Flower's Dev Diary (Week of July 22nd)

[Sarudak]

Any hints on what we might expect from villagers? :D

[FlowerChild]

Any hints on what we might expect from villagers? :D

No, not yet. I'm still trying to trim down the scope of my original design for them to get them done in a reasonable amount of time. My goal at present is to deepen the gameplay associated with them without totally breaking my development "budget" :)

[Zhil]

I'm sure you'll pull it off. Your last few releases were exceptional, feels likes you're on a total roll :)

Maybe it's because I can see the big picture now.

[Zhil]

Yeah, it would also break existing builds, some totally legit, left and right if I started fixing these things. Overall, I think it's best that I work instead towards making sure these kinds of things don't entrench themselves in my own game.

I'd love if you took the time one day to write a small blurb about what you conceive to be the difference between fixing issues like that, without completely shutting down emergent game-play. Is it just a question of analyzing the exploit and deciding if it adds valid new game-play? Or is there two distinct categories?

I've been pondering this for a while and you seem to have the answer :)

[FlowerChild]

I'd love if you took the time one day to write a small blurb about what you conceive to be the difference between fixing issues like that, without completely shutting down emergent game-play. Is it just a question of analyzing the exploit and deciding if it adds valid new game-play? Or is there two distinct categories?

I've been pondering this for a while and you seem to have the answer :)

Unfortunately I don't think I could provide you with a clearly defined answer man, as it seems to largely be a matter of instinct/experience for me man rather than any formal rules.

Don't forget, that at a certain point game design is also an art as well as a science, so there are times when it comes down to something just not feeling right, and being willing to act on that basis without a clear logical argument to why you are doing so.

Sometimes you'll see me have a "eureka!" moment where I finally figure out the reasoning behind why I am doing something that I've already been doing for years :)

[Zhil]

Unfortunately I don't think I could provide you with a clearly defined answer man, as it seems to largely be a matter of instinct/experience for me man rather than any formal rules.

Don't forget, that at a certain point game design is also an art as well as a science, so there are times when it comes down to something just not feeling right, and being willing to act on that basis without a clear logical argument to why you are doing so.

Sometimes you'll see me have a "eureka!" moment where I finally figure out the reasoning behind why I am doing something that I've already been doing for years :)

That answers my question actually :). I'm perfectly able to take those decisions creatively (not saying I can do it well of course), I was just wondering if I was missing a more logical solution. Thanks for taking a moment to indulge me :)

[FlowerChild]

Actually, after a cigarette and brief contemplation, what I can say is that I normally break it down into a series of questions along the lines of:

-Does it provide gameplay value that isn't already present, and to what degree (mob traps are a good example here of high gameplay value to an "exploit")?
-Does it bypass existing legit gameplay systems and only serve to make things easier than intended or otherwise interfere with the game flow (piston BUD is an example here)?
-Does it break suspension of disbelief in an overly gamey manner that can not be justified in-game in other ways (piston BUD is example of one that can't, mob traps one that can)?

Where I think the art comes in is in terms of how those various factors weigh against each other in making the end decision as to whether something is an exploit or representative of valuable emergent gameplay, and how far you are willing to go in terms of investing development resources in order to legitimize it (which you'll notice I've done with several features, mob traps and BUDs included). Heck, there's even a certain amount of art involved in evaluating how much it will cost to do that, as it's the kind of thing that can only really be learned through experience.

[Zhil]

Where I think the art comes in is in terms of how those various factors weigh against each other in making the end decision as to whether something is an exploit or representative of valuable emergent gameplay, and how far you are willing to go in terms of investing development resources in order to legitimize it (which you'll notice I've done with several features, mob traps and BUDs included). Heck, there's even a certain amount of art involved in evaluating how much it will cost to do that, as it's the kind of thing that can only really be learned through experience.

Nice short list, ties in rather nicely to some of the notes I already have written down.

But yeah, I sorely lack experience I'm noticing, working hard on it though. Be careful or I'll catch up to you one day ;) (yeah, right).

I'll stop derailing the thread now, sorry for that.

[FlowerChild]

But yeah, I sorely lack experience I'm noticing, working hard on it though. Be careful or I'll catch up to you one day ;) (yeah, right).

Well, there's really no rushing experience, and one of the things I have always found so compelling about making games is that there's always something new to learn. Like I've mentioned in the past, one of the reasons I've found MC so interesting is that it represents something truly new in game design for me to think about and gain experience with.

Think of how many times I've gone on rambles over the past couple of years about the realizations I've made with regards to how something in MC actually works on the player or contributes to gameplay. My past experience has certainly helped in that analysis, but there's so much that is new here that it makes it incredibly exciting (at least for me) to contemplate and experiment with.

Personally, I think I've evolved an awful lot as a designer over the course of this project, and it's really been a big "ok...I actually know what I'm doing" wake up call for me after many years of being in the position of making games I didn't even particularly want to play and the corresponding number that will do on your self-confidence.

After pouring 2.5 years of work into it, I still love playing BTW. That's an absolute first for me, and it's incredibly gratifying. In the past, after a year or so of working on a game, I was generally so utterly sick of it that I never wanted to play it again.

I'll stop derailing the thread now, sorry for that.

Meh...I think the thread had largely run its course :)

[Zhil]

What I personally find baffling is that lately you've put out a few of my favorite releases. You know I don't really believe in on-going development as it'll eventually devolve into adding stuff for the sake of adding stuff. It's truly a testament to your love for this project if you're still peaking after 2.5 years (jesus, that long already?).

Getting pretty antsy for RTH now :)

You better keep up with the dev logs once it starts :p

[FlowerChild]

What I personally find baffling is that lately you've put out a few of my favorite releases. You know I don't really believe in on-going development as it'll eventually devolve into adding stuff for the sake of adding stuff. It's truly a testament to your love for this project if you're still peaking after 2.5 years (jesus, that long already?).

Oh, I haven't peaked yet man. Far from I think. I wouldn't be going on to do another game in the same vein otherwise :)

These days I've been chopping more ideas than implementing them, leaving them for my own project. It's frustrating in a way for me as throughout BTW's dev I've largely been diving into whatever most interests me to work on next (which usually corresponds to what will have the most significant impact on gameplay since I am largely design driven) and having to put things to the side like this to work on trivialities like candle insertion or whatever is rather annoying by comparison.

I think the major failings with ongoing development (because it's been annoying the shit out of me with other games like Don't Starve too) is that people are either no longer passionate about the game they are working on and are continuing to add stuff "just because" (MC), don't understand what made the game good in the first place (also MC), or have compromised their design vision along the way in response to the demands of players (both MC and Don't Starve).

Thus, I don't think it's actually a problem with ongoing dev itself, as much as it is the conditions under which people are doing it, and the personality attributes of those that are engaged in it. Basically, I think it suits some people and games, and is absolutely terrible for others. I also think this whole "community driven" design trend that seems to be so fashionable at present is utter rubbish, and is getting developers into far more trouble than they realize (it's also being paired with ongoing development more often than not).

[Sarudak]

I really hope you provide us with some dev diaries while working on RTH also. :)

[FlowerChild]

I really hope you provide us with some dev diaries while working on RTH also. :)

I likely will, but there are certain things I think I'll need to be tight-lipped on initially for my own well being. You'll notice I've been extremely secretive about my plans at present as nothing will be more disheartening than if I start seeing my own design ideas and plans showing up in other games before I have gotten my own off the ground.

There are bigger budgets, and bigger teams out there working on these kinds of titles, and I think my real advantage rests in my ideas which have evolved over the course of developing BTW and thus have been hard-earned through the experience gained there.

Well, that and my ability to say "fuck off" to just about everyone and do the game I want to do rather than what I think will be popular with the masses, and thus my willingness to go further than most in terms of design, which I think will result in something unique regardless of what else happens along the way :)

But yes, in terms of just basic development stuff, I think there shall likely be dev diaries. I've also got plans for incremental releases that will hopefully have playable versions in the hands of the community relatively quick so they can follow development through those as well.

[Zhil]

But yes, in terms of just basic development stuff, I think there shall likely be dev diaries. I've also got plans for incremental releases that will hopefully have playable versions in the hands of the community relatively quick so they can follow development through those as well.

Sounds great :)

Thus, I don't think it's actually a problem with ongoing dev itself, as much as it is the conditions under which people are doing it, and the personality attributes of those that are engaged in it. Basically, I think it suits some people and games, and is absolutely terrible for others. I also think this whole "community driven" design trend that seems to be so fashionable at present is utter rubbish, and is getting developers into far more trouble than they realize (it's also being paired with ongoing development more often than not).

Community driven design is impossible by definition. Design is always execution of vision. There's no such thing as "community vision", because a vision needs to pointed to be a real vision.

They're doing community driven "something", but it's not design, it's not working and it's not making for brilliant games.

Imagine what would've happened to the impressionist movement if they would have listened to the public's opinion :p

[FlowerChild]

Well, what's practiced now is largely what used to be referred to as "design by committee", and that definitely wasn't intended to describe it in a flattering manner ;)

Even worse though, it used to be the case where it was used to describe when there was no clear design vision within a company, but at least in that case the people making the decisions were still developers. In the current sense, it's the players determining the development direction, and that often means that they're representing their desires *as players* in what I think boils down to a clear conflict of interest. Basically the same thing I've gone on about in the past where it's the job of the player to try to win, thus they often try to influence the design in ways that will make it easier for them to do so, to its eventual detriment.

Heck, I even ran into that with BTW, in some very subtle ways. There used to even be some very prominent members of this community that would regularly make suggestions for stuff that seemed very reasonable on the surface, but opened up back door possibilities that wound up serving as exploits. After getting burned by that on more than one occasion, even having to rip features out entirely afterwards as a result, I learned the hard way to take what particular people suggested (and really suggestions in general) with a big old grain of salt and look closely at the secondary consequences that they might actually be pushing for.

Players will try to win, and that's perfectly natural. However, that also means that whether it be consciously or subconsciously, their suggestions will often therefore serve to undermine a game's design, and they are often the worst people to be heavily influencing it.

*Observing* play is another thing however. I think getting into the habit of watching BTW LP series has really helped to strengthen its design, and that's one area where I think a game's community can play a very beneficial role in its development.

[FlowerChild]

Just to add a couple of examples of what I mean to the above:

I ran into this twice recently. The first was in going to the 7 Days forums and saying that I thought it might be a good idea if the guns you found in the environment were the only ones you'd ever have access to (make them non-craftable remnants of the "old world"). The backlash from players to that was severe, and I don't think it was because it was a bad idea, but rather because *as players* they of course want to craft guns as that makes them more powerful (heck, as a player, *if* I can craft guns, I definitely want to). Thus they reflexively oppose such an idea, even if it could have very well resulted in a better game.

Second was my recent interaction with Dinnerbone with regards to variable nether portal dimensions. Again, backlash was severe, with Dinnerbone himself even saying something along the lines of "you expect me to tell all these people they're wrong?". Well, the answer to that is of course yes (assuming he himself viewed it as wrong) if a game is to have any overall guiding vision.

Would these things have made for a better game in the end? I can't say for certain, but if you're making your design decisions not on that basis, but rather based on what popular opinion is, you'll never really know either. There's a level of objectivity required for these kinds of decision that most players simply do not have. Some do mind you...and those are the people whose input I value the most.

[Sarudak]

Incremental releases sound great. (I'm assuming like how you've been doing BTW) But I'm guessing there will be quite some time before there's anything resembling a playable game and I was just looking forward to hearing something in the mean time. I enjoy reading your thoughts on game design. :)

[FlowerChild]

Incremental releases sound great. (I'm assuming like how you've been doing BTW) But I'm guessing there will be quite some time before there's anything resembling a playable game and I was just looking forward to hearing something in the mean time. I enjoy reading your thoughts on game design. :)

Well, when I'm talking about incremental releases here, I'm not talking about once the game is fully playable or in many months time. What I'm talking about more is incrementally releasing builds from a very early stage that I've planned out so that they are playable in their own right, even if they don't resemble the final game.

I'll be doing this both for the sake of the community so that I don't just disappear from sight for an extended period, and also for my own sanity as it will allow me to alternate between infrastructure and gameplay development in bits and pieces while working towards both for the final game (the stuff I'll be implementing gameplay wise will likely be used in the main game as well and will give me a little wiggle room for experimentation).

I'll get into more details on this as we get closer, but the long and the short of it is that no, one way or another, I won't be disappearing for a prolonged period.

Actually, we're getting close enough that I don't mind sharing one little detail here: I'll be referring to these incremental development releases as "Dreams Of Home", and in terms of the "story-line", they'll take place between the events in BTW, and those in RTH.

As an aside, I really like the acronym "DOH!" for these kinds of dev builds as I think it representative of the many trials and tribulations of early development ;)

[Sarudak]

Huh... I'm a little confused. So you'll be releasing games that are not RTH but are like minigames that have some of the parts of RTH in a simpler form and gradually get more complex approaching RTH?

[FlowerChild]

Huh... I'm a little confused. So you'll be releasing games that are not RTH but are like minigames that have some of the parts of RTH in a simpler form and gradually get more complex approaching RTH?

I wouldn't call them games, but rather development builds with incrementally increasing amounts of gameplay that will allow people to have some fun in the meantime, with perhaps a little more attention paid to immediate playability than what you would traditionally expect.

Beyond that, more details to come as we get closer :)

[brab]

I wouldn't call them games, but rather development builds with incrementally increasing amounts of gameplay that will allow people to have some fun in the meantime, with perhaps a little more attention paid to immediate playability than what you would traditionally expect.

Beyond that, more details to come as we get closer :)

What a cliffhanger ... I can't wait!

[Zhil]

I find your stance on non-craftables very intriguing. There's a natural tendency to make everything craftable at a certain point in these kinds of games. Making a certain amount non-craftable (like you did with brewing stands) tickles my interest.

I've been playing around for a while now (since pre-Minecraft) with a system where you have two kinds of ways of interacting with items. One way is to create from basic resources (classic crafting), the other would be what I call scavenging, where you combine certain items into new ones.

For example, crafting would be using metal to make different gun parts that you then combine into a gun. In a game lacking proficiency (as an RPG-like attribute), that means that every time you craft a gun, you go through the same process, end up with the same gun. Scavenging would mean you find two guns in the wild, one that has good range, but is not automatic and another one that is automatic, but heats up fast. Scavenging the two, you could create a new gun with good range, automatic, but heats up fast. The difference here is that with scavenging, you're working with unique parts to create unique guns.

I wonder if there's more "archetypal crafting mechanics" like that, I should analyze some games with good crafting systems. I guess the "slot-based" way is another one, where a gun has certain slots (barrel, stock, etc) that you can swap. There's a few good examples there in mech games like Missionforce: Cyberstorm.

In any case, there's a lot more to be done with crafting than Vanilla touches. Just a brain-fart of mine, get out of it what you will :).

[Sarudak]

What about something like crafting a kiln though? What kind of crafting mechanic is that? On the one hand it is something you craft from raw resources. On the other hand it's easily customized. You can change size and shape dramatically within certain parameters. It's this kind of crafting that I find to be the most interesting and is one of the greatest draws for a voxel type game. Even building an automated farm is a form of 'crafting' IMO and the level of options it provides in do I optimize for small size, later expansion, speed of operation, efficiency of inputs, ect. Good constraints allow for and encourage creativity, problem solving, and strategic decision making in a way that no other 'crafting' of any other game I have ever seen does.

[FlowerChild]

EDIT:

Pro-tip: Don't post before you have your first cup of coffee in your hands ;)

[FlowerChild]

Ok, somewhat sentient now :)

I don't think having non-craftables is actually anything new. Heck, MC is loaded with them, like diamonds for example. There seems to be a weird thing however with these kinds of games where people view it as almost a design necessity that everything be renewable in one way or another, which is not something I really agree with.

Yes, I do think that having certain resources be renewable can be beneficial, but at the same time, I think having certain things not be keeps things interesting and provides diversity to gameplay.

Anyways, I think you see it a lot in game designs and communities where people make the assumption that if something is good, then doing it all the time is even better, when that's not necessarily the case.