Culture Clash

(September 2004)

Legal Tender

Viewed from the highest altitude, there are essentially two halves to game development: design and execution. Design includes all the creative stuff, which must sit on Execution's technical foundation in order for the gamer to consume it. However brilliant and innovative the game design may be, it's merely garish window dressing without an underlying technical foundation to operate it. It's a symbiotic relationship: for games to be at their best, creative and technology need each other. Unfortunately, the executional side of games has historically taken precedence over design. As the critical vocabulary of gaming evolves, design must keep pace with – or even supplant – executional considerations. If it doesn't, gamers will drift away, because games will cease to satisfy them.

This is because gaming has finally begun to evolve a standardized vocabulary framework of its own. Gamers and designers alike begin to understand the language of video games, which is by nature more experiential than technical. Simply put, the vocabulary of gaming speaks largely to what it is like to play the game , not what went into the game's technology . In the past, before language with which to discuss the impact of a ludic experience existed, technical focus made more sense. Lacking this dialogue, gaming was a novelty, a point of technical intrigue, rather than an emotive art form. Since that's no longer the case, it's time for a new approach. At the risk of stirring up some very alarming memories, the rule of the business should become “Design is law.”

Ion Storm Dallas, which coined this motto, endured a shameful public slide into oblivion. This in turn led some to believe that a refocus of gaming's energies on advanced design initiatives was a bad idea. But it wasn't the philosophy that brought Ion Storm down, and its games were among the most innovative of the day in terms of design. No matter how good or innovative its games are, a poorly managed studio is doomed from the start.

Satoru Iwata senses a looming crisis for games, but rather than refocus on design initiatives – rather than make better games – Nintendo has chosen to try a new technical avenue. This is certainly laudable from an engineering standpoint and potentially successful in the short term. However, it does little to address the underlying problem, the illness at the root of this crisis: that the current process of game design is tantamount to handing out sheet music at a concert rather than allowing the audience to hear the orchestra play. Magazines and back-of-box bullet lists detailing technical advances no longer have the power to hypnotize players into liking what they're told to like. Thanks to the new vocabulary, players know what they will like, and will seek games accordingly.

One obvious, if subjective, point that demonstrates this fact is that games have become successively briefer and less satisfying. Ask any gamer. While technology has been moving forward, design initiatives have remained largely stagnant, depending on those technical advances to conceal their shortcomings. No longer will amazing graphics or spatial audio conceal the fact that there's no game underneath the technology. Design must be the primary ingredient of a great game. It must be law.

Deus Ex was a design-centric game, in keeping with Ion Storm's “design is law” tradition. It existed upon a solid technical foundation, but the technology always took back seat to the game experience. And it was an excellent game. Deus Ex 2 , however, while certainly a nominee for the “Nice Try” award, shoved its advanced (and flawed) technology down the player's throat while stumbling on over-ambitious design aspects. We are seeing more and more games like this on the market, with the associated ho-hum player and press reactions, though it's commendable that DX2 at least tried some innovative new design ideas, if only to chicken out in the end.

Consider some modern examples of excellent design-focused games. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Morrowind , and Max Payne 2 were equal-opportunity design/execution titles. All have been well-received across multiple platforms and sported impressive technology under the hood, effectively demonstrating that design-centric development need not necessarily result in a poor or technologically inferior game. These games fused their excellence in design with solid technology. Meanwhile, there is little doubt that a poorly designed game with hyped technology is inferior.

A “Design is law” approach would change the budgetary needs of production and put greater creative power in studio hands. Design is cheaper than technology, and better-designed games are likely to sell better than their ineptly designed, tech-fetishist counterparts. Studios seeking to establish a niche for themselves in the next generation of consoles and PC hardware may find that focusing on design while licensing third-party technology will drastically reduce cost and time to market. Moreover, design-centric development will allow studios more creative freedom to explore innovative new game design ideas – and publishers may be willing to support them, since the overall cost of game development would be cheaper. It encourages innovation and evolution of the interactive medium, and will also encourage developers to brainstorm and decide who they are, in creative terms.

“Design is law” does not mean “design is everything.” The point is that these two portions of game development must find a design-focused equilibrium that more or less balances the two disciplines and allows each to draw strength and value from the other. We shouldn't minimize the importance of technology, though a well-designed game powered by anemic tech, like Thief , can be excellent, while a poorly-designed game with cool tech, like XIII , is likely to be mediocre. It really boils down to the fact that technology is already receiving more than its share of attention in development, leaving design in second place. The games of today are using today's technology but yesterday's design techniques. By bringing design onto par with execution, a renaissance, not a crisis, will occur in game development.