Joe Danger Studio Says Design Documents "Insane"

[Amnestic]

What a load of crap.

Would Picasso have written down exactly where he was going to paint on a canvas?

If he had 100 different personalities each working on a different part of his painting, then YES. YES HE WOULD.

In other news, banana salesman says spoons are useless for eating fruit.

You've got an entirely valid point, but do you think that design documents on larger projects limit creativity at all? Could that be part of the reason why we see big-budget games that have absolutely terrible mechanics in them, despite millions of dollars spent?

Terrible mechanics? I'm not sure I agree with that. Some might, certainly, however you can hardly say that about all big budget games. Starcraft 2's mechanics were polished to a mirror shine and that's about as big budget as you get unless you're going for MMOs, but even those aren't all bad (though often they take a while to get that polish done. See: WoW. Good lord was Vanilla WoW awful at first).

While it is arguable that a design document on a big product might limit creativity somewhat (though even that's debatable, it also allows for greater polish on what you do have. The amount of "small group" games which aren't polished at all are arguably far worse than having 'terrible' mechanics.

Reduced creativity, in moderation, could even be argued as helping games along. Allowing developers entirely free reign is like...having an author without an editor. Yes, it allows the author to do whatever s/he wants with their book, but I would argue it would lead to poorer results.

/Think I'm rambling a bit.

 

[Weaver]

As a software engineer who has worked in the games industry, I know exactly what these guys are talking about.
Some publishers want every single aspect of the game detailed in a massive 500-1000 page document. When the game is commissioned, this document is thrown in the bin and no one looks at it, including the publisher.

This kind of up front design in software used to be commonplace. However, it is now becoming more prevalent that you dont need these. Agile methodologies suggest, "Working software over comprehensive documentation". It is a practice that is used in the entire software industry, not just in games.

Some publishers are starting to understand these practices, but most are dinosaurs.

In addition to this though, think of how often the design document is changed during the course of a game. It changes all the time when the team perhaps realizes something isn't feasible or thinks of a great idea - then the design doc is changed to reflect this.

If there was simply no document people wouldn't need to keep changing the damn design doc every time something new comes up.

 

[Jared]

They seem to hav e done well without them too! Way to break tradition!

 

[Brotherofwill]

I get where he's coming from and I'm inclined to agree. I wouldn't say they are "insane", but maybe sticking too them too much is insane.

The cooking analogy is particularly appropriate. I doubt a cook sits down to jot down a number of strict guidelines on what he puts inside the pan before just doing it. If he wants to try some honey in there, he'll just do it.

Ofcourse, in our current situation with this childish focus on AAA, 10+ hour HD graphical games it makes sense to have documentation. Noone wants to blow 50 million on some guy's dream, and orchestrating 100+ people based on experimentation is not very practical to say the least. I get the usefullness of documents in this situation, but most often all they lead to is functional, well scripted games without any kind of soul or merit. Very playable, very nicely executed but entirely forgettable.

My recommendation: Smaller teams make better games. Maybe not as long, maybe not as pretty but a better experience.

Would Picasso have written down exactly where he was going to paint on a canvas?

You wouldn't believe how meticulously some artist plan their work. Especially when you look at old masters, like Da Vincci, who spent months and months on indivudual paintings and had large preparatory phases before they even started. Picasso had extensive training and planning, it's not like he just sat down like some kind of flowerchild and just went at it.

The 'design documents' in art aren't written, they're drawn. Sketches, live studies, impressions, countless revisions of initial ideas.

http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/guernica/glevel_1/2_process.html

 

[teknoarcanist]

"I mean it's not like art can arise through seriously meditating on how to convey a specific theme, am I right? You have to just, like, let it flow, man. I'm an idea man, man! Don't wreck up my game your talk of 'plans' and 'practicalities.'"

"A game is supposed to be fun. How can you plan FUN with WORDS?"

"Street Fighter 2 is a work of art. Plain and simple. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, MAN. YOU. DON'T. EVEN. KNOW."

 

[Headwuend]

How can you plan FUN with WORDS?

(First, I realize that the quote must have been sarcasm, still was useful to get this out of my system. )


"Fun" doesn't just happen by accident or fooling around. At least nowhere near as fast as when you have some plan of the outlines. It'll save you a lot of work and nerves.

Granted, there is no magic formula and it's encouraged to stretch or break some rules, but the theory is there, it is extensive and it is immensely helpful.

I don't know (or care) how close game design is to any other art out there, but personally I just prefer the approach of craftsmanship or engineering over that of an artist - or at least of the picture some people have of artists.

Really doesn't mean you can't put your heart into it, though.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

If that works for them, then nice, but I really don't think saying the design doc is useless is correct. It's the same way that architects work, you need plans to know where everything is going and to make sure things are coherent and logical.

I agree that you can't always tell if something is fun or not by going off a doc, but just because you have plans doesn't mean you can't go and change things that aren't working, or tweek things as you go. It should be viewed as the base for everything to be built upon and changed where necessary. It's just an overarching guideline to make sure people have the same idea of how the project is meant to be built, not a sacrosanct set of restrictions.

 

[Riobux]

I think he makes a point, but it only works if the company keeps it's self informed constantly of the direction they're going and that the game is non-serious; mainly games like Joe Danger and Trials HD. However with games like Silent Hill...A lack of a design would of destroyed the game. A game that relies heavily on the environment is very easy to mess up and there-fore requires a ton of planning before hand.

 

[teknoarcanist]

How can you plan FUN with WORDS?

(First, I realize that the quote must have been sarcasm, still was useful to get this out of my system. )


"Fun" doesn't just happen by accident or fooling around. At least nowhere near as fast as when you have some plan of the outlines. It'll save you a lot of work and nerves.

Granted, there is no magic formula and it's encouraged to stretch or break some rules, but the theory is there, it is extensive and it is immensely helpful.

I don't know (or care) how close game design is to any other art out there, but personally I just prefer the approach of craftsmanship or engineering over that of an artist - or at least of the picture some people have of artists.

Really doesn't mean you can't put your heart into it, though.

Exactly. Every medium has the artistic side, and the side of technical craftsmanship. You can't negate one for the other--art without craft gives you a big self-indulgent pile of shit, and craft without art is just a soulless commodity.