Do developers play their own games?

 

I don't immediately rush out to buy the latest gadgets. I am afraid of spending my time and energy and money just to find myself saying things like "my god! Why didn't they just do X, it would have taken a programmer 15 minutes to do!". Even worse, of course, is finding that the device or software simply does not work. It raises a couple of questions in my mind: "Do the makers of technology ever use their own product?" and "If only they asked me I could have helped them make their product better... perhaps I am in the wrong line of business?"

 

Most of the problems with technology come down to design, and I can be outspoken on that subject. When I say things like "Maya and Photoshop are terrible pieces of software", it is (almost) true that it can result in an avalanche of protests and an almost instant flash mob appearing outside my front door. I know people get attached to their tools (especially, it seems, pitchforks), but I am in no way deluded when I say that it is possible to design software and technology so that it works better. In fact when I witness great design it fills me with a kind of joy not too dissimilar to the joy of hearing great music. I get this joy with just about any example of great design, be it a kettle or a car, a piece of software or even the design of a hotel room (ever been to one that uses a single door for both the bathroom and the toilet? One door, two doorways. Genius!).

 

I consider myself to be a connoisseur of design, so this might explain my struggle. Once one knows what great design tastes like, one struggles to get along with designs that are flawed. It actually results in a physical revulsion: perhaps a turning up of the nose if the distasteful design feature is mildly offensive, or a repeated banging of head against desk if it resulted in the loss of several hours work.

 

 

I do frequently wonder why it is that design flaws abound in software, and especially games. I question how could design flaws be allowed to persist in a game. Should not the problem that I identify in 10 seconds of playing have not been seen by the developers themselves? If they did not see it, does this mean that they actually do not play their own game?

It is of course much more complicated. First of all in most game development teams, the design and implementation phases of development are separated. Often, designers are motivated to cram as many features in as possible and want to change things to improve the design. On the other hand programmers are motivated to tell designers to go away, because these modifications and additions tend to bloat and slow down their code. The result is that there are two forces in conflict, and this conflict can be a huge distraction. It causes a long delay between seeing that a feature or modification is required and actually getting that change implemented. Sometimes this conflict can get so intense that neither the designers or the programmers actually play the game much any more... their energies are totally consumed in fighting over details, leaving the big picture unguarded.

 

You might of course wonder about the test department. They play the game, don't they? Well, yes... but generally their job is just to follow a test plan. Although in the early days a test department might catch a lot of obvious problems, after a while they tend to know the game so well that they end up always taking the same path through it, and thus do not find all the problems that fresh players will encounter. In addition, they learn to work around design shortcomings so well that they do not even see them anymore.

 

Fortunately, there are some examples of great design in software and technology. Apple and Google seem to both know how to get it right more often than the rest, and perhaps it is a good idea to learn from them. In both cases, a central theme seems to be to design products so that the interface is as simple as possible, even if this means reducing complex functionality (which typically is rarely used). I am writing this in Google Docs, for instance. It may be a bit basic compared to Word, but I don't really care. I can focus on writing, not manipulating menus, and be confident that even if my PC crashes, I will have lost no work. That feature in itself is worth more than all the fancy formatting options in the world.

 

So to finish here are some rules I wish game designers (also the MMO games designers) would think about more when designing MMO games. Design is a search for a solution, and rules of thumb (known as heuristics) help improve the chances of finding better solutions.

 

1.    Keep it simple

Remember that every feature you add complicates the interface. When you add features, work on adding them without making the interface more complex. Always consider the design cost of greater interface complexity.

2.    Keep it relevant

Apply the 80-20 rule. 20% of the features will account for 80% of actual use. Don't add features that will be rarely used. Don't provide multiple interfaces for the same functionality unless there is a very good reason to.

3.    Always remember the last selected options
On all dialog boxes, drop down menus, inventory selectors or any other such interface elements, always remember the last selected option and start with that highlighted. This simple rule will almost always result in a better design.

4.    Always provide immediate feedback, on everything
This one is often not given the importance it deserves, but it is vital. Every click, every action should provide feedback. Every event should be clear to see. Feedback can be through highlighting, sound effects and particle effects. You can use the camera too to provide feedback. It is so important I wonder if there should be a design role just for it, like "Feedback Supervisor". Don't think that just because you know what is going on, that a fresh pair of eyes will understand.

5.    Look for depth that emerges from simple elements
Simple does not mean shallow. In the same way as the secret of successful video game development is to create the most entertainment value for the least cost, successful game design is about creating the most depth from the simplest of elements. Be careful though, if you get too good at doing this, there is a danger that you will not be valued. The most brilliant designs always seem so obvious after they are been created, but it actually takes a tremendous amount of talent to find them first. This is what I call the Pied-Piper effect. He got rid of all the rats, but any fool could march down the street playing a flute, right?

 

I would be interested in hearing from readers about specific games they like and dislike and how they might connect them to the five heuristics above. Drop me a line.