Assignment 6 - Designer Genes

Game designers have evolved drastically over the short space of a few decades as video games have become more complex and time consuming. As a result positions are delegated to a team and each person has his role whether it be the designer, the producer, the sound designer, the programmer and so forth. Gone are the days when a game was created by just one person. Now are the times when multimillion projects require teams of specialists.

Gameplay, I feel, is primarily how the game itself plays. Such as your objectives; abilities; restrictions; and any other content in which the player him/herself controls.

Cutscenes are not gameplay however a boss battle requiring you to throw grenades into tank is a form of gameplay - the utilisation of game mechanics such as being able to throw grenades in a particular way that they land in the tank (Oh by the way, that particular example - Metal Gear Solid, M1 Tank battle).

I guess by that theory, gameplay and game mechanics are linked. Gameplay is the outcome of game mechanics. I'll use the same reference - being given the ability to use R1 to view in FPV to allow the user to throw a grenade into the desired direction is mechanics. Gameplay is the context in which the mechanics are presented - being told how to act and what abilities you should utilise to accomplish the goal.

Another example would be; mechanics are the ability to swing on a rope and gameplay is being presented with two platforms and no other means to get across other than the rope.

Designing a game requires you to put the ideas of game mechanics, gameplay, the programming that will proceed it, the constructs of the game and to 'plug' the design to the appropriate body so that the game can leave the drawing room and be created. Other factors such as financial liability, technological restrictions, production costs/time and marketability will also play into the game designers role as s/he must think about all of these things when designing their game.

There is no point in a game being too difficult; or not fun; or not attractive enough to make a profit. Even worse, would be to give a nod to the game only to discover half way through development that it is simply not possible to accomplish. The designer must put these things into consideration.
A team of designers work on pre-production and carry on through most of the production and must have some understanding of the programming that will proceed their designs whether it be art designer or sound designer. All things must be compatible and feesable.

Of course. All genres of games have different principalities. For instance a FPS like Halo may not require any puzzle solving to advance through the game compared to something like the survival horror Resident Evil.
However in Halo, run-and-gun is sufficient to advance through the story and reveal more plot. Whereas in Resident Evil puzzle solving is essential to unfolding the plot as the player is presented with dead ends and the inevitable feeling that they must solve some kind of puzzle.

Another example would be a sports game where the sole purpose of Pro Evolution Soccer is to score more goals than your opponent. Gameplay such as passing to a certain player to gain the advantage can not be applied to an adventure game with only one avatar and more than one objective in mind.

Financial factors also play a huge part in different genres too. Marketing and targeting the right audience and devoting certain levels of funds to each kind of game.

Games such as EA's American sports titles don't require huge funds as previous game engines can be used to create sequels and with the game mechanics and gameplay already there only certain elements need tweaking.

Whereas much more extravogant new and "innovative" titles need more dedication to design and perfecting the playability as well as funds being distributed fairly and not being wasted - because there's nothing worse than an 'average' title at the end of the day.

What's truely import to me is the overal product.
Not a single element but rather a whole array of great design aspects.

Cinematic quality can play an important factor in me liking a game but only if that game requires it such as Metal Gear Solid.
On the other hand, a game like Legend of Zelda does not need eight hours of cut-scenes to make it interesting as gameplay elements are usually incredible and appropriately placed.

RPGs require a great story to succeed as RPGs to me have become a bit stale and all tend to follow the same gameplay AND plot; an evil entity taking over the world overcome by a band of misfits all with their own reasons to avenge; controlled through turn based combat featuring dragons, high level bosses and hours of wandering around getting frustrated at random battles.

I tend to stray away from being a graphics-whore simply liking a game on it's physical appearance.
A true example of beauty is Killer 7. With it's insanely twisted plot which never actually makes sense unless you can grasp the difference between a similie and a metaphor; simplified controls on rails with interesting puzzles; cel-shaded 'simple' looking graphics; and cut-scenes varying from japanese anime to more traditional western style animation.
Sometimes the best games are the ones that aren't flashy and filled to the brim with different types of gameplay (Killer7 takes away your ability to explore and jump) and take a more traditional straight-forward approach.

What seperates a game plot to a movie or book is interaction. However even in Killer7 the interaction is limited - but something in it drives you forward to reveal more. Just as you would read on in a book, or would continue to watch a movie. The game forces you to PLAY more and more.