Skip to content

Category: Game Design

How to self-educate in designing games

Published by Paolo on 16/12/2021

Improve your design abilities adapting this writing method by Benjamin Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin was born poor and he stopped being educated when he was 10 years old. He developed a method of self-education and became great at writing informative texts. Here there is his method:

“I took some of the papers, and, making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, tried to complete the papers again, by expressing each hinted sentiment at length, and as fully as it had been expressed before, in any suitable words that should come to hand. Then I compared my Spectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them.”

Can this be adapted to game design?

Try this:

  1. Find good videogames and make hints of every interesting part you see. Start from the brickfile.
  2. Wait for a few days and then come back to the hints. Who is the target of this game?
  3. Try to reconstruct the features and mechanics that you can reconstruct. Focus on the simple things, don’t overcomplicate it.
  4. Wait again for a few days and then come back. Does that make sense? Is the audience the same again or you are looking for other kind of Players?
  5. Repeat 3 and 4 until you are happy with your result
  6. Prototype just the things you improved!

Game designers, do not use Bartle’s taxonomy

Published by Paolo on 09/12/2021

Years pass by and I still see and read a lot of articles and videos that suggest using Bartle’s Taxonomy of Players for MUDs.

Richard Bartle was one of the designers and researchers around the online communities for MUDs, multi user dungeons. The very first version of MMOs.

He identified four different approaches of players of that time to the medium.

What I learnt from his work was that it is very interesting to haver your own taxonomy to create your player persona.

But, people still seem to use it to start thinking in the very first personas as if they were part of a ‘90s MUD. Players changed a lot. Your game is probably not a MMO. Using the same taxonomy for those cases will probably lead to mistakes.

It is true that it may be good to discuss with your team, but you are not doing the right job. Do this instead:

  • Create your personas
  • When your game is running, identify your player personas by interviewing players
  • Create your own taxonomy

Stop using Bartle’s taxonomy, unless you are designing a MUD for telnet. You will most likely not have killers among your players!

When game designers deal with artists

Published by Paolo on 05/12/2021

I have dealt with game artists everyday for many years. My background is computer science, that is why I find it challenging to understand them well. Someone said to me once “you will never understand artists” laughing at my face.

Something I know, anyways. All the people, all the time, give their opinions to the artist. I like it, why blue? Mmm I don’t know. Honestly? I would put that on the right.

You have to be efficient in talking to them. The best way I know? Describe to them what you are seeing. Use your honest and sincere words and wait for their comment on your description.

If something does not convince you, ask them questions. You are a game designer, but the game design is something the whole team will do. Also them. Do not lose the opportunity to use their brains. Facilitate the act of game design and respect their ego. Which, in some cases, can be very high.

Try this when you get stuck

Published by Paolo on 04/12/2021

When you get stuck in a creative process share your concerns as soon as possible. I advise you to do it with conviction. People react quite badly to extreme things. Propose a sudden extreme draft to your team so that their brains are activated!

I usually get stuck on the writing side. Finding a tone for a new character or for a specific moment. Finding the right words is always very complicated to me. I need time that often I don’t have.

Define a tone according with the context and circunstances. Write down lines as quickly as possible in that tone. Try to do it in an extreme way. Share it immediately with the team. If you have a week to prepare a dialogue (that never happens), imagine that you have one hour. 

Pass your draft in slack or whatever with conviction: “I’m thinking something like this”. People will start to help you with ideas and concepts, believe me. They cannot accept that extreme thing. That is why you may want to be it: to activate their brain defenses!

With this technique you will get 3-5 potential tones and various references that I can explore! The team contributed to that and they will also feel more involved with the whole thing.

I hope this trick is useful to you!

Game Designers, use this onion to design your prototype

Published by Paolo on 02/12/2021

The onion model is the base that I use to think in any prototype of a new video game. I discovered it in a video years ago and I have never stopped to use it. I have never found that video again, sorry about that.

This onion model is made to be started from both sides. It works better to start from the narrative side and go toward the center. We have already a lot of core mechanics that are proven to work. Fire, match-3, gamble, merge, harvest, etc.

Which kind of feelings do you want your Players to have?

First question: which kind of experience do we want to give the Players? What are the feelings we want for our Players?

The answer can be pretty vague: “just a relaxing and quick experience.”

Or it can be detailed: “I want my Players to feel they are managing a video games company with its budget and people.”

Usually, this model works better with the second kind of answers. Try to spend the right amount of time in this part.

Then I try to identify the personas. Do not forget to use OCEAN!

I facilitate a session with all the team, in which we decide the kind of narrative we want to deliver. Content has a high cost, so that you may want to start from here believe me. It is good from the very beginning to start estimating its dimension.

Once we have the narrative, it’s time to pass to the progression part. Example:

Narrative: “You are a space traveler. You have to stop the evil Empire from oppressing the universe.”

Progression: “explore the universe, complete missions and quests.”

Do you really want to start with an open world game?

Progression: “beat the levels and defeat the bosses”

Ok, that seems better! Will the bosses have special behaviors?

Progression: “try to reach the best score and climb the leaderboard”

It’s Social, I like it. Is the leaderboard for real? NEVER do a real leaderboard for a prototype!

Only later think in the mechanics!

The secondary mechanic is related with the meta part of the game. Think of your Players when they are NOT playing your game. Which things do they think in when they have the intention to play your game again? 

“I have to enter because I have to collect my boosters” (Candy Crush Saga). Boosters are your secondary mechanic.

“I need to play again because they are attacking my base” (Clash of Clans). Raids are your secondary mechanic.

“I need to play again because I have to beat the Royal Griffin” (The Witcher 3). Spells or Crossbow are your secondary mechanic.

Now you have it! The core mechanic, I am sure, will come alone!

No? Really? Do you want to create a new one? OK.

  • Forget about all that we said and make a prototype including ONLY the core mechanic.
  • Iterate on that until you have it.
  • Playtest a lot, put your core mechanic really in crisis.

Then, and only then, you may want to add all the rest. My suggestion is trying to be really conservative on the other parts if you want to avoid headaches.

Is designing games making art?

Published by Paolo on 01/12/2021

We hear questions like this a lot. Are games a form of art? When we create games, do we produce art?

Internet is full of discussions among great minds (and also not so great) around those questions.

Often the discourse moves to “ok, what is art?” or “right, what is a game?”.

Lately I am taking an art course: Long pose drawing and painting. It was really a discovery to see how many things game design shares with art.

Art may have a strict process to follow. You can follow a specific method to create art pieces. You can also decide to just follow your movements and what your mind says. The same exact thing happens with game design. When you work for a company, probably you may want to follow a method and adapt it to the company needs. When we are alone with our mind, instead, we can just sketch. Sometimes the magic happens. Just as in art.

Art is based on the aesthetics. Aesthetics mean the study of the essence of things. When I am drawing a person standing in front of me, I am not really drawing straight. The drawing comes out from the shadows I am able to synthetize with my charcoals. I am constantly trying to find the essence to explain what I am seeing. Same exact thing with game design. You and your team want to deliver an experience, so that the whole game design process is about finding the essence of that experience. Look at the classic MDA framework, where researchers found 8 kind of aesthetics. Someone should continue that research, actually. It was made when videogames were still artifacts. Today games are entertainment, not artifacts anymore.

Art presents a challenge to the viewer. The artists tried to explain the aesthetics of what they were seeing or thinking. The final result is presented to the World and offers always an interpretation challenge. Instead of visual art, think in music. The first musical instrument opens the melody, then maybe a drum puts the rhythm in. Then other instruments join to create the harmony. According to the listener, the music can be noisy or exciting. The music can be very complicated when the listener is not prepared. The same exact thing happens with game design, especially with UX and Level Design. The final game has a complexity which is in general based on audience tastes. Or, at least, I would prefer to be so.

How to deal with your boss

Published by Paolo on 28/11/2021

One of the things I wanted to understand earlier when I started working as a game designer is that part of the job is making your boss successful.

Your boss could be the founder of the company you work for, in the case of small businesses. In this case, he will likely have to be accountable to investors. Try to understand the pressure he has and adapt your proposals to it.

It is not important in the profession to be right. The important thing is to deliver the things done. It does not matter that your idea is not accepted, very often there is an external pressure that causes them to take paths that may seem wrong.

Better to make our proposals, but willingly accept the impositions. The facts may prove us right, or we may discover other things we have ignored.

If your boss is a more technical person, better focus on trying to guide him on the more business side. We try to understand the context in which we work and which solutions can be simpler and faster to implement. Our importance in the team will increase!

If your boss is a manager, or a person who generally reports to the CEO or some other manager, it is appropriate to accompany our proposals with spreadsheets with numbers that we can generate. Money, or success metrics!

We must try hard to deliver these numbers, otherwise we risk our proposals being rejected because our boss is unable to defend them properly to superiors.

It is important to empathize with our leaders and understand what profile they have. If they are successful, we’ll be that too!

We are all game designers

Published by Paolo on 26/11/2021

There are four main specializations in game design: UX Design, Narrative Design, System Design and Level Design.

Each specialization is part of the game design, which in turn is part of the design. A Narrative Designer is a game designer; is a designer. A System Designer is a designer. And so on.

The difference is in the questions that each specialization asks itself.

UX Designer: What can you do in the game? What do we care that players do? What are the business objectives? Do the business goals support those of the players? Who are our players? How are they using the game right now?

System Designer: How can the gaming experience be broken down? What are the necessary resources for the experience and how do they interact with each other? Where do we want scarcity and where do we want abundance?

Narrative Designer: Who? Where? Why? What? When? How?

Level Designer: What are the metrics? What mechanics do I have? What kind of spaces appear in the game’s magic circle? How long should the level last? With what resources does the player arrive? What resources does the player end up with?

Job offers are always more specialized. In my humble opinion, any extra specialization is a specialization of these four described above.

A combat designer? He is a system designer specializing in combat systems.
A content designer? He is a somewhat UX oriented narrative designer
A game balancer? He is a level designer specializing in balancing numbers, therefore a bit oriented towards system design.

We are all game designers, and all game designers are designers!

Add the big 5 to your Personas

Published by Paolo on 25/11/2021

When I start a new game or design a new functionality for one I’m working on, an activity that I always facilitate in a team is to identify Personas.


It is about matching the profile of an imaginary Player with the team. You can be more or less informed by data and interviews, but in general it is good to focus internal discussions on the players.

It is important to create something that people want to buy, not something that we will buy. It generally marks the difference between success and failure.

There are many methods to organize a Persona, in this post I will tell you about the Big Five Personality Traits. It is a form of grouping people’s personalities, developed in the 1980s in the context of trait theory. According to this method, we can identify a person in 5 traits:

  • Openness to experience. Traditional VS Open to Novelties
  • Conscientiousness. Deep VS Superficial
  • Extraversion. Solitary VS Outgoing
  • Agreeableness. Analysis VS Adventure
  • Neuroticism. Reactive VS Receptive

This system is also called “OCEAN” or “CANOE”

The tendency of a team is to sometimes create personas with an OCEAN setup like this:
persona-ocean-1

My advice for designers is to push to extremes, let team members choose one feature or another in no uncertain terms:
ocean-persona-2

It’s much easier to argue about the various mechanics and dynamics like this!

Exercise: Take a game you are playing or studying and try to think in 3 different OCEAN configurations. Imagine how they would react to the important features of the game.