   How do you know if your design is good?
  Heres how I look at it:What does good mean?If properly implemented would sell a lot.Wouldn't take much to implement and would sell well at least.How do you know what would sell a lot?Give yourself marks on each of these and add them to get a totalHas it been done before? 0-10 (based on how often, how well known its previous incarnations were)Does it improve on an existing gameplay shortfalls in current games? 0-20Does it have fresh contexts? (character types, setting etc) 0-5Would it be the one of current best in genre? 0-30Would it create a new genre? 0-50Does it embrace something inherently video game, not found in other media? 0-20Then multiply that by how fun it would be out of 10.If your game scores over 500 its a good idea, if its over 750 its an exceptional idea.I'm sure others will have systems radically different, it would be interesting to see how others evaluate whether a game design is good or not.   
  My problem with that metric is you've assigned objective values to subjective measurements, with no clear documented way to arrive at those objective values. The rubric is, consequently, relatively useless and arbitrary.Furthermore, what does "properly implemented" mean? What does "sell a lot" mean? How are you factoring in external concerns (the state of the market, et cetera)? You're not.An idea is good if it sounds feasible to the technical team, inspiring to the art team, and fun to the design team. The idea doesn't drive sales, the product does.   ;Quote:Original post by thelovegooseWhat does good mean?Enjoyable. For players.Quote:If properly implemented would sell a lot.Wouldn't take much to implement and would sell well at least.There are much easier ways to make money than game development. Expect to make enough money to stay alive and keep your game development going for another round. If you expect any more, you're in the wrong business.Quote:I'm sure others will have systems radically different, it would be interesting to see how others evaluate whether a game design is good or not.I base it off of the thousands of games that I've played. The features I enjoyed and hated. I couldn't care less if a game is the best in a genre or introduces new concepts. If it offers an interesting experience, then it's good.   ;Quote:What does good mean?If properly implemented would sell a lot.Wouldn't take much to implement and would sell well at least.A lot of critically acclaimed games didn't sell so well. A lot of turkeys sold very well.Sales may be a good way to measure success from a business point of view, but there's something rather cold and heartless about it; solely using short term profits as your quality guide is likely to result in cynical, cheap spin-off games that might sell well on the strength of the license, but rapidly fade into obscurity.A really good game is one that still sells copies and/or has a sizable fanbase ten years later.Quote:How do you know what would sell a lot?Give yourself marks on each of these and add them to get a totalHas it been done before? 0-10 (based on how often, how well known its previous incarnations were)Does it improve on an existing gameplay shortfalls in current games? 0-20Does it have fresh contexts? (character types, setting etc) 0-5Would it be the one of current best in genre? 0-30Would it create a new genre? 0-50Does it embrace something inherently video game, not found in other media? 0-20This metric seems a little bit idealistic to me, and not really all that close to reality.For a metric designed to measure potential sales success, it places far too much emphasis on originality; in fact originality is neither required nor particularly desirable for getting good sales figures. Relatively few 'original' games sell especially well in their first incarnation. People are creatures of habit, and faced with a choice between something new and unknown, and something tried and trusted, they will tend to go with the tried and trusted.Note that this does not necessarily mean designers should not strive to be innovative. Just be aware that innovation is not necessarily translate in to huge wads of cash. It is entirely possible for a critically acclaimed, original game to be a total flop. Sad, but true.As for my answer to the question... it's a difficult one. It's a question that even long time industry pros have a hard time answering; I remember hearing Peter Molyneux lamenting this difficulty as a barrier to fresh ideas getting into the industry. The simple answer is; it's nigh impossible to tell short of playing it. The closest you can get to that is to try and visualise what it would be like to play, as objectively and as honestly as you can, and try and figure out if it's fun. The problem with this is that it's much easier to do this with your own ideas than it is with someone elses.   ;  Since I do mathematical modeling of decision making algorithms, I'm really having a hard time not busting out with laughter here.   ;  Do you see the point though? That ultimately fun is the most important thing in a game's design, and that the other factors only really get recognition proportional to how fun the game is. And that things like context (where and when your game is set for instance) are not really very important, and that after you have ensured that it is fun, its fronting a genre, creating a new genre, harnessing the unique quality of games over other media that make the design good.I realise that theres not much point in trying to equate the strength of the design with sales, but mistakenly thought that it would be a good idea to state that to save the question: "what does good mean" and have the thread decend into a discussion of what good means... Oh well.To me, a good design is really about pleasing the people who play the game, getting lots of people to play the game, pleasing informed critics and maybe even inspiring some people.If I documented each of the factors I'd have a post so long it wouldn't be read. I'll gladly share if anyone is interested in why I have weighted each factor as I have - theyre based on study of lots of media, of countless games, based on having the goal of the ultimate games constantly in mind. I'm interested in models of a good design that are different, Kest below has hinted that its fun and only fun for him.Finally, its hard to model what makes a good design, and no system is ever going to be absolute but if you are going to design a game seriously you ought to have an idea of what a good design is.Its true that you will only really know when its tried, but before you even get to that stage there needs to be some kind of analysis. ;  I agree with Sandman and Kest.  Unfortunately the mass audience is more likely to buy something they've seen before (and liked) than something totally original, and this is true for all forms of entertainment.  Something with a new genre of gameplay, a story focus never done before in games, and all original characters and worldbuilding is never going to sell as well as the next Harry Potter game.  And even making a game lots of people agree is great is unlikely to make you rich.  At best it might get you either a job working for a big game design company (where you will probably have a lot less creative control), or an investor willing to fund your next creation (assuming he likes your proposal for that game and you sign a contract promising to have it in stores by a certain time, etc.)  Indeed, an MMO which didn't make you do everything at a slow grind and allowed you to get to a satisfying ending in a few months would make significantly less money than the current frustrating, addictive ones that keep players hoping that if they just level up 10 more times it will get easier, or be more fun, or that if they shell out another month's subscription fee they might finally get that mount they've wanted for so long they almost don't care anymore... but at least all the players who haven't got theirs yet will envy them, right?Yes, if you're going to design games you need to have criteria in mind for what a great game would be.  As gamers we hope it would be the one that was the most enjoyable to play, but some people would prefer to make the most money rather than the most fun game.  And that's just the first of many choices about goals and priorities to which different designers are going to have totally different answers, resulting in totally different criteria for what would be a great game.  You can observe every day on these forums that it would be a cold day in hell before 2 or more game designers completely agreed on what would make a great game and started cooperating to make that game.  If all the effort people poured into their thousand individual projects were poured into 1 community project it would progress insanely fast.  But it's just human nature that we each want something different, many of us don't know exactly what we want, and we change our minds based on whatever mood we're in that day.   ;Quote:Original post by sunandshadowYou can observe every day on these forums that it would be a cold day in hell before 2 or more game designers completely agreed on what would make a great game and started cooperating to make that game.  If all the effort people poured into their thousand individual projects were poured into 1 community project it would progress insanely fast.  But it's just human nature that we each want something different, many of us don't know exactly what we want, and we change our minds based on whatever mood we're in that day.Agreed that a combined effort, however unlikely, would be biblical. But I also think the diversity is important. If we all agreed on what was great, we would all be making the same games. Or we would have all already joined forces, made an insane game, then ran out of ideas.That's exactly what I think is bad about the US movie industry lately (eh, since the 90's). It looks as though nearly all writers and directors have started to agree on how a movie should look and play out. That's why they all look and play out exactly the same way. It's hard to appreciate the difference, until you start watching indie movies or foreign films.Sorry for the off-topicness.   ;Quote:Original post by thelovegooseThen multiply that by how fun it would be out of 10.I'd try this:Game goodness = 10^(Fun out of 10).Of course, there are many elements that make a game fun, but to answer your question:Q: How do you know if your design is good?  A: Purely how fun it is to play.  (In the end, that's all that really matters);Quote:Original post by Humble HoboQ: How do you know if your design is good?  A: Purely how fun the prototype(s) is to play.