Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

nickbentleygames.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 40 posts

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#11

Post by wingerlang »

erik wrote: post #4

I assumed this was about video game design, and it took me a minute to catch on that it was board games. Phase two of this approach, developing 10 prototypes over the course of 6 to 12 months, sounds incredibly labor intensive. Perhaps prototyping board games is easier than prototyping video games. But this seems like it would be a difficult phase to get through, either as a side project, or doing it commercially ful…

It seems easier, you could just have a bunch of papers with the intended action for board game prototyping. Video games needs .. more.

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#12

Post by imarg »

erik wrote: post #4

I assumed this was about video game design, and it took me a minute to catch on that it was board games. Phase two of this approach, developing 10 prototypes over the course of 6 to 12 months, sounds incredibly labor intensive. Perhaps prototyping board games is easier than prototyping video games. But this seems like it would be a difficult phase to get through, either as a side project, or doing it commercially ful…

I think the www.onegameamonth.com folks have a different opinion on developing 10 prototypes in 12 months.

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#13

Post by kriro »

Could be interesting to adapt this slightly for a small scale one person startup-generator and give it a shot. I usually try to work on one idea but... 1) Identify 100 problems worth solving 2) Narrow down to 10 and build MVPs for all of them in parallel 3) Go deeper on the most promising one(s)

I think the key is how to go from 2 to 3. I feel like an idea worth trying is to not focus on growth and instead monetize all 10 MVPs from the start and focus on the one(s) that can get to cash flow positive the quickest.

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#14

Post by eru »

reklawnos wrote: post #6
diminish wrote: post #3

At first I was thinking that the methodology described appears to be waterfall approach to innovation with bing bang brainstorming and selection. All 3 games I have seen are quite innovative pieces which took the author years to implement and perfect. The games are quite impressive, and are equivalent to innovating "chess". On the other side one can argue, an incremental evolutionary approach to innovative games, or…

Just because a particular approach can be characterized as waterfall-esque doesn't mean it's necessarily bad, just as a agile approach isn't necessarily good. Part of what makes chess great is the fact that it has remained the same for ages, and evolution has come through the way the game is played and not through the game itself.

Actually, chess rules have changed quite a lot through the ages..

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#15

Post by panglott »

erik wrote: post #4

I assumed this was about video game design, and it took me a minute to catch on that it was board games. Phase two of this approach, developing 10 prototypes over the course of 6 to 12 months, sounds incredibly labor intensive. Perhaps prototyping board games is easier than prototyping video games. But this seems like it would be a difficult phase to get through, either as a side project, or doing it commercially ful…

Catchup is a fun game, but prototyping it would not be difficult, for the kind of person that plays games like Havannah at Little Golem. Cat Herders is similar.

I suspect that people who play lots of different abstract games have a lot of prototype components on hand—stuff like different size square and hex boards, generic abstract pieces. Hex is a classic of the genre, and yet has gone long periods without affordable commercial sets being widely available—it's easy to build. Slither is a game you play with a Go set. Catchup you would just need a printed Hex board and some glass gems.

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#16

Post by hellbanner »

trop wrote: post #7

This has some relation to the "Disney Method" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_method ) where one delays self-criticism until after one has engineered out the problem, and delays engineering things out until one has dreamed up ideas. Of course the Disney Method is cyclical, and requires returning to the dreaming-up state and on from there. This also reminds me of how 35mm street/photojournalists work (see, for…

One of the major AAA companies (Bethesda, iirc), uses this on their level design. They dream up all of the levels, then design all in parallel across 4 passes.

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#17

Post by hellbanner »

sleepychu wrote: post #5
diminish wrote: post #3

At first I was thinking that the methodology described appears to be waterfall approach to innovation with bing bang brainstorming and selection. All 3 games I have seen are quite innovative pieces which took the author years to implement and perfect. The games are quite impressive, and are equivalent to innovating "chess". On the other side one can argue, an incremental evolutionary approach to innovative games, or…

Man, if only we could come up with a good "fun to play" metric for board games, I'd love to play a board game that were produced by a genetic algorithm.

See the history of https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/13434/shibumi - rules designed in collaboration with AI & human designers.

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#18

Post by hellbanner »

sleepychu wrote: post #2

Interesting read and approach, though you'd have to be pretty committed to pursue it in the 10 stage. It's interesting that he talks about software, I've thought a couple of times if it's possible to produce generic board game design software but I'm still not sure.

http://www.peachpit.com/store/game-mechanics-advanced-game-d... has an online editor for storing values in containers, then with rules for moving those values eg.

every turn, +1 food every turn, 50% chance of .. etc

it's pretty detailed, worth looking into

Re: The 100:10:1 method – the heart of my game design process

#19

Post by huherto »

diminish wrote: post #3

At first I was thinking that the methodology described appears to be waterfall approach to innovation with bing bang brainstorming and selection. All 3 games I have seen are quite innovative pieces which took the author years to implement and perfect. The games are quite impressive, and are equivalent to innovating "chess". On the other side one can argue, an incremental evolutionary approach to innovative games, or…

> At first I was thinking that the methodology described appears to be waterfall approach

In waterfall, he will do big upfront design for every game. Nothing will be implemented until the design documents were very detailed.

Post reply on HN