I've seen many people argue the value of video games and the way they are made and sometimes arguing that there is only one way that games should be made, or seen, and anyone who doesn't agree with this is at fault. Seeing how other fields have developed, most notably art, architecture, physics, I believe that such a view is juvenile. Therefore I would like to have your inquiry on, what I would like to call, school of game design thought.
So what does school of game design means? Simply put ? how games are perceived by the public and by designers. Here are the three school I could think of:
Games as toys ? this may seem like a simple concept, but it is extremely deep in nature. Games as toys, sometimes called software toys, are the kind of games that rely on the player to create his own experience, to recreate the joy of building castles on the beach. These games may have goals or objectives, however it heavily relies on the player.
Games that could be an example for this are SimCity, Civilization and Minecraft. In games like Minecraft you aren't given an objective, you are given the game mechanics and left on your own to play as you will. Civilization has objectives, but the game let's the player do what he wants and reaching the objective isn't as important as just ?toying around?. Same could be said of SimCity, where the ?campaign? is mainly there to help introduce the player to the sandbox experience.
Games as art ? these games are defined by one phrase, artistic vision, their job is to transmit the vision of the team, or the designer to the player. The player may be offered some freedom, however this freedom never extends beyond the vision of the designer.
Games that can be classified in this category are Shadow of the Colossus, Mass Effect and Another World. Shadow of the Colossus used light, scenery and story to create an emotional engaging experience for the player, however the player, if the game is successful, will have the experience the designer intended. In Another World we have a similar case where the game designer used a unique art style and color to create a familiar, yet alien, world. Mass Effect puts the player in the shoes of an elite space marine called ?Specter?, however the player has a limited effect on the world, only as much as he is allowed.
Games as fast food ? this last category operates differently than the previous two. While ?Games as toys? tries to achieve the longlivity of Chess or Go and ?Games as art? the immortality of ?Hamlet? Games as fast food are designed to be consumed for a short period of time, usually between six months and a year, and then never touch again.
Most web based games are designed as such as their mechanics do not allow for a game to survive past the six months period. Another example may be the Fifa series or music games. FIFA must be annually updated, therefore the 2010 version is already obsolete a year later, music rhythm games comes with a limited library.
What do you think of these school of thought? Do you believe there are more? Is there some you dislike, some you like? Do you believe one of those shouldn't exist?
So what does school of game design means? Simply put ? how games are perceived by the public and by designers. Here are the three school I could think of:
Games as toys ? this may seem like a simple concept, but it is extremely deep in nature. Games as toys, sometimes called software toys, are the kind of games that rely on the player to create his own experience, to recreate the joy of building castles on the beach. These games may have goals or objectives, however it heavily relies on the player.
Games that could be an example for this are SimCity, Civilization and Minecraft. In games like Minecraft you aren't given an objective, you are given the game mechanics and left on your own to play as you will. Civilization has objectives, but the game let's the player do what he wants and reaching the objective isn't as important as just ?toying around?. Same could be said of SimCity, where the ?campaign? is mainly there to help introduce the player to the sandbox experience.
Games as art ? these games are defined by one phrase, artistic vision, their job is to transmit the vision of the team, or the designer to the player. The player may be offered some freedom, however this freedom never extends beyond the vision of the designer.
Games that can be classified in this category are Shadow of the Colossus, Mass Effect and Another World. Shadow of the Colossus used light, scenery and story to create an emotional engaging experience for the player, however the player, if the game is successful, will have the experience the designer intended. In Another World we have a similar case where the game designer used a unique art style and color to create a familiar, yet alien, world. Mass Effect puts the player in the shoes of an elite space marine called ?Specter?, however the player has a limited effect on the world, only as much as he is allowed.
Games as fast food ? this last category operates differently than the previous two. While ?Games as toys? tries to achieve the longlivity of Chess or Go and ?Games as art? the immortality of ?Hamlet? Games as fast food are designed to be consumed for a short period of time, usually between six months and a year, and then never touch again.
Most web based games are designed as such as their mechanics do not allow for a game to survive past the six months period. Another example may be the Fifa series or music games. FIFA must be annually updated, therefore the 2010 version is already obsolete a year later, music rhythm games comes with a limited library.
What do you think of these school of thought? Do you believe there are more? Is there some you dislike, some you like? Do you believe one of those shouldn't exist?