What is good game design?

[Grimsinger]

I was posed this question this week in my Digital Design Aesthetics class. As a game design major it's something I think of often, but being prompted this question in an academic environment led me to boil it down to one small statement. I'd like to hear your ideas on this, since you guys are the people who might be paying my bills one day. (Probably not)

Here is mine:
"Good design is the logical implementation of aesthetics and mechanics to maximize game flow and player engagement, using the simplest, most efficient methods possible to achieve the desired effect."

Edit: Thanks for pointing that out Matt! I spelled it right the first time...

 

[Dandark]

Not sure how I could put it to make it sound properly academic but I usaully think of good game design as being something not usaully noticed which allows to the player to easily move through the game without breaking flow or enjoyment.

Examples. Let's say you have to shoot your way through an abandoned house of baddies.

Bad design: Some doors are blocked off and I spend a good bit of time trying to figure out which way I am supposed to be going, I run into invisible walls and constantly wonder if that closed door is scenary or if I am supposed to go open it.

Good design: The way I need to go is simple enough to follow and there are no spaces blocked off by invisible walls, instead there is something clearly in the way such as rubble.

You get the idea I hope.

 

[Grimsinger]

I think your idea would fit in a class very well. I agree, we pretty much have the same idea.

 

[JamesCoote]

Take out the 'game' part, and it becomes really easy to answer:

The most effective solution for the cheapest cost

Then you have to work out a metric for success and a cost function. The cost is usually in dollar terms. How you measure the effectiveness of a game? Fun factor? How much people learned from it? The ability to make the player part with cash? Or maybe you're just making it for art's sake, in which case success may be to provoke thought or communicate a complex emotion or get talked about at dinner parties by the chattering classes

Or you could say, A well designed game is
- easy to learn, hard to master
- skill based, with an element of luck

 

[Terminate421]

When you look at little details. Like:

In Skyrim, when it rains the water in lakes and streams reacts if hit

In Gears of war 3, you can stick a grenade to a meatshield and throw the meatshield at the enemy

In Halo, Enemies react to where they are shot

 

[Vanilla_Druid]

I believe there is one golden rule to game design: the game is fun to play. Everything else is secondary.

 

[Matthew Dunn]

All of the above
As a fellow games design student
i agree with what i have a seen
My way of saying it

If it works and is fun.. Dont let EA or Actavision have any rights to it because they will reuse it to death

 

[Freechoice]

I believe there is one golden rule to game design: the game is fun to play. Everything else is secondary.

This, basically.

I would also add that any generality is useless because it doesn't address the majority of games in any meaningful manner.

 

[Berenzen]

The sequelitis video about Megaman X talks about how good the level design in that game is. And it's really, really good. Academically, your definition is quite solid. I'll link the sequelitis video in the spoiler below.


Another game that has extremely strong level design is Pokemon, though I could do a whole thesis on how pokemon games have good design. Between combat, level, and UI, from a designers standpoint it is a great system.

 

[Waffle_Man]

The point of understanding something academically isn't so that you can break it down into a single statement. The point of an academic understanding is the ability to recognize the intricacies and ambiguities. After all, is there anything that the statement actually tells you about game design? It essentially boils down to "make stuff internally consistent so that people enjoy it." This doesn't even touch on player psychology and actually seems antithetical to ludic depth.

Instead of trying to answer the question, try to understand why the question needed to be asked. You will probably find that it makes you stretch your mind more than just trying to compress your current understanding of the subject into a single sentence.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Yep, that sounds like a game design student's answer all right.

Uh, on topic, understanding your market and your goals and creating the most fun experience with your realistic resources. The question is really nebulous and to try to answer it simply isn't that useful.

 

[kortin]

I consider a game to be good design as long as the game is engaging and does what it is intended to do (be it to teach or to let the player have fun or any number of other things).

Also, if you haven't already, you should go check out the Extra Credits crew. They really know what they're talking about when it comes to this stuff. They've skedaddled (lol) on over to the Penny Arcade website, for anyone who doesn't know.

 

[Yopaz]

Good game design should give the user a sense of control. This includes responsive controls, the ability to do things they way it suits you or something along the lines. Also it should be fun to play.

 

[sumanoskae]

The term you have is good, but I think the question is a bit broad. I mean, in the simplest terms, good game design is just about making a game enjoyable to play, something that people will be thankful that they experienced.

But there are many different ways to go about doing so, and not all of them demand simplicity, sometimes they don't even demand the experience be intuitive.(i.e Demon's Souls)

I think that good design is ultimately about insight and focus. Understand what you're trying to convey, and don't loose sight of it.

Start simple, example: "I want my game to feature exhilarating combat", so your first order of business is to find what games made you appreciate combat and study them. Find out what made them work and try to apply it to your game. But remember, you're not looking for the mechanics themselves, you're trying to pin-point the reasons they worked.

Don't allow yourself to settle on a sweeping statement like "Because X is just fun", because then your only choice will be to emulate what's already been done. Since you don't understand how it works, you can't take it apart to find the pieces you want, so your only option is to take the whole thing, or else you risk breaking it.

You need to keep pushing. "Yeah this is fun, but why is it fun?". If you can't find the answer you need to keep going, no matter how hard it gets, you need to focus in on the very central feeling a good game provokes, and find the exact reason it induces that reaction. How can you expect to build anything if you don't know what it's made of. Would you build a car without an engine?, only if you'd never looked inside the hood of a car.

Ideas don't just spring fully formed from the head of Zeus, everything is based on something.

All fiction, nay, all human creation and interaction, is referential, derivative. don't resent that fact, embrace it, find what inspires you, what makes you angry, what makes you sad, what makes you happy. Find a game you want to fix, a game you want expand on, when you play think about all the things you wish you could do, and that's your first step.

The problem with this question is that you're asking "How do you make a good game?", and that's not a scientific question, it's an emotional one. It's like asking how to paint a masterpiece, it can't be explained because it comes from within. You need passion, you need to understand yourself before you understand anything else.

Good game design is knowing exactly what you want people to feel, and building every mechanic of a game to work towards inspiring that reaction.

 

[RuralGamer]

If a game is fun, nothing else really matters, although additional stuff is icing on the cake to make it even more fun (if that isn't some form of contradiction).

For me, replayability is a big one; if a game can draw me back in later, or make me want to start again when I've finished, then the game immediately stands out as good. Here, I'm not just talking about it from my standpoint, but also from the developer's and publisher's; if they make a game I want to go back to, then I'm more inclined to buy DLC and show interest in their sequels or similar games if they show the same replayability; for example, the reason I got (and loved) Fallout 3, having no idea what it was about and not even played it, was because I'd loved Oblivion and was more willing to try other games they've made. Same goes for Bioware; I bought and played Jade Empire, simply because I'd played KOTOR 2. Doesn't always work (as in Dragon Age: Origins), but usually it does.

Little, subtle things done well make a big difference, especially sound. Whether its a single sound (like that ominous little sound queue that plays when you find Nord ruins in Skyrim) or a background noise (like the Lower City on Taris) and of course, the actual soundtrack when it adds to the feeling. (see the Stalker series in particular).
Other subtle things include making design decisions consistent with the theme for even the smallest of things which you don't really pay attention to.