A new approach to game design

[Marek]

Hey guys! I used to hang around these forums a few years ago. After a long break I've decided to come back to PBBGs because php is still one of my passions.

Anyway, I want to introduce you guys to an experimental idea for making a game.

The approach: Create a basic, bare-bones game, and put it online. Then, under the direction of player suggestions and ideas, build your game up step by step, incrementally.

Essentially, it means start beta-testing your game before it's finished. Before the design is even finished.

Why this approach?

Traditionally, the purpose of beta-testing is to make sure everything works. You check that there are no bugs. But who says the only bugs are in the code/implementation? What about "bugs" in the design itself?

Well, the fact is that game programmers aren't perfect, and game designers aren't perfect either. Just as there can be flaws in the coding of the game which make the game not work, there can be flaws in the design which make the game not fun. It's hard to spot such problems, and even harder to change them, when you've already designed everything.

So the solution is you "crowdsource" the game design. You let players contribute their ideas, and gradually add them into the game if they're good.

Now, some people will be afraid of the idea of giving the players too much influence. "It's my game!" Very true, but think about it: who is the game for? Is it for you or for the players? There's no wrong answer here, but if you answer that it's for the players, then I believe there's nothing to be afraid of. After all, you'll be the hero for making a game that matches closely what your players want.

Keep in mind that this approach doesn't mean you actually have to listen to your players! It just means that you involve them and allow them to give their feedback. You can then evaluate that feedback, and still make decisions for yourself. Sometimes, a few comments or suggestions can be more valuable than hours of designing and planning. Sometimes you get ideas you would never have thought of. Even if you don't end up using the feedback, you're likely to learn a lot about people's thoughts and maybe get ideas for your next game.

What are your thoughts? Would you be willing to try an experiment like this? Or are you too possessive/perfectionist about your games that you wouldn't open them up like this?

[karnedge]

I thinks it's a pretty interesting idea. I would love to see this in action.

Although, it sounds like the bare bones game part would be like a normal PBBG in alpha testing but with less if not nothing to do for the user but login and submit ideas.

Would your crowd sourcing ideas be using something similar to http://www.ideatorrent.org/ (self hosted/open source) or http://initech.uservoice.com/ (commercial service) ?

[Sagefire135]

i played a game with a similar idea a while back. It was coded with the typical rpg elements (stats, leveling, training, items, gemming, ect...) and then opened up. Since it had the basic things, players were able to advance in the game while giving their input at the same time. the owner expected to add stuff but we were a creative buntch of players

For some reason the owner mysteriously disappeared and the game was taken offline after a few years of running (still no idea why...) But at the time it poofed the game was TOTALLY different. one example, it started with 10 or so items (weapons only dealt damage, armour only provided defense) later when players wanted more, we were given more, some items got bonuses to exp already one them, some added to stats (think diablo 2 magic items) when those got old, and players asked for more, we got more again. an entire system for item creation was made, and staff were appointed to make items. by the time the game ended there were hundreds of different available items and quite a few of them were  actually used.

another example was with the gemming system. started off with only 4 types of gems with 4 grades each.  they added to damage, defense, gold gain, and exp gain depending. players asked for more customizability, so the gems were made to do different things depending on what you put them in. later we wanted more, so the system was completly scratched and redone to give 28 different gems, 14 normal and 14 special which. adding to stats, exp gains, adding %s to stats giving more hp lowering level requirements, ect.

I dont think it was intended to work this was, but it ended up being much better than it had started and the owner had mentioned more than once that he woudl never have thought to include some of the things we players suggested.

the only downside of this is that players always want more so there is eventually a point where you need to say no, and you need to be careful to keep the game balanced and not too complicated.

As for would i be willing to try this, OF COURSE! sign me up!

[codestryke]

Our two most successful games were coded in this manner. I had grandiose ideas about the games at first but I was coming off from the consulting aspect where you want to get a design on paper in front of the client as soon as possible so you ensure that you and the client are on the same page. The same held true for the games, write a base game, when I say base I mean the meat of the game whether it be combat, opening for business or hacking is done but all the smaller stuff is put on the side. Basically you provide the meat and let the player's pick the sides, ala cart Your player's too will have ideas about the meat of the game but you can't just open a game with in game messaging, chat and shops to buy stuff LOL.

One thing I will say though, letting the player's decide about game features isn't 100% either. You, the game designer, have to have the final say and see things as a whole. Game players will suggest a lot of things but the majority of the suggestions only aid themselves. You have to take all that is said and do what is right by the game NOT THE PLAYER!

Back when I was a teen I worked at Six Flags Great America in Illinois. When I went though employee training they teach you that the park doesn't have customers they have guests. You need to treat each person as you would treat a guest in your home. That philosophy has stuck with me ever since and honestly has never done me wrong

[Zeggy]

One thing I will say though, letting the player's decide about game features isn't 100% either. You, the game designer, have to have the final say and see things as a whole. Game players will suggest a lot of things but the majority of the suggestions only aid themselves. You have to take all that is said and do what is right by the game NOT THE PLAYER!

I agree, you should never forget this

A lot of suggestions you get aren't necessarily going to benefit all the players. It might only be good for a small number of players, or only the one player who suggested it. Just remember that there are good ideas, and there are terrible ideas, so try to make the right decisions

[shoespeak]

I feel like a suggestion forum on your boards would take care of this nicely.

Unless you are talking about opening up the source code, letting players have pretty much all control...well unfortunately, if you let players make the rules, the missions, the objectives, they will get bored and leave. There has to be some objective for the players, even if it is cheating their way to the top. In the end they want to play a game, not make one.

However that is not to say that a user creation system is bad...letting players create quests,weapons,shops,mini games, is prettya interesting idea

[zykal]

trying to please everyone at once often leaves no one pleased at all.

Its a good idea just be sure to use logic when thinking about ideas and implementing them.

I've heard some really wacked stuff come from players that they just didn't think about.

then again they will spark ideas in you too.

its a double edged sword, if you use their ideas they will notice and think they have an impact (if they are viable) if you don't they will think your just shining them on.