In 1999,
Doug Church wrote an article, entitled 'Formal Abstract Design Tools',
outlining a particular method he had come up with for talking accurately and
academically about specifically the design of games.
He begins
by briefly discussing one of the main issues that has appeared from the lack of
any clear language for games design. He talks about the technology behind
physically building games and that, because games technology has a clear path
for evolution, it is far ahead of the actual design behind games. To combat
this issue, Doug Church puts forward his suggestion.
Formal
Abstract Design Tools
- Formal - Precise, explainable definition
- Abstract - Underlying ideas
- Design - For use with the design
of games
- Tools - Common vocabulary
He then
goes on to analyse specific examples of games and extract some 'FADTs' from them,
which can then be applied to other genres and games.
- Intention
- Consistent, clear game
world reaction to player
- Player can create own plan
in response to a situation and game world mechanics
- Perceivable Consequences
- Visible Feedback
- The player should be
aware of consequences before making choices
- Consequences do not appear
arbitrary
- Story
- Narratives created by
player and gameplay, or specific writers creations.
Doug
Church does note that these tools cannot, by themselves, be used to build a
game; instead they are to be used in order to shape and guide the rest of a
game's creation. Moreover these tools can act in conflict with each other if
not properly understood and utilised. He does spend a large section of his
article talking about one particular solution to the issue created by having
story and perceivable consequence in opposition. Giving a player a multitude of
choices in a game makes it significantly harder to create a powerful and
effective story, interactive storytelling is one of the most difficult aspects
of games design. Church outlines the solution used commonly in the series Final
Fantasy. In most of the entries in that series, the player has little to no
control over the decisions made regarding the story the characters pursue,
however the combat choices are entirely under the control of the player, who is
capable and empowered to shape and create a team of characters and combat
styles however they wish. This solution effectively separates these two tools
into two sections, so that they never work in opposition.
To
conclude his article, Church reiterates that these tools are to be common to
all genres and that any evolution in one genre can also support, and further,
the evolution of an entirely different style of game; thereby catching up with
the evolution of games technology. The very last note is that the tools
provided in the article are just examples of how one might come up with a
number of tools by analysing and dissecting a particular game, and that this
article is just a start.
With
regards to my own opinions on this article, I firmly agree that games design
would surely benefit from a common, accurate language that could be used to
talk cross-genre about various features of games and how they can be improved.
However I also share Church's concerns that these tools could become just as
subjective and meaningless as the term 'fun', if they are not fully understood
and used correctly.
As I
noted at the beginning of this post, the article was written in 1999, which
does mean that we who are currently blessed to be living a decent number of
years after this article was written, can reflect upon the success of the ideas
put forward in it; and see if the lessons here were taken onboard.
Unfortunately, as I look upon our more modern collection of games, I must admit
that games technology is still far in advance of actual design. These games are
certainly incredibly popular, the focus of large game companies must necessarily
be on selling their games to a wide audience, and this goal is achieved perhaps
more easily by concentrating on the technology behind games rather than the
gameplay itself. But that's a conversation best saved for another day. Suffice
to say that although there are certainly innovations going on in the design of
games recently, generally speaking the 'Formal Abstract Design Tools' Doug
Church put forward in this article are either being largely ignored, misused,
or ineffective.
