Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
When I was little, game development was mystifying to me. I couldn't imagine how any human
being could create a game and had no idea where one would even start. By creating a real
discourse on game design, we're not only helping existing game creators become sharper, but
empowering new game makers with a vocabulary with which to start thinking about and plan-
ning design. We're actually giving established creators a means of communicating ideas about
design to a newer generation. We're enabling all creators to communicate with and improve
each other.
And though people who create games naturally have the most to gain from a real conversation
about design, they're not the only ones who would benefit. I'm thinking of critics of games, but
not just journalists. We would all become better critics of games—better able to understand
them, to analyze them, to communicate about them—if we could cultivate an environment
where real talk about games and what they're doing and why was commonplace.
We could have a culture that better appreciates and values games. It may seem ridiculous
to suggest that games are undervalued in a culture where tens of thousands of fans flock to
conventions like the Penny Arcade Expo to reinforce the great myth that developers and pub-
lishers are greater than human. But this isn't appreciation; it's fetishization. Because the myth
that game developers are something other than human is just that: a falsehood. But it was this
falsehood that kept me, as a child, from realizing that game design was something that I could
do and even earn a living doing.
Imagine an audience of players equipped with the understanding to follow and appreci-
ate what game developers are doing rather than merely idolizing them. Certainly there's a
“magician's bag of secret tricks” brand of appeal to designing games. After all, we're designing
experiences that manipulate players' mental and emotional states (consensually and non-
destructively, I would hope). There might be a fear that once players can see the smoke and
mirrors, they'll lose a sense of wonder at the trick.
Discussing pacing and expository and characterization techniques in writing has not dimin-
ished my appreciation for the written word and admiration for those who can use it well. In
contrast, my respect for writing has only deepened with my understanding of technique. I think
the average reader is more literate than the average player—not “literate” in the dumb, obvious
sense of having read more topics, but in the sense of having a wider understanding of the craft
that goes into the form they enjoy. It's not surprising that readers might have a better under-
standing of what they're reading than players have of what they're playing. Not only have the
novel and short story been around longer, but writers, being writers, are much better equipped
to write
about
the craft of writing and have done so at length.
A “literate” player wouldn't necessarily be a more jaded and dismissive one (we have plenty of
those already) but could be a more attentive one, one who was more receptive to weirder ideas.
