Logic, logistics and artistic choices.

I have lost my faith in design documents. I have probably lost my faith in design altogether. At least when it comes to designing videogames on paper before making them. Instead I prefer to build whatever small idea I have and then let the game itself inspire me to make design decisions.

There’s always a lot of things that the game seems to ask from you. If there’s a tree, it wants to sway in the wind, if there’s walking, it wants the sound of foot steps, if there’s talking, it wants touching, et cetera. There’s no need to really think about design. Just respond to what the game is asking and make it.

However! There’s two problems with this approach. One is logistical. There’s of course limitations to how much time and resources you can spend on adding this sort of logical detail. But more interestingly, there’s an artistic problem too.

If you simply implement whatever the game seems to be asking from you, you will probably end up with a natural feeling simulation. But, as discussed here before, naturalistic realism is the straight path to indifference. The more your simulation approaches reality, the less players are going to find it impressive. It just starts to look normal. And normal they see every day around them.

So one should be very careful when complying with the demands of the game and continuously ask if the implementation of this or that actually serves the artistic purpose of the game. If you want to create a hot and calm atmosphere, perhaps the tree shouldn’t sway at all. If you want to talk about disconnection and loneliness, your characters should probably not touch each other. Even if this looks unnatural, and especially if it does, such decisions will help express the mood you are trying to establish.

The golden rule seems to be that it is where art deviates from reality that meaning emerges.