Learning about design

[Hawkbit]

I'm not a designer but I want to learn more about game design.  What books/resources can you recommend to an advanced player but neophyte designer?  I don't have a desire (or time) to create games at this point, but I want to learn more about the process and lingo involved. 

I've got a couple on order, such as Koster's A Theory of Fun and The Ecology of Games which is a recent publication of articles on the subject.  Any others you can think of for someone beginning to think about games?

[NiX]

...Koster's A Theory of Fun ...

I think some will make fun of you for this.

Read Gamasutra. There are some articles that really touch on the deeper parts of design and development. Don't know of many other resources though.

[Azaroth]

There are things to learn about design?

[Soln]

http://tidehorizon.blogspot.com/2006/12/game-design-development-books.html

[Mrbloodworth]

While I have bought a lot of books, they are for asset development and design, your asking for overall game design. Do what i do, Go to barns and noble, buy some nice coffee thing, and maybe a pastry, then cruse the development section (mine has one for games, near the web development section) grab a few titles, eat, read, and be merry.

Also, as a entry read, do not dismiss titles such as "Game design for teens". Not even joking, the lighter, perhaps, more simplified reading in the books is like a gateway drug. Start there as opposed to the ass ton of titles that seem to forget the basis of design even in their own text (such as keep it simple, stupid).

[Raph]

...Koster's A Theory of Fun ...

I think some will make fun of you for this.

Very few, at this point, actually. I am pleased to report that it is used in several dozen university programs on game design, is *still* in the top 10/20 for the category on Amazon depending on the day, and has been named one of the top ten books on games ever by a few places. And even the f13 review liked it. So neener neener!

[IainC]

...Koster's A Theory of Fun ...

I think some will make fun of you for this.

Very few, at this point, actually. I am pleased to report that it is used in several dozen university programs on game design, is *still* in the top 10/20 for the category on Amazon depending on the day, and has been named one of the top ten books on games ever by a few places. And even the f13 review liked it. So neener neener!

None of which matters to the group of people who hold you personally responsible for all that is bad and wrong with games. But I'm sure you know that.

[NiX]

Very few, at this point, actually. I am pleased to report that it is used in several dozen university programs on game design, is *still* in the top 10/20 for the category on Amazon depending on the day, and has been named one of the top ten books on games ever by a few places. And even the f13 review liked it. So neener neener!

I wasn't saying it was bad, just that I was made fun of when I mentioned I had purchased it. Take THAT!

[schild]

None of which matters to the group of people who hold you personally responsible for all that is bad and wrong with games. But I'm sure you know that.

Huh, what?

[IainC]

None of which matters to the group of people who hold you personally responsible for all that is bad and wrong with games. But I'm sure you know that.

Huh, what?

Watch what happens when you mention Raph's name on any random internet games forum/blog. I read Raph's stuff and find it mostly interesting, there's a strange core however who seem to feel personally wronged by him in some way.

[Raph]

Maybe it was this thread, but now it is #1 in the game programming category. 

Yes, there's plenty of folks who will make fun, I was being somewhat facetious. But within the industry, anyway, it's unlikely you will get made fun of for reading it, though you may get engaged in a debate about what it says.

[schild]

I can't let this go without saying anything.

Raph, you strayed dangerously close to Bartle territory when you wrote a book and then went off to make a non-game. Just letting you know. It's not a judgement or anything - just saying. SW:G -> Book about Game Design -> Not making a game is a notably bothersome chain of events. ^_^

[Raph]

Actually, WITHIN Metaplace there are some games I made during and since the writing of the book. Wheelwright is one of them. And yes, during and since the writing of the book, I spent a lot of time making small games instead of big ones, part of a back to basics sort of exercise.

[Yegolev]

If I get fired in October, I'm buying your book (and even reading it) so that Schilling will hire me.

[Stormwaltz]

Back to the OT, I find the game post-mortems on Gamasutra / Game Developer Magazine to be more useful than books on theory. I prefer to take my education in actionable bullet points.

[damijin]

Although many F13ers are cynical about it, A Theory of Fun is pretty close to my design bible. It opened my eyes to a few obvious truths about game design. I was foolishly seeking to make games that never get boring when the truth of the matter is that it is a game's destiny to get boring, because you need to learn the systems, master them then you get bored. Its an obvious truth that I totally overlooked.

Using A Theory of Fun and taking a psychological approach to game design, I was able to make great success with my flash titles. Pyro, which employs a lot of what I learned from it, has been played more than 5m times, probably more than 6 million by now. So thanks Raph, its a worthwhile approach.

Today I began thinking further about the idea of learning as game design, and after a long conversation with a friend about the failings of the education system in America, I became convinced that employment of games in the classroom could be incredibly beneficial to our youth. Not talking edutainment games like Donkey Kong Jr. Math shit, but like... Oregon Trail. Its informative, teaches math, planning, etc, etc, and the kids come away fro it with a lot of skills. I would want to make games that dont force you to use math, but using math would help you get an advantage and score better. My girlfriend is studying to be a teacher and I suggested to her that she could distribute a game I make to all of her students, then send them home with it. Split the class in half, and at the end of class each day, let the two teams meet up to talk about strategies in the game and what to do to get the best score. At the end of the week, the team with the best score gets a reward in the class.

I really feel like this approach could be a monumental change to our shitty education attitude, and if I can find a way to make it a reality, it will all be stemmed in your academic approach to game design. So here's hoping Raph!

[WitchKiller]

Hey Hawkbit,

If you do decide to try making a game, then let me recommend lite-c

I started lite-c with zero programming knowledge, and so far c-lite has been fun to learn and make noticeable progress with.

[Edit: Fixed your link - NiX]

[patience]

I would suggest "Mythical Man Month" by  Frederick P. Brooks. It really helps put the technical things in context as system projects and what you should be considering.

[Raph]

Although many F13ers are cynical about it, A Theory of Fun is pretty close to my design bible.

I JUST NOW saw this. I am glad the book had such a big payoff for you, damijin. :)

[damijin]

It was the thing that changed my approach from the immature "Hey thats a cool idea! It should be a video game!" to the matured "Why is that a cool idea? What makes it fun?"

Asking that question of why leads to far more consistently solid design as you discover not only what works but why it works as well.

The only thing I would be critical of in your book Raph is that you had some blurbs about like how a game about killing could easily be changed to a game about healing and still possess just as much fun. While that's true, it may possess the same systems and 'fun', it would be far less entertaining, and fun is merely a component in the full picture of entertainment. Achieving the highest entertainment value possible is generally the goal of the game, not just achieving the most fun.

Theme is highly important for making a game entertaining. You've seen yourself with games like You Have to Burn the Rope, that a game with practically no learning or fun can possess an extremely high entertainment value from just having a funny theme and idea. That's why games are about killing instead of healing.

Ultimately, I think even if you want to make games that teach kids about the value of healing as a doctor, its important to pick a theme carefully and almost trick them into it. Rather than making a game about a doctor who runs a private practice and diagnoses common colds most of the day, make a game about being a medic in a war. You can make the game play exactly the same, but being a combat medic with explosions and dangerous situations where you need to avoid enemy fire and pull fallen soldiers out of harms way to do on-the-fly medical assistance in the heat of battle would be far more engaging and entertaining.

Maybe I'm wrong though and I'm just forgetting any in-depth discussions of theme in the book. I haven't read it in a while!

Edit: Another good idea would be a medieval fantasy game where you play a divine cleric of some sort. We have healers in our MMOs but when's the last time you played a single player RPG where the main character is some sort of priest? Could be cool!