-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
"You aren't a game Dev so you don't get to have an opinion on what is or isn't bad game design"
- Thread starter Vex
- Start date
I think people can express whatever opinion they want. But if they're willing to discuss it, it's important to also understand that devs also have a lot of experience with games (and you could say even more, as they work on them). A lot of "why they didn't do THIS instead?" very likely went through their minds, but it didn't happen for some reason (which could be testing, budget, lack of time, not approved, etc). Maybe a fix for something affected performance somewhere, but there's no time to fix that for release, and it's not mandatory for certification.
I get that some people can get a better grasp of some things, but it'll always be from a player perspective unless you become a dev. And there are some things you can only see if you participate in the work environment.
I get that some people can get a better grasp of some things, but it'll always be from a player perspective unless you become a dev. And there are some things you can only see if you participate in the work environment.
True. But most people are also really bad at formulating criticism, and many are disrespectful if not outright toxic in the process, and don't know enough about what goes into making a game for their criticisms to be meaningful on any level. And I include myself when I say that, even though I'm less bad and rude than some.
A number of devs have already chimed in, and I honestly don't have too much to add. I'll echo that anyone should feel free, and be able to express their opinions on a game. The problems occur when "bad design" is the criticism when "bad design" is used as a subjective opinion for "I don't like this." This is compounded by criticism actually being difficult, even for people in the industry.
One of the greatest skills a designer has to develop is the ability to understand what someone is saying, without listening to the words they are using to say it. There have been some examples of this given in the thread, but one of my own personal anecdotes wasn't even from an external playtest and was instead from a junior engineer I was working with on a mission. He came to me one day and said, "So when the players get over this bridge, I really think it'd be awesome if a tank rolled over this shack, and then a helicopter came in and dropped off reinforcements. Then some mortars are launched, forcing the players to take cover." I took all this feedback and mulled it over. None of it fit into the intent of the mission, which was to be more of an infiltration beat for the players, where they got the drop on the enemy, not the other way around. However, what he was ASKING for wasn't the tank. It wasn't the helicopter or mortars. He was saying that the mission wasn't exciting enough. So I used completely different tricks to ratchet the intensity of the mission while ensuring the intent of the mission itself wasn't lost. After the next playtest, he came to me and said, "That is exactly what I wanted!" But it wasn't any of the exacts he asked for.
That is just one example of something I honestly have to do daily, be it with other devs or with playtest feedback. It's why Raging Spaniard was right with his short but sweet reply on page one.
One of the greatest skills a designer has to develop is the ability to understand what someone is saying, without listening to the words they are using to say it. There have been some examples of this given in the thread, but one of my own personal anecdotes wasn't even from an external playtest and was instead from a junior engineer I was working with on a mission. He came to me one day and said, "So when the players get over this bridge, I really think it'd be awesome if a tank rolled over this shack, and then a helicopter came in and dropped off reinforcements. Then some mortars are launched, forcing the players to take cover." I took all this feedback and mulled it over. None of it fit into the intent of the mission, which was to be more of an infiltration beat for the players, where they got the drop on the enemy, not the other way around. However, what he was ASKING for wasn't the tank. It wasn't the helicopter or mortars. He was saying that the mission wasn't exciting enough. So I used completely different tricks to ratchet the intensity of the mission while ensuring the intent of the mission itself wasn't lost. After the next playtest, he came to me and said, "That is exactly what I wanted!" But it wasn't any of the exacts he asked for.
That is just one example of something I honestly have to do daily, be it with other devs or with playtest feedback. It's why Raging Spaniard was right with his short but sweet reply on page one.
As a game developer myself: game design is much harder than it seems on the outside. There are many tiers of criticism and validity thereof. From lowest to highest:
- The "this game sucks design". This is obviously neither helpful not insightful.
- The "I don't like this element". This at the very least starts to home in onto what you find objectionable, but still leaves out 99% of the intellectual work of deciding if it really needs to change, how it affects the overal design, and what to replace it with.
- The "this element detracts from the overall design, for this reason". Assuming the reason is valid (a big if!) this starts to resemble actual, helpful criticism.
- The "this element would be better replaced with this element, for these reasons". It's very rare that a criticism gets this detailed and still gets it right, because the more specific you get in your prediction, the easiest it is to get it wrong (this is a basic property of predictions). But assuming the reasoning is solid, this is the most helpful of them all.
Not all criticism needs to be of the fourth kind to be valid; even something as vague as "this element feels / doesn't feel fun" can be helpful, cumulative feedback for a developer that is still exploring the potential design space of their game, to lean on the fun and move away from the unfun. What I find most frustrating is mistaking the helpfulness of this feedback with the implication that one has a better grasp on game design than the actual game designer. "Remove this" is as helpful, informed and aware of cascading consequences as taking the bottom card from a card castle.
Be as specific as possible. The design space of "don't do A", like most negatives, is infinitely larger than "do A"; you don't get designer points for "narrowing" the solution to the former. Everything holds up on paper; until you don't actually roll up your sleeves and start turning that paper into a game, you won't realize the multitude of ways in which your design breaks down and needs to be replaced with something else.
With time and experience, a good game designer can map and simulate in their heads whole gameplay systems without implementing them, and guess where they will not work, or break down. This same skill can be used to mentally simulate suggested changes in the design, which can come across to others as designers "not even bothering to try it to see if it works". This is 100% a skill you cultivate, and while playing a lot of games over the years also helps a lot, much of it has to be experienced first-hand by getting into the nitty-gritty of games as entities with hundreds of interlocking parts. This is why game designers are much more likely to listen to other game designers; they are more likely to come up with solutions that are complete and actually work, because they're used to making these mental simulations as their day-to-day work.
This got way too long and ranty so to sum it up:
- The most valuable feedback, by far, is that which comes with a potential solution that could actually work.
- You don't need to be a designer to provide feedback, but experience makes it much more likely that you will come up with a solution that actually works.
- The "this game sucks design". This is obviously neither helpful not insightful.
- The "I don't like this element". This at the very least starts to home in onto what you find objectionable, but still leaves out 99% of the intellectual work of deciding if it really needs to change, how it affects the overal design, and what to replace it with.
- The "this element detracts from the overall design, for this reason". Assuming the reason is valid (a big if!) this starts to resemble actual, helpful criticism.
- The "this element would be better replaced with this element, for these reasons". It's very rare that a criticism gets this detailed and still gets it right, because the more specific you get in your prediction, the easiest it is to get it wrong (this is a basic property of predictions). But assuming the reasoning is solid, this is the most helpful of them all.
Not all criticism needs to be of the fourth kind to be valid; even something as vague as "this element feels / doesn't feel fun" can be helpful, cumulative feedback for a developer that is still exploring the potential design space of their game, to lean on the fun and move away from the unfun. What I find most frustrating is mistaking the helpfulness of this feedback with the implication that one has a better grasp on game design than the actual game designer. "Remove this" is as helpful, informed and aware of cascading consequences as taking the bottom card from a card castle.
Be as specific as possible. The design space of "don't do A", like most negatives, is infinitely larger than "do A"; you don't get designer points for "narrowing" the solution to the former. Everything holds up on paper; until you don't actually roll up your sleeves and start turning that paper into a game, you won't realize the multitude of ways in which your design breaks down and needs to be replaced with something else.
With time and experience, a good game designer can map and simulate in their heads whole gameplay systems without implementing them, and guess where they will not work, or break down. This same skill can be used to mentally simulate suggested changes in the design, which can come across to others as designers "not even bothering to try it to see if it works". This is 100% a skill you cultivate, and while playing a lot of games over the years also helps a lot, much of it has to be experienced first-hand by getting into the nitty-gritty of games as entities with hundreds of interlocking parts. This is why game designers are much more likely to listen to other game designers; they are more likely to come up with solutions that are complete and actually work, because they're used to making these mental simulations as their day-to-day work.
This got way too long and ranty so to sum it up:
- The most valuable feedback, by far, is that which comes with a potential solution that could actually work.
- You don't need to be a designer to provide feedback, but experience makes it much more likely that you will come up with a solution that actually works.
It's not that you are wrong to have an opinion, it's just that a lot of fans really don't have a clue about how games are made, and make really uninformed knee-jerk comments about game design. There is a huge gulf between the game design knowledge of someone who just plays games, and someone who works 8-12 hours a day being immersed in a game studio, surrounded by some of the most knowledgeable and talented game designers in the world, and who spends huge portions of their time analytically breaking down and studying game design.
Having said that, knowing what fans like or dislike about games, how they react to them is greatly informative. Many game fans can also become game designers, and still do have many smart and creative ideas about games. But I think are a lot of game fans severely lacking self awareness.
Also, there is a certain bitterness to being a game fan. Not always realizing why your favorite game is broken (man this sucked before patches became a thing), knowing that corporate decisions forced your game out the door before it was done (bugs suck), or playing and seeing all the cool ways that your favorite games could be even better if the game had no budget restrictions or time constraints.
Having said that, knowing what fans like or dislike about games, how they react to them is greatly informative. Many game fans can also become game designers, and still do have many smart and creative ideas about games. But I think are a lot of game fans severely lacking self awareness.
Also, there is a certain bitterness to being a game fan. Not always realizing why your favorite game is broken (man this sucked before patches became a thing), knowing that corporate decisions forced your game out the door before it was done (bugs suck), or playing and seeing all the cool ways that your favorite games could be even better if the game had no budget restrictions or time constraints.
I don't think any dev in the industry would every say this or this is "bad design"...
Every year we are surprised by something that should not work, or is at the complete diametrical opposite of what we do or what our data show.
I remember the early success of PUBG : this game doesn't have metagame or arching progression, no satisfying ranking when you win, it's literally 99% frustrating. On top of that it required a powerful machine while super ugly and incredibly buggy.
Then Fornite proving that cartoon graphics are not, in fact, dead. Remember there was no AAA cartoony commercial success; Zelda Breath of the Wild was just 6 months old and moved only 3 million copies by then. I could talk about Souls-like games that are the definition of bad game design and horrible UX.
We have plenty examples like that. Nobody with experience would dare saying something is "bad game design" except ironically, to talk about a game's success.
Every year we are surprised by something that should not work, or is at the complete diametrical opposite of what we do or what our data show.
I remember the early success of PUBG : this game doesn't have metagame or arching progression, no satisfying ranking when you win, it's literally 99% frustrating. On top of that it required a powerful machine while super ugly and incredibly buggy.
Then Fornite proving that cartoon graphics are not, in fact, dead. Remember there was no AAA cartoony commercial success; Zelda Breath of the Wild was just 6 months old and moved only 3 million copies by then. I could talk about Souls-like games that are the definition of bad game design and horrible UX.
We have plenty examples like that. Nobody with experience would dare saying something is "bad game design" except ironically, to talk about a game's success.
I think it's all about constructive criticism.
It's okay to criticize. Just don't be an asshole about it.
And know what you're talking about, of course. Not just make assumptions.
It's okay to criticize. Just don't be an asshole about it.
And know what you're talking about, of course. Not just make assumptions.
True but you can't judge weather they should have used a different type of alloy in the car's left rear maguffin.
Players are free to judge design from a players perspective, but I've seen so many people rant about things that straight up wouldn't make sense in an actual game saying things like "They must be lazy, its so obvious how could they not see it" when 9/10 they did see it, but theres a very good reason it is the way it is.
I suppose this thread is kind of meaningless then, if we can't define a common standard for what game design critique *is*.
Not a chef either but I can tell if you fuck up making fish.
There are definitely aspects of game development that people on the outside take for granted, but being able to tell if your game design is bad doesn't require much thought or knowledge of the internal workings of the studio.
There are definitely aspects of game development that people on the outside take for granted, but being able to tell if your game design is bad doesn't require much thought or knowledge of the internal workings of the studio.
"I don't like thing" doesn't mean "thing is bad", and so much of what is offered up as "objective criticism" is just some variation of thing "I don't like thing".