Game Design: Then and Now. – Reply

I agree wholeheartedly in regards to game design being in many ways sloppy these days, especially in the field of first-person shooters. For example, Battlefield 3 was promoted in Youtube commercials by emphasizing graphics. It was claimed to look ‘real’, showing images of collapsing buildings and very realistic war depictions. Heavy Rain was also marketed by its amazing use of facial expressions as part of its graphics. However, this almost fanatic focus on polygons has sadly blinded some game designers to a couple of very important points. Firstly, graphics don’t guarantee the quality of the game. If the player’s experience lies in watching pretty images on-screen, watching a movie could actually be just as satisfactory. Unfortunately, both Battlefield 3 and Heavy Rain feel to me like the kind of games that started out as movie scripts, with tacked on interactive elements. In modern days, this is simply poor design, since the different game aspects don’t merge at all. It also kills the interactive side of gaming, making games too self-obsessed with their appearance to remember why people bought them.

What is really interesting now is how this reality has actually gotten through to some developers lately, which is why we have modern releases based on older game design. The thing is, what was so appreciated back then was the simplicity of the game, not to mention the focus on gameplay mechanics. For example, the older Sonic the Hedgehog-games were masterfully designed because the graphics complimented the gameplay. They coexisted, without one eating up the other. Sonic Generations which was released recently has gone back to the side-scrolling formula of game design, leaving behind unnecessary attempts at creating “realism” or graphics matching those of the Avatar-movie. I strongly think design has more to it than looking good, or else it’s like suggesting a happy relationship has no basis in chemistry or personality, just the amount of botox injected.

Lars Hermans