought out article and an inspiring piece for fellow designers. I carry a similar philosophy in the things I work on and am always eager to taste as much of the worlds I help create as I can. This has led to everything from being thrown down a hill, a broadsword swung at my head, to unexpectedly being plunged into darkness. They all help to add some personal insight into what might otherwise be an ambiguous matter, and often serve up little details we'd never consider looking at the situation from afar.

I'd love to hear about your three days as a vagrant, if it's not too off topic to discuss here. It sounds like it must make for an interesting little story all it's own. I admire your dedication in that immensely.

Rykka~

 

[FloodOne]

Great article. I'm most impressed by your dedication to your craft.

 

[Alan Au]

Thanks for that peek behind the curtain of game design. I think that the advice generally holds, and it reinforces the notion that there's really no substitute for experience. Of course, this belies the big caveat of the article: reading and even adhering to a set of design rules is not the same as actually doing it.

@ZippyDSMlee: I suspect you're focusing too much on what the article doesn't say instead of what it does say.

- Alan

 

[Fugue]

Yes, yes! You weren't there, you don't know what it's like.

So much is learned from experience. It is a talent to break down these experiences, identify what is core about them, and draw from that to create entertainment/immersion. If nothing else it can give you a target to shoot for.

 

[AkJay]

I play video-games to escape "Realism" so yea, i say it is.

 

[Nivag the Owl]

I tend to avoid realistic games because that's the point where I just think, if I wanted to do this so much, I'd do it in real life.

 

[Jaebird]

Hmm... I can't seem to put down into words how I feel about "realism" in games. Never had to think about it before, due in part of me being a super-man taking on alien demons with a pocket knife/rocket launcher while saving the princess.

 

[Grand_Poohbah]

Werewolf zombie space shooter sounds kinda like Wolfenstein.

 

[Earthbound]

I play video-games to escape "Realism" so yea, i say it is.

Agreed. I'll actually avoid games if they go overboard on the realism. Gears of War? Blood, grit, and everything grey and brown; I'll pass. Borderlands, cell-shaded, purposely forth-wall breaking, and bullets made of freezing napalm; I'll take two.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

*snip*

Okay I get what you are saying (sort of) but to summarize for those that didn't:
Stop giving us that same damn gun metal gray M16, and give us back the technicolor BFG 9000 which was a hell of a lot more fun!

 

[Denmarkian]

Realism in games is fine, it's just that people designing games are going for the wrong type of realism. Many games, especially Military tactical shooters like the Call of Duty franchise, Gears of War, and MGS4 are hell-bent on giving realism of environment. The obsession over physics, the hi-res textures and models, the million-dollar particle effects engine; all this is done to put the player in a "real" environment, but it is at the expense of designing realistic characters that the player is interacting with.

Do you feel bad when your squad-mates get mowed down fifteen feet into enemy territory? No, you don't because they're not real, they've not been developed enough for you to give a damn if they live or die. Sure, your in-game character can get all broken up over them, but you as a player don't have that emotional attachment.

In my opinion, the most realistic game I've ever played was Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom. Sure, it's Wing Commander, set in space, in the future, and the human race is rebuilding itself after a long space-war with a race of humanoid cat-beings. BUT the characters are fleshed-out; your interactions with them have meaning and affect the way they behave toward you later on in the game. I still haven't played through enough times to hit all of the options in the Choice Tree that Colonel Blair has throughout the game.

I think the demand for Whiz-bang Graphics for the past 15 years has taken priority over creating characters we care about. Unfortunately, the advances in technology have done well to feed the cutting-edge graphics addiction, rather than helping designers write better characters.

 

[historyfend13]

If the game calls for a sense of Realism, then going overboard is a bad thing. Some people want to experience an altered universe because they seek the sense of escapism many games and books offer us.

 

[DaxStrife]

The issue is definitely a tight-rope walk for graphics designers. There's usually two scenarios where realism isn't appropriate for a game: when it doesn't fit the game world, or when it makes things uncomfortable.
For the former, I cite Psychonauts: that game needed a unique, cartoonish aesthetic to be taken seriously... how weird would it have been if those kids looked like real people?
For the latter, I cite Fallout 3: the original Fallouts had over-the-top graphic violence, and with the low resolution graphics it came off as pulp, almost cartoonish, "Kill Bill"-esque if you will. For Fallout 3 they worked hard to make the game world and characters realistic, but wanted to keep the graphic "head-explodey" violence, which sometimes came off as a bit sickening (to me, anyway). Worst part was the "Bloody Mess" which made things even more disgusting: a headshot would make limbs fall off the body, or just make it explode into chunky salsa. X-(

 

[Megacherv]

Games like Halo 3 and the Gears of War series shouldn't have realism in them. They're adding realism to an un-realistic setting. Without realism, games can be a lot more creative and a lot more balanced. For instance, with Halo 3, there was a definite choice of weapons that were good and weapons that were pure tripe. With Halo 2, these weapons weren't all as bad. Someone with a battle-rifle could still be killed as easily with a pistol. If you take any of the Unreal Tournament games, weapons are all as capable (well...except for the lightning gun and redeemer. Former is shite, latter is awesome), they're all easy to use and can kill or be killed by anyone with any weapon. Also, no annoying reloading. You know that moment when you're in a fire-fight, your enemy has a millimetre of health left, and you have to reload. In that time, your enemy's blown your sad reloading arse into oblivion.

Another example is weapon capacity. Halo, only 2 weapons (not counting dual-wield). Unreal, Quake, DOOM, Ratchet and Clank etc. weapon capacity is limited only by the number of weapons that are in the game. When you run out of ammo, you have a huge choice of weapons to switch to. Other games you only have one other weapon, which can then run out, or it's just shite.

There, my 1.325 pence....

 

[Nincompoop]

It's important to know that games are not supposed to be realistic, just to be realistic. They have to be realistic, because part of the real world rox0idz.

 

[civver]

"Unfortunately, when creating experiences for players, we designers frequently spring to ivory tower answers to these questions."

While I do search for ivory tower intellectualism sometimes, most of the time gaming is about the visceral experience. Most of the time you'll be appealing to emotions and base desires.

As for realism, I generally appreciate it when a game is as realistic as possible. The settings I prefer are mostly "realistic" (probable in reality) to a certain degree. But of course I recognize that some realistic components may not be fun. The point about taking elements of reality exceeding fantasy is a good point, since it is exhilarating when a game goes beyond your expectations and is really part of what is considered to be the pinnacle of game design.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

*snip*

Okay I get what you are saying (sort of) but to summarize for those that didn't:
Stop giving us that same damn gun metal gray M16, and give us back the technicolor BFG 9000 which was a hell of a lot more fun!

Congratulations you win a cookie,sorry for my grammar hell ><
To put it simply stop reproducing every nuance of the living world. Out with the bland,tried un realistic realism.