Formal Abstract Design Tools

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.