Live data from Hacker News

Game Design Curriculum

riotgames.com

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "depth" of the strategy is also sooo much more than an FPS You only think that because you know more about LoL. As someone very into Overwatch, it's an absurdly complicated game where you only know about the complexity once you learn about it. After having learned a lot more about the game, I can look at high-level play and "see" a lot more of the things they're doing due to the level of complexity of the game, j…

Let me start a flamewar by informing you both that Dota 2 exists, and has much more complicated spells. And hence more depth. At least that's what people who have played both LoL and Dota 2 say.

Everything the GP has described is essentially only the mechanics part of a Dota 2 game. The strategic part of the game has way more depth than "use your abilities at the right time in the right order".

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#42

(Riot's less than stellar history aside) I see these takes on game design a lot, and they're interesting to see because everyone takes their own stance on how to construct a fun game from distinct smaller concepts. Yahtzee’s Dev Diary [0] talks a lot about loops (And I give it a watch recommendation), while at your average GDC talk you hear about the concept of pillars [1] and their role in shaping games. I'm interes…

I've not played duskers (2). But from watching the video, sounds like he was super lucky. A happy accident, rather than an utter disaster.

One of those definite cases of survivorship bias.

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#43
Game design (whether computer or even board games) is a valuable topic to learn even if you never make a real game. If you make any kind of thing that people use, learning a little about how to think like a game designer can help you make things that are more rewarding and pleasant to use.

One way to think of videogames is that they are useless software. Imagine a word processor that couldn't save or print files. Or a compiler that didn't generate executables that ran on any machine but your own. Why would anyone ever use such a pointless thing?

Well, games are in many ways exactly that. They don't really touch any part of the outside world or produce anything materially useful. They're self contained. So why do people sink time into them even though they can't get anything tangible in return? It's because the process of using the software itself—playing the game—is so intrinsically enjoyable.

If you can learn a little bit of that and apply it to software that does do something useful, you can end up with the kind of programs that build devoted fanbases.

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#44
Of all the non-FAANG gaming companies Riot is the one that most closely operates like a tech giant to me (with the exception of maybe Epic Games)

They have an incredibly robust M&A division, have mastered land + expand with their esports, are putting down roots in pretty much every major gaming category, and have modern monetization practices down to a tee.

Excluding the clearly egregious cultural issues, I would be fairly confident in betting on Riot in the long term

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#45
The thing that I take away from this is that this could be indicative of a shift away from the modern concept of university and towards a strengthening of the old master-apprentice models of learning.

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#46
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 2018 case (just google "riot farting" honestly): https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/6454fy6neo6mwj3w/images/5-7... > Why don't game engineers demand better? Start a company with decent work hours and comp and refuse to work elsewhere. Some do! I would imagine many indie game companies are not like this. There's kind of a split, where you have "strictly-business" companies - many Asian MMORPG publishers that have a…

> You can kind of see how this playerbase would differ from, say, the usual singleplayer or co-op indie or puzzle game. Oh yes. I must say, these days I hate playing multiplayer game modes with leaderboards attached. Relevant to this thread: I used to play Heroes of the Storm (Blizzard's LoL clone) causally with friends. Then one day a colleague dragged me into his team, full of people dozens of levels above me (and…

Well, the history is a bit different. LoL was created as a clone from Dota (Defense of the Ancients) mod for Warcraft 3. So, DOTA 2 is a continuation of that story and Blizzard basically recreated the mod into a standalone game and called it DOTA 2.

I do agree with the sentiment though. The community is definitively not n00b friendly and I gave up soon as well :S

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#47
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can kind of see how this playerbase would differ from, say, the usual singleplayer or co-op indie or puzzle game. Oh yes. I must say, these days I hate playing multiplayer game modes with leaderboards attached. Relevant to this thread: I used to play Heroes of the Storm (Blizzard's LoL clone) causally with friends. Then one day a colleague dragged me into his team, full of people dozens of levels above me (and…

Well, the history is a bit different. LoL was created as a clone from Dota (Defense of the Ancients) mod for Warcraft 3. So, DOTA 2 is a continuation of that story and Blizzard basically recreated the mod into a standalone game and called it DOTA 2. I do agree with the sentiment though. The community is definitively not n00b friendly and I gave up soon as well :S

I know the beginning of the story, I played the ur-original DotA the UMS map for W3 (and even earlier UMS variants of the concept for vanilla StarCraft/SCBW) :). But I somehow missed the existence of DOTA 2.

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me start a flamewar by informing you both that Dota 2 exists, and has much more complicated spells. And hence more depth. At least that's what people who have played both LoL and Dota 2 say.

Everything the GP has described is essentially only the mechanics part of a Dota 2 game. The strategic part of the game has way more depth than "use your abilities at the right time in the right order".

I agree to a large extent, but the last 2-3 years have not been kind to the Dota 2 strategic landscape. In the strategic rock-paper-scissors of teamfighting beats ganking beats splitpushing beats teamfighting, teamfighting has been overpowered by Valve.

It's not really possible to consistently win in pro Dota by ganking or splitpushing strategies. Only occasionally, can you do it, when you have a clear draft advantage the opponents don't see, and a clear plan that you can execute flawlessly. While, if both teams go for the teamfight strategy, then there is much more room for mistakes.

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#49
post #38
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LoL is also an amazing spectator sport, the format is so fun to watch. OverWatch/CS-GO/Valorant/Fortnite etc... the FPS aspect is a harder to follow especially for people with slower eye movement. Lol on the other hand, its like watching Soccer/Golf/Football except the players also have magic/hi-tech abilities. The "depth" of the strategy is also sooo much more than an FPS. flex picks, lane swaps, lane freezing , met…

I don't agree. While I played LoL for a while (never competitive level though), it's still not fun to watch any competitive game. Comparing these games to soccer is impossible. Every champion has unique abilities uncomparable to other champion's. If you have no knowledge about what they are doing (or need to be doing) you are just out of depth. The games are just too fast and way too specific for casual watchers. Thi…

hmm i compare it in the sense of how you visually look at it. top down, from usually a birds eye view.

I do agree it might be hard for an extra casual person to watch. Maybe i'll say its soccer for 'cerebrals' who want the best of chess + soccer + rts. They want a juicy 'programming style' logic problem injected into the veins of their esport (i'm thinking 150 champs x (4 abilities + 1 passive), incl % reduction math and item build meta strategies)

yeah i guess some people don't like watching competitive league, but after 10 years or so, its still pulling in massive crowds and is _huge_ in china (ofc tencent owns it though)

Re: Game Design Curriculum

#50

(Riot's less than stellar history aside) I see these takes on game design a lot, and they're interesting to see because everyone takes their own stance on how to construct a fun game from distinct smaller concepts. Yahtzee’s Dev Diary [0] talks a lot about loops (And I give it a watch recommendation), while at your average GDC talk you hear about the concept of pillars [1] and their role in shaping games. I'm interes…

The three books I've read and then gone back to over the years are:

- Brenda Romero (credited on the book as Brenda Braithwaite) and Ian Schreiber's Challenges for Game Designers[1], which uses a series of design exercises to illustrate concepts like balancing and mechanical loops, and at least from a cursory glance at the Riot curriculum is very similar in structure to it. The exercises still help me bootstrap my understanding of mechanics that I don't always employ in designs, and still occasionally inspire new ideas just by going through one almost like a karate kata.

- Raph Koster's Theory of Fun for Game Design[2], which is more introspective about the nature of games rather than a pragmatic how-to guide. Koster's views are often contentious, particularly on defining what a game is or can be, but I usually go back to this book when I want to step back and remind myself what kinds of audiences might be in my blind spot for a mechanic or concept — I might think something is fun because I think it's fun, without interrogating why, and even if I don't agree with Koster on how he goes about defining it the book does a good job of demonstrating how one builds a definition in the first place.

- Jesse Schell's Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses[3], which just got a 3rd edition last year that I haven't had a chance to read yet. It's a framework for interrogating a design — and I say "interrogating" literally, as the lenses are a set of questions to ask of your design — that touches on mechanics but also how viable an idea is to make into a game in the first place. Walking an idea through the lenses serves like a second pair of "eyes" when I don't have another person handy to bounce that idea off of in depth. There's a card deck version[3] of just the lenses that are handier to have on the desk.

It's likely that there are newer books out there covering similar ground;[4] these are the ones that were around when I came up through my first game design experiences around 2010-2012.[5] These are all high level enough to be pretty general works on the nature and purpose of all types of games, even if all of them have digital games at or near front-of-mind, without being so focused on theory and philosophy that they don't give you actionable things to apply in a design.

(Also, I've found that all three of those names are polarizing, often for very different reasons. I find the works valuable regardless; books don't tend to yell at me in a Discord chat or on social media when I read them, which is a nice change of pace.)

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Challenges-Game-Designers-Brenda-Brat...

[2] https://www.powells.com/book/theory-of-fun-for-game-design-2...

[3] https://www.schellgames.com/art-of-game-design/ — and of course there's a booster pack available, because game designers are insatiable post-publication tinkerers

[4] Procedural Storytelling in Game Design, co-edited by Tarn Adams of Dwarf Fortress and Tanya X. Short of a bunch of procedural indie games and formerly Funcom, is exciting in concept, and Darius Kazemi is always fun to read on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Procedural-Storytelling-Design-Tanya-...

Building Blocks of Tabletop Game Design, by Geoffrey Engelstein and Issac Shalev, looks like it ports the cookbook concept from software development to tabletop games, which feels right up my alley: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Blocks-Tabletop-Game-Design/...

(It seems notable that both of those are by CRC Press, which I associate more with academic textbooks, but neither really fits the usual bill for them.)

Calling it "newer" might be a misnomer, but I'm desperate to get around to the illustrated The Making Prince of Persia: Journals and wish there were more books with the perspective of a journal during development — watching along as opportunities open and close, instead of as a post-mortem that's colored by the end product and invariably focused on what went wrong/how to avoid it. Also it just looks gorgeous: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Prince-Persia-Journals-1985-19...

[5] Steve Swink's Game Feel has been on my list of to-reads on the subject forever, but I've never gotten around to it: https://www.powells.com/book/game-feel-9780123743282

I bounced off Katie Salen/Eric Zimmerman's Rules of Play, but it's lauded enough that it's hard to omit it. If you like Koster's ideas around orthography in game design and want to see a predecessor that takes it further and issues prescriptive rules, or if you have more of an interest in design criticism than creation and want an intro to a critical vocabulary, it might appeal more: https://www.powells.com/book/rules-of-play-game-design-funda...

Tracy Fullerton's Game Design Workshop is a great read, and even more well suited to a classroom environment than Challenges for Game Designers, but it's _too_ classroom-y for my tastes, focused more on getting from point A to a very specific and more directed point B, instead of laying out a more open-ended task where the boundaries can be a creative aid. I've never felt compelled to return to it as a result, but there are folks who swear by it, so it's still worth mentioning: https://www.amazon.com/Game-Design-Workshop-Playcentric-Inno...

Post reply on HN