Troy GilbertGamedev 2.0

Danc had this to say on theme and game design.

I think what Danc is calling theme would be considered aesthetics by the MDA school of thought (which is how I break down interactive design).

I think it’s a bit unfair to compare games to books in regard to breadth of themes. There are more books by a factor of, I don’t know, a million, spanning the last millennium of human civilization? It would be a bit more interesting to compare the range to something filling a more equivalent role in cultural artifacts. You know, our old stand-by: movies!

I’m not going to pretend we’re on par with movies. But if you think about how many movies feature a variation on a cop and a criminal for it’s built-in context you’ll see our clustering is not so crazy. How many war movies? How many romantic comedies?

I do think Danc plays theme too much as a second fiddle to game mechanics. I think this is a trap many game designers fall into, much in the same way I’m sure many filmmakers do the same. We too often build a game from the mechanics outward, or claim that the mechanics and dynamics — the elements unique to our medium — are paramount to the end experience.

But thinking about Mockingbird over the last two years has cemented a very different perspective on theme/aesthetics and games in general. To the broader audience, theme is more relevant than mechanics. As a result, the broader audience is going to bond with your game due to its theme.

That is, if the mechanics and dynamics don’t get in the way. Think about movies: a bad director is noticed while a good director is invisible.

Myst is the ultimate example at one extreme of the spectrum. The mechanics and dynamics are so transparent as to be the fundamentals of web surfing: click on items of interest, maintain some very limited memory of previous items of interest explored, have some vague goal of curiosity pushing you forward. The reason people are drawn into it, though, the reason it made an emotional impact on so many people — besides its perfect timing in regards to presentation technology — is all in its aesthetics, it’s theme.

I have a presentation I’ve given a few times recently that has as its climax the declaration, “replay is a myth!” That’s followed-up shortly with, “gameplay is secondary.” Heretical ramblings? Trying to get a rise out of the audience? No. I believe it to be “the way things are.” I think that’s the reality that the game industry is not accepting as fully as it should.

I listen to regular people describe the idea of their own game. I remember when I “designed” games as a kid. Was I thinking about mechanics? No. I was, at most, mashing together a few similar games to get an idealized set of mechanics. The real “design” is in the aesthetics, the characters, the themes, the reason for playing, the relevancy.

Have I mentioned that I think games should be more relevant? ;-)