The trick of game design is to find the balance between ambition and execution. Fall to far on the ambition side of the equation and your game has potential, but is full of flaws. Fall to far on the execution side of the equation and your game make work perfectly, but doesn't stand out.
Another way of looking at this is that there are finite resources for any project. That tends to be somewhat jaded (in my opinion), but it's the same point. But limited resources aren't an excuse except to explain why game developers (or any company) don't have infinite scope on their projects.
This was an even bigger deal in the modding world where we had very limited capabilities and resources. It wasn't just about coming up with a great idea for a mod, but coming up with an idea that was implementable. There were so many grand ideas that could never be done, and so many dull ideas that could be done, but no one wants to create a dull mod. The hardest part of design is finding an idea that fits both criteria.
I talked a little last week about the Design phase of development. But now is the time we get to find out how implementable those ideas are. I'm not worried about not being ambitious enough (that's never a problem Stardock has had) but now we get to find out how executable the design is. The schedule is made, milestones are laid out, everyone knows what they will be doing throughout the entire implementation phase. If we stay ahead of schedule then the design is good and we get more time to expand and polish, if we fall behind on the schedule then it's Toby's fault (though seriously it means the design was to ambitious and some things will be cut).
It doesn't sound too bad to have to cut features in implementation if you fall behind. After all that's what you would have done with the features in design if you suspected they may be to ambitious. But it's much worse in implementation because every aspect of a well designed game is tied to every other aspect. The purpose of design is to iterate to get down to as tight and complete a design as possible. If you cut pieces from that it effects all the related pieces, and in implementation, when you are already suffering from an overly ambitious project and running late on the schedule, there is no time to design the rest of the game to address the missing part.
One last point about the implementation phase. It is where we rush. Design needs time, polish needs time, even lockdown needs its pound of flesh. But implementation is about getting feature complete as quickly as possible. Of course we can't go crazy with this, it doesn't do us any good to rush systems that we are just going to have to redo, or spend 2 days troubleshooting for every day we spent implementing. But it's all about getting a feature complete playable build together. We don't take time to add bells and whistles, if you want a cool effect to play when a particular spell is cast (like shaking the ground with earthquake) we don't do that in implementation. get earthquake in and functional and move on. Take note of opportunities you see to make improvements, but for now we need playable. We will come back with the bells and whistles.
That's it for this week. Please check out the 1.19 beta (https://forums.elementalgame.com/403879) for the latest version of Elemental. It is a polish patch and a beta version of the coming 1.2 patch. Also if you were planning on submitting an idea for the "Submit a Quest" contest (https://www.elementalgame.com/contest) there are only 4 days left. Toby and I have been writing our own quests and arguing about what makes quests great. If you want to know what you need in a great Assistant Producer, it's a guy who argues with you.
First.
In all seriousness though. 1.2 looks very good, I am gonna set out the beta version for the live one this time though. As my main problem lately has just been being bored while playing the game. I am really looking forward to your work on FE though. I have high hopes for that expansion. And my other free one too. But this one in particular sounds good so far.
One word.
Rivers....
This reminds me of something that I had to learn on my own when it comes to database work. It's basically a project management triangle that helps keep everything in focus.
You can have either everything you want in a short amount of time but not a lot of quality or functionality, or you can have all the functionality and quality in a short time without the content, or you can have all the quality and functionality and content, but you have to put a lot more time into it.
I think it pretty well illustrates the point being made here.
Or there's the Chinese triangle.
You can have good Chinese food, a good buffet, or a Chinese buffet.
Lol Tydorius. Love it
Thanks Derek for sharing these insights. Always great to read.
I've been developing process management software for a decade and he makes a good point here. There is a point where you need balance. Development has a life cycle for a reason and there has to be a well defined scope for each phase of a project. I think game design works very much the same way. All of the best games have come to a point where content may have been cut to meet a deadline or to reduce scope creep.
I think Elemental has a great concept and certainly suffered in the beginning because the team wanted to get everything in. We we ended up with was a mess of ideas that lacked polish. As of lately the updates have been fewer and I've see a big focus on polish.
I would like to thank the team for it consistent push to improve the overall quality of the product - you guys are impressive.
Or you could use the old construction axiom of: Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick two.
I like the Chinese food thing. That's good stuff!
Thats exactly what I thought of too. But now I'll never be able to hear it without thinking of the Good Chinese Buffet example.
Glad I could help. The original was actually adapted from the good cheap fast, but since in database work I was being paid hourly and they were more worried about time since that encompassed both cost and time, that was how it ended up being.
And since Stardock has already stated that EWOM will likely end up as a loss when they've finally made full amends and repairations, then time is the bigger issue.
That and it was an excuse to try influencing Stardock's thought process. They'll never think of Chinese the same way again! Bwahaha!
Wait, does that mean that when I finish college and apply at Stardock I can put the Chinese pyramid on my resume?
Since Sept 2009, we've been told so many times that resources, time and money were not a problem for this game that it seems strange to hear about cutting features if behind schedule.
The game needs so many things. Has already seen so many features cut. Has seen so many features put aside 'momentarily'.
Will it ever be what was advertized to us? We shall see...one day eventually.
Resources, time, and money all fall generally under the same category. I know I'm replying a lot here but I chugged a monster and I have another twenty minutes before I leave for work.
But time is not an issue for the company - They'll spend years on this project if they can, but it's an issue for us. For all Brad is concerned, they could just sit behind closed doors for a year and then spit out a single massive update that gives us everything we want. But we wouldn't sit around waiting for it. So they do these incremental updates.
Money wise, with the bad launch in 2010, Brad has still increased the size of the initial team and stated that this would be viewed as a loss, but they are making every effort to repair their reputation. So money isn't their primary concern. Thankfully the company isn't like a lot of other small game companies where each singular project has the potential to kill the company (Hellgate London, anyone?) - They do other projects that generate their main revenue.
Resource wise, they've brought in several big names in the industry over the last two months, which to me shows a commitment to stop juggling hats amongst the people they already have, to use Brad's analogy, and to make sure each role is filled by people who are specialized in that spot.
I think Elemental is well on its way. With another major patch coming out to polish things up, once the beta issues are out of the way, it seems like their next logical move is going to be to flesh out the world now that it seems to be getting stable.
Thanks for the update and for giving more information on game design.
This is a very nice thing that Stardock is doing to make the gaming community as a whole better. By helping out
aspiring game designers and just generally educating people on what happens in a game design process, we all benefit.
Keep up the good work and of course don't fly to close to the sun. It tends to melt the wax.
I suspect that if a good chinese buffet come sinto being, the world may end. According to the Mayans it happens in 2012.
Keep in mind that my post is about general game development for those that are interested in what its like to work in the industry. It isn't a report on Elemental specifically. It is an honest depiction from someone who has worked through the design process, and my concerns and thoughts as I see that design being implemented. It would be irresponsible of me to design without regard to the implementation costs of the changes the design calls for. And the end result wouldn't be fun for me, or you.
But again, I'm just sharing my thoughts as I work through the process. Many people will recognize similarities between these processes and other industries (at the end of the day it's very similar, except we have more toys on our desks). I wouldn't try to read to much into it.
ROFL
Too funny!
So basically what you're saying Derek is that there is a limited amount of features that can go into a game? How do you feel about games like Dwarf Fortress that just have so many features and make such a living world out of their design. I mean with anything I've ever played, it seems that complexity makes the game more real and immersive. Now granted, I understand how too much complexity and not good implementation can have a bad effect on video games since then it just becomes a chore to play.
However, one thing I've never understood is why features are based around simple math instead of components that make our lives realistic? We wouldn't have to see it, see the math behind the screens, but how does Dwarf Fortress- a game made by two brothers in their free time- have such an advanced combat system and realistic story telling, while a game like Elemental with a whole team of people does not?
While people hark on the main game of Dwarf Fortress for its lack of UI and graphics, the system and features behind all that are really really advanced and I think it is a direct correlation with how alive the world feels in that game. Also with how immersive it is, and how it draws you in and makes you feel its more than just a game. If you haven't played it Derek, I'd recommend it, and please help me to understand the differences in implementation between these two games. Thanks
Such a good question.
I have played dwarf fortress a bit, I'm ashamed to say that I can't get beyond the ascii graphics to what looks like an incredible game beyond. But I know what you are talking about.
The rules of design ambition vs execution are true for both games. Are true for all games (and all projects for that matter). Dwarf fortresses most obvious place where it sacrificed features is in the graphics engine. If you wanted beautifully rendered environments, if you wanted to see see those custom halls, if you wanted realistic animation and movement from all the creatures in the world, if you wanted to see the lighting changes from the sun setting behind the mountains. Well, those would all be design decisions with significant implementation costs.
So its not that Dwarf Fortress isn't faced with the same project realities as everyone else. It is a project with an ambitious design that has opted to focus in a particular area. That design is well executed (they have done an amazing job) and they have focused on creating a complex environment. But I promise you as they considered their design they thought through the same impact on implementation as I did above.
The other thing that is interesting about Dwarf Fortress is that it has been in development for 9 years. That's a lot of time.
Also people underestimate how much polish costs. It seems like the heart of the game should take 80% of your time and polish is the last 10-20%. It's much much higher. Some people need polish, and some people don't. So for some all the time spent on polish may seem like a waste.
I think of that when I consider the 1.1 patch (heavy on features) and the 1.2 patch (heavy on polish). Now 1.1 was in development for a lot longer, so its definitely the more impacting patch. But in general some people will love 1.1, because it added features and not care much for 1.2 (if you already know where everything is improving the UI may not mean much). Others may have been frustrated with the things 1.1 added when their were still issues like those addressed by 1.2 in the game.
3d graphics are also a huge consideration. I often wonder if the move to 3d was good or bad for gaming. I don't know the real numbers but I expect that an artist could make 25-50 2d monsters in the time it takes to create 1 3d monster. Talk about implementation considerations from design decisions, the decision to go to 3d is a huge one.
Add up all your preferences as a gamer, how much do graphics matter, how much complexity can you tolerate, what systems are to simple to interest you, do you like flavor or is it worthless (we are working hard to get more flavor into Elemental, but that isn't important to some gamers), and a hundred different criteria and you will have the game that is perfect for you. For some Dwarf Fortress falls at their personal sweet spot. For others other criteria are more important (I need to make a "choose your dream game" survey where you fill these things out and it tells you where you fall).
I've only been working on Elemental for 3 months, so I'm the wrong person to ask about comparing its development cycle to anything. So I can't comment on that part. Only that in creating FE I had to consider all the features I wanted to add vs their implementation costs. As well as if they were fun, if they were something the player would want to be focusing on, do they resonate with the rest of the game or do they distract from it, etc. These are the same things the folks making Dwarf Fortress have to consider.
Imo, it was the worst thing that happened to gaming.
Look at all those nifty games for mobile phones and handhelds which were released in the last few years, so much innovation and differences. Then look what came out for pc and consoles.
Also, nothing beats well drawn sprites.
I often think that 3D is actually more efficient than 2D (provided you want animation). Yes there is a trade-off between 3D and 2D depending upon the amount of animation but when you consider that a large portion of a model's animation comes from its skeleton, then it's easy to see that animating in 3D often takes less time than having to manually draw out every frame of a 2D animation. Then you can take skins into account, where its becomes possible to very quickly create variations of a 3D model instead of having to manually re-color each frame of a 2D animation. And lastly, instead of producing huge sprite sheets that eat through memory, 3D animations are very light on the data side of things.
Thanks for the reply, Derek!With all the journals about game developement or company insight, it's hard to know when they are general and when they talk about Elemental.
I'd like to talk and post more but, as with many others formerly here, bitterness has sunk its teeth deep after August: bad feeling that whatever we said had been discarded by a wave of the hand...So I'll stop here but wish you good work. And don't forget to scout the old (pre-August) threads: there is gold over there!
Honestly, in a game like Elemental, 3D is not as important a decision. I can understand 3D in games like Total War and RTS games - Anything where battles are performed in a realalistic manner and physics are involved.
Also, in very large games like Oblivion, I can understand the move because it's easier to duplicate a hundred trees with variation than to draw each individual one. Look at Baldur's Gate for example. Each background was meticulously drawn to produce a beautiful game world. But I'm sure it took hours for such a large game.
And in order to modify those games, you'd basically have to be an artist to produce anything worth playing.
Then you move to Neverwinter Nights, which was done in 3D. It is a large game as well, but is done in a tileset style that allows for extreme modability.Then you have games like Torchlight vs. the original Diablo games. Height adds more fun and depth to the games, and depending on the game the added realism is very worth it.
So in turn based games, it's not nearly as important, but anything done in real time, I'd say it's extremely important if you're wanting anything realalistic.Though since Elemental is in 3D, I have to ask: Would it be possible to create chunks of land that float so that the map is layered? I've yet to see a game that does something like that.
Floating citadels, flying units. Or underworld cities. I can't imagine the possibilities of having a multi-dimensional map.
Floating islands, an underworld, and even other dimensions.
With a 3D engine already in place I wonder if it'd be that hard to add a Z dimension to the map.
And if Fallen Enchantress is going to have a campaign focused around an Enchantress gone bad, it'd be an epic final battle.
Imagine a tactical battle map fought on chunks of floating rock bridged to eachother.
Or even a floating city that's mobile and can move a single space per turn.
I know, this is a bad place to be suggesting such things after the implementation talk, but still.
re: Dwarf Fortress, I think it is actually a pretty good example of what Kael is talking about. The epic feel of the regular Dwarf mode exists now because they've done triage and neglected whatever the other mode is called -- Adventure mode?
i don't mind the Ascii graphics too much, but am spoiled enough now to miss the other nice features that can come from a more modern UI.
That's a prepackaged version of the game with a graphical tileset, some of the tougher/more annoying options (aquifers, economy) turned off, and some utilities to help out with areas of the game that don't have a powerful UI yet.
You could also get a version with just a tileset if you'd like. Here's a link for that: http://dffd.wimbli.com/file.php?id=2431
Just a side point, Kael, I get your arguments, I really do.
If 3d is really as bad, time and resource wise as you say it is (and I've no doubt in my mind that you're correct), maybe a better use of your resources might be to leave a lot of the additional 3D rendering to the community, and you guys put your effort into making importing 3D less of a challenge. Maya and such are beyond the reach of a lot of us backyard 3D renderers, but if it were easy to go from Blender into the game, with animations and textures...
If you haven't played DF to the point of FUN, you are not a PC gamer. I don't care what you did or who you are. You have merely fiddled.
Being able to import Blender would make it easier for even beginners, because you can go from things like Google Sketchup to Blender too. Google Sketchup would be perfect for making low polygon buildings and such, and Blender is a good medium for making creatures and animated models.
Why can't you just take the time you need and instead cut down on the postsupport?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
