|
Post by westin on Apr 6, 2019 22:43:45 GMT
In an attempt to increasingly articulate my inner theoretical suspicions, I often write and rewrite short truth claims as I go about designing and learning. I will start sharing some of them here. Feel free to discuss.
1. Design is correspondence. If I design something, every part of it corresponds with an idea. These ideas can be abstract (creativity dimension), practical, or philosophical, and can vary in resolution from a broad foundational theory, to the reasoning behind a tiny world detail, and everything in-between. If I don't have an intentional idea that corresponds to everything I make, then I'm not designing, only building with the inarticulate sensibilities I have learned through practice. These sensibilities are somewhat reliable, as they are essentially subconsciously learned patterns, but a designer will never be able to entirely utilize these ideas until he attempts to understand and expand upon them through analytical thought processes. Eventually, a designer who practices in this way will find himself at the foundation of all questions, and instead of pondering why his map has an unbalanced spot, he'll literally ponder the meaning of everything. This is the inevitable eventuality of one who attempts to understand design theory.
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Apr 6, 2019 22:58:11 GMT
In an attempt to increasingly articulate my inner theoretical suspicions, I often write and rewrite short truth claims as I go about designing and learning. I will start sharing some of them here. Feel free to discuss.
1. Design is correspondence. If I design something, every part of it corresponds with an idea. These ideas can be abstract (creativity dimension), practical, or philosophical, and can vary in resolution from a broad foundational theory, to the reasoning behind a tiny world detail, and everything in-between. If I don't have an intentional idea that corresponds to everything I make, then I'm not designing, only building with the inarticulate sensibilities I have learned through practice. These sensibilities are somewhat reliable, as they are essentially subconsciously learned patterns, but a designer will never be able to entirely utilize these ideas until he attempts to understand and expand upon them through analytical thought processes. Eventually, a designer who practices in this way will find himself at the foundation of all questions, and instead of pondering why his map has an unbalanced spot, he'll literally ponder the meaning of everything. This is the inevitable eventuality of one who attempts to understand design theory. Love it. It's hard to discuss stuff like this on Twitter, but this is essentially was I was trying to hint at in this conversation:
|
|
|
Post by westin on Apr 7, 2019 2:00:57 GMT
I've completely stopped arguing about design. The people who don't want to believe in any sort of objective design theory just won't improve.
I'll start back up one day, probably in video format, once I understand enough. Until then, I just want to make things and let them speak for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by xzamplez on Apr 10, 2019 9:07:40 GMT
I've completely stopped arguing about design. The people who don't want to believe in any sort of objective design theory just won't improve. I'll start back up one day, probably in video format, once I understand enough. Until then, I just want to make things and let them speak for themselves. I support your first statement. Exchanging ideas is a great way for us to open up to different ways of thinking, but debates and the need to be ‘right’ often is less constructive. I guess this would be an example of a statement that would start an argument. Ive felt the way i do about the subjective and objective aspects of level design for a long time now, and throughout that time my understanding of level design and capability to apply it practically has improved. So, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement based on firsthand experience. I guess what i would say is to respect everyone’s path: Its great that you found a methodology that works best for you, but the assumption that it should be everyones’ methodology is short-sighted.
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Apr 11, 2019 3:45:54 GMT
I've completely stopped arguing about design. The people who don't want to believe in any sort of objective design theory just won't improve. I'll start back up one day, probably in video format, once I understand enough. Until then, I just want to make things and let them speak for themselves. I support your first statement. Exchanging ideas is a great way for us to open up to different ways of thinking, but debates and the need to be ‘right’ often is less constructive. I guess this would be an example of a statement that would start an argument. Ive felt the way i do about the subjective and objective aspects of level design for a long time now, and throughout that time my understanding of level design and capability to apply it practically has improved. So, I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement based on firsthand experience. I guess what i would say is to respect everyone’s path: Its great that you found a methodology that works best for you, but the assumption that it should be everyones’ methodology is short-sighted. Collectively as a group, we've had a fair amount of debate and disagreement on the subjective vs objective nature of level design. I'm hesitant to comment on it because I think most are pretty set on their opinion already, so there's not a whole lot of upside to continuing discussion on it. Having said that, I'm going to comment on it, lol. I don't think there's any question that some things are objectively better than others within a given framework. For example, within the framework of competitive Halo (which we're so familiar with), I think that every capable designer would say it's an objective fact that levels need to have height variation, relatively safe respawn points, and map pickups. We obviously can't, however, just assume that everything we think is good is actually objectively good. I think all of us recognize that our thoughts on what's good are constantly evolving. But to me it's not really a debate of whether or not there are things that are objectively good or bad. The question is in where the line of distinction between objective and subjective lies. There will never be universal agreement on this, and that doesn't mean that this line doesn't exist, or that the line itself is somehow subjective. It's just that we're limited in our ability to pinpoint exactly where it lies. Trying is a worthy endeavor though, and will undoubtedly lead to improvement over time.
|
|
|
Post by icyhotspartin on Apr 13, 2019 23:28:11 GMT
All I can say is this:
|
|
|
Post by Soldat Du Christ on Apr 16, 2019 1:31:52 GMT
I thought of something i can add, what you said about arguing with subjectivists got me thinking, and ended up tying back in to what i said in the last thread you made
I wouldn't say i've ever been down that whole elitist path where i have a condesending bitterness towards games/ maps that are underwhelming, only i felt that way towards games maps that where underwhelming and pretended to be something it's not. Like if your game has any sort of hierarchal mode of play, you are moraly obligated to let players fall into their rightful place in that hierarchy, don't give them false hopes and feelings. Don't let them pretend to be something their not, and don't pretend to be a game that advertises itself as competitive when you very clearly attempt to level the playing field.
I feel like animal crossing is a perfect example of a game that doesn't pretend like you are actualy accomplishing anything, it's dumb fun and even makes jokes about the fact that the player is alsways running around doing mundane errands. It's not about the challenge, it's about the music, and the characters and the excitment when you get when you find a new item or get that sweet rare piece of furnature from tom nooks. It's pure dumb blissfull fun and it's self aware about that.
People that argue back and forth about objective vs subjective are realy both correct, but deep down they realy mean different things. Design is objective in its fundemental rules, but subjective in how you go about accomplishing that. People who say design is subjective may very well mean just that and you might miss it because you can't get past the stigma of the word "subjective" and visa versa for them as well. Now the ones that truly mean it's all subjective in the sense that there are no fundemental rules at all, i think those people are far and few in between because most of the time even they demonstrate there attempt at improving and fixing things player complain about. It's more likely that what they mean is that even if it is objectively flawed there is still subjective value and that's all they care about...
And there is room for objectively flawed games that lean on how they make the player feel rather than how they challenge the player to think. Now objectively speaking one is inferior, a game that can provoke emotions and provoke challenge simutaiously is the superior product. However, it's hard to say that when there's games like animal crossing or red dead that can trump even the most stimulating experiences i've had in challenging video games just out of pure feels.
I think honestly the reason why there is such a divide is because no one has truly experienced a game where both are fully realised, i know i haven't. Games like dark souls or ssb melee are very engaging but aren't full experiences, they do a few things VERY well and thats it. While red dead 2 does alot of things VERY WELL and absolutely ruins all of it's potential by not allowing the player to make creative solutions to the various objectives they present to you because they are afraid the player will make a mistake and ruin the story they are trying to tell.
Put me in a room of people competent in their disciplines with full control over the games creative direction and give me a year and i bet we could have something close
|
|
|
Post by a Chunk on Apr 16, 2019 1:45:31 GMT
Yes. What you're hinting at in the beginning of your post can be summed up as 'authenticity', and I agree with you. It's demeaning to your audience when you try to tell them they're getting something you know they're not getting. It breeds mistrust. People can accept and enjoy all types of games as long as they're presented authentically as what they are. Of course it goes without saying that the game actually has to be enjoyable.
|
|