Nintendo releases original Zelda design docs

Post by thesimpsons1022 » Wed, Dec 28, 2016, 9:49 PM UTC

deepsun wrote: post #10

gallerdude wrote: post #4

Even as a programmer, I appreciate having the vision of the game first and figuring out how to program it second.

But don't forget that today it's often faster to program it first without a plan, and rewrite it a few times later; than to draw such nice design plans and iterate on them before writing actual code. Also, in some cases, writing actual code reveals some unforeseen problems in design.

Post by brenschluss » Wed, Dec 28, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

duiker101 wrote: post #19

Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As a surgeon I appreciate planning the operation before cutting the person open." Your comment seems trivially true to me. How can one possibly begin the second without the first? And yet people try it all the time!

Plenty great games came from exploring a a game mechanic more than from a level design. There are really a lot of games where the look of something can really mean nothing at all. In today's industry an overlook like this might be useful in level design but I can't really see it having a big impact on the actual development of the gameplay as long as you know what actions the player can perform you don't need to know…

Post by setr » Wed, Dec 28, 2016, 9:59 PM UTC

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #21

deepsun wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't forget that today it's often faster to program it first without a plan, and rewrite it a few times later; than to draw such nice design plans and iterate on them before writing actual code. Also, in some cases, writing actual code reveals some unforeseen problems in design.

but what makes the game more fun? from what i've seen, most people agree that Nintendo games are some of the most fun consistently and yet they use this process. Meanwhile there have been many disasters like no mans sky that have been built iteratively.

Post by duiker101 » Wed, Dec 28, 2016, 10:25 PM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #23

duiker101 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty great games came from exploring a a game mechanic more than from a level design. There are really a lot of games where the look of something can really mean nothing at all. In today's industry an overlook like this might be useful in level design but I can't really see it having a big impact on the actual development of the gameplay as long as you know what actions the player can perform you don't need to know…

In Zelda's case, the level design _is_ the game mechanic - where you have to go to get a key, how the game forces you to double back in a dungeon, falling from one floor to the other through a hole, etc.

Post by vvanders » Wed, Dec 28, 2016, 10:28 PM UTC

jowiar wrote: post #26

Waterluvian wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As a surgeon I appreciate planning the operation before cutting the person open." Your comment seems trivially true to me. How can one possibly begin the second without the first? And yet people try it all the time!

Go to a good art museum and see the "studies" associated with many pieces of art. Before the final product, the artist has a bunch of experiments with techniques, framing, and the like. One of the things we often lack in software is a good medium for exploring mechanics. Getting something to the point where we can conduct an "Is this fun?" test or more generically "Does this serve the purpose" without a massive devel…