Analysis: Why is design thinking the most important ability of game designers?

introduction

What is the most important competency for game designers? I think it's design thinking.

Adaptation of Socrates' words: "Undesigned games are not worth playing". A patchwork of gameplay, or a brain-opening play, is not a good game.

The design purposefully combines various elements to form an organic system, and the experience of the whole game is complete and unified, the rhythm is smooth, and the ups and downs are smooth.

This process tests both skill and thinking, but mainly thinking.

Design thinking can be improved through training. This article will talk about what design thinking is, and after figuring it out, you can deliberately practice it purposefully. The hierarchy of design thinking

We often hear about "player thinking", "design thinking", or "analyzing the game from the perspective of designers and players", so what is player thinking and design thinking?

It is generally believed that the player thinks "this game is not fun", and the designer thinks about "how to achieve the design purpose". But this is not deep enough, I break down design thinking into three levels:

Know a design approach that gives the player an experience and performs a certain behavior. This is a design trick.

How do these methods work? How to innovate? This is the design principle.

Why should players have this experience, behavior? This is the design idea.

The first two layers are easier to understand, and the third layer needs to be explained in detail.

Some people may feel that what can achieve the goal is not good design, what design ideas do you want? Definitely needed, because the game is a complex system, the local good is not good, the overall need to be good. "Win the battle, lose the war" doesn't make sense.

Design skills are local tactics, and strategic guidance is also required to guide the overall layout and timing. Design thinking is strategy.

All local experiences must serve the core experience, and the core experience is the real core of the game. The essence of the third layer is to answer "What is the core experience of your game?"

Design thinking should be top-down: core experience - > local experience - > design principles - > design methods - > player psychology, behavior.

According to the core experience to plan what kind of local experience should be, and then according to the principle of creative design of new methods to affect the player's emotions and behavior, so as to form the local experience and overall experience we expect.

There's another layer on top of that: a strategy for positioning the core experience, but that's out of the "game design" level.

This requires designers to combine their own experience, preferences, social environment, team, market research and other aspects of long-term formation, each person's strategy is unique and can not be copied, and most of the factors have little to do with the current game, so it has been separated from the category of "game design".

The three levels of design thinking are introduced below. Design tips

Even the greatest ideas must have good executors, and unenforceable programs have no value. Laymen or novices often propose some unworkable solutions, so they will generally let newcomers learn for a period of time before proposing solutions.

People who have worked for many years will go to the other extreme, that is, "resource-oriented", what resources are currently available, do not think about how to break through. Or just take the "proven" design and use it.

The result of this is that the whole game has no highlights, thrown to the market feedback is better is "everything is good, it is not fun", almost "a template set out".

"Design skills" are the same as movie bridges and joke baggage, it is boring to use a few times, and then use it will have side effects, so it is necessary to continue to innovate.

The team innovation risk of design thinking is relatively large, the success or failure of the game is a multi-faceted factor, not to die without innovation, and some similar games on the market are not bad.

And the game industry is not so sunny, some "hard" research and development as long as there is a product can get investment or sell the product, there is no need for innovation.

But we must have the right values, earnestly study and improve ourselves, adhere to the road of few people, there is no need to squeeze the canoe bridge with a group of people.

Examples of design techniques

Design skills are used to complete the design of a local gameplay, and combine the components such as operation, process steps, visual packaging, gameplay rules, music sounds, UI, etc. to form a complete local experience.

Take an early, more classic example: Clash of Clans' battle mechanics. Since the focus is not on introducing the game, let's briefly talk about its main design advantages.

The rules are simple: the decision of victory and defeat, the operation, and the purpose of the battle are clear and clear.

The strategy dimension is simple: what soldiers to put, where to put them, and how many to put them. In order to achieve the goal, you only need to think about these three strategies, each strategy is very simple, most players can calculate it. And because decisions need to be made at any time, the player can maintain flow throughout the process, and the final result will be very happy if it wins, and it will be frustrated if it loses. And the final result is not predictable, thus reinforcing the Skinner box effect.

There is a game: both sides of the attack and defense have their own offensive and defensive arrangements, there is a relatively strong strategy, attack and defense need to think about it, thinking is an important game fun. And "Clash of Clans" designed 3 victory difficulties, which leaves room for the decision of victory and defeat, not all wins or total defeats, the experience is better.

Troops will not be recovered even if they are alive, so there is a psychological game point: if the troops are not released enough, they may not be able to fight, and too much will be wasted. This creates emotional ups and downs.

Further analysis requires finding all relevant elements, figuring out the cycle of the entire system and the impact of each step on the player's behavior and emotions. That's not the focus of this article, so I won't expand on it.

Most of Supercell's battle games meet these characteristics, but the specific rhythm and gameplay are different. At present, they already have 4 core gameplay level innovative games such as "Clash Royale", "Clash of Clans", "Island Raiders", and "Brawl in the Wild", which is very rare, and individuals are more optimistic about their ability to continue to innovate.

Here's how to improve your design skills. Improvement of design skills

The most difficult thing in the specific design is the design of the core gameplay, followed by the non-core gameplay, and then the functional design.

The core gameplay such as match-3 elimination, the moves and judgment mechanisms of fighting games, the combat mechanics of card games, non-core gameplay such as common tower climbing, arenas, and various cultivation methods; functions such as email, friends, and guilds.

Because innovation is a combination of permutations, improving design skills is essentially expanding your own pool of skills. It's just that this "library" is also hierarchical.

The lowest level is to play other games to copy, and a domestic sitcom Sinicized several famous American dramas, there is not enough accumulation, you can only copy.

The intermediate level is to learn from other fields, just as art often refers to architecture, crafts, and so on, games can also learn from other fields.

Most realistic games are derived from reality, such as various ball games, wars, simulated management, and so on. However, it is relatively broad and the value is not large, or it is specific to the gameplay and functional design.

The specific function is more classic is the ELO algorithm, and the matching mechanism of each battle game is basically derived from ELO. There are also some games of lottery, exchange play. "Fantasy Journey to the West" once had a price reduction auction game, which is also derived from the actual auction rules.

Gameplay design has the greatest demand for innovation, psychology and game theory can be studied more, and some of their experimental design or principles can be used in game design.

The most advanced "reservoir" is the behavior of people and the mental activities behind them.

Most people are emotionally driven when making judgments, the essence of the game is emotions, and observing people's behavior and the psychological activities behind them is naturally the most valuable to the design method.

For example, there is a saying: Tencent can expand its social territory based on WeChat. But Tencent has actually done some social apps such as friends, youji, cat call, and has been doing video numbers, but the results have not been great, why?

Personal analysis because there is a psychological factor: most users do not want their friends to see what I am watching at any time, only want their friends to see what I let them see. Therefore, if it is completely connected with WeChat and QQ, many users will not use it. Even if you don't get through, you may not take this risk.

In 2016, it was said that Alipay wanted to engage in social networking, and friends could see their Taobao purchase records to facilitate mutual comments, and as a result, public opinion exploded. Regardless of whether Alipay really thought about it or not, practice has proved that it is impossible to get it done.

Then if you don't open Up WeChat and QQ, you are on a starting line with other social apps, and there is no advantage. There may even be natural disadvantages.

The reason behind this is that "social" has boundaries, although people can not do without social, but the boundaries of social are very obvious, relatives, friends, colleagues, strangers, the relationship circle is clearly demarcated.

Another example is that the browser of station B returns to the design, and the video list on the right after returning to the previous page is still the last one, and it will not be replaced because the web page is refreshed.

Most people go back to the previous page because they think of an interesting video and want to go back and have a look, or because they are too lazy to open multiple tabs at the same time. Station B observed this behavior, with this design, and Weibo, Douyin did not, want to look back at all can not find.

Because psychological factors affect the user's behavior, we just want to affect the player's behavior, more observation of user behavior and research behind the psychology is the most valuable layer of "reserve". Design principles

The design principle is some large and small rules and laws, which are the principles behind the player's various behaviors and psychology.

Psychology can be divided into two categories: rational thinking and emotional emotions, which will affect people's behavior, so some behavior is rational, and some behavior is emotional. It's just that emotions in the game far exceed rationality, so it is necessary to learn the principles related to emotions.

The social sciences have studied more in this regard and can learn more.

For example, I think the essence of the game is the emotion, and the player's mood needs to be continuously and rhythmically changed in order to promote retention. So I set the main principle of the game as breaking the "adaptability bias", and everything is designed to break the "adaptability bias" in the long run.

Supplementary minor principles, such as the "peak final theorem", "psychological account", etc., together form the theoretical basis of game design.

These familiar concepts are not introduced, and an example of a less common principle is the cultivation theory, which mainly studies the long-term impact of television on the audience. Experiments have shown that the longer you watch TV, the closer the audience's perception of reality is to the content of the TV.

That's why the state regulates all kinds of entertainment content, because it really has an impact, and smart people should know what to do to follow the trend.

There are many such principles, and everyone slowly collects them on their own.

Improving the level of understanding of the principle is simple: learning the principle, then going to the reality to find positive and negative examples, and repeating this process to deepen the understanding of the principle, in fact, is the same as learning mathematics.

Many people feel that the principle is useless, and they don't know what to do after learning. It is because it is only the principle of "knowing", not even the level of understanding, can only look at a bunch of concepts can not land. Design thinking

Design ideas are more abstract, which is the characteristic of very few good designers, and most games actually have no ideas. Of course, this does not affect the business value.

This is not a disparagement, because it is really very difficult to do. Throughout history, all art has had countless works, but there are very few that can be left, most of the works will be forgotten by the times, and games will not be an exception.

Of course, being eliminated by time is not necessarily because there is no thought, but the probability of thoughtful works staying is greater.

The design idea is "what kind of game to be made", that is, to clarify what the core experience of the game is, what local experience components are needed, and what kind of rhythm to unfold.

Indie games may also have the meaning of "to express something", and commercial games may not have it.

If the design idea is very clear and the mastery of the design principle is comprehensive enough, there will not be too many problems when guiding the specific design. The problems of "repeated revision", "ambiguity", and "not knowing what to do" cannot be said to not necessarily appear, but the number of times is certainly not much.

Naoki Yoshida is a very clear designer, and he has a complete set of ideas to guide most of the design schemes.

Similarly, Chen Xinghan, Sid Meier, etc., all have their own very clear design ideas. Design thinking is the design concept, but I personally agree with the three-layer progressive concept of "ism, thought, and theory", which is called design thought.

Each era has its own characteristics, which are led by changes in production relations and social systems due to the increase of productive forces; great changes in the scope of activities and the efficiency of information dissemination brought about by the development of science and technology; and cultural phenomena brought about by the emergence of various new things. Various changes are progressive and influence each other, forming the trend of each era.

Producers who follow this trend are more likely to create great works, and those who don't adapt will be eliminated, even if they have done excellent works.

So "design thinking" may not be able to improve, because it is not the result of one ability, but other abilities after reaching a certain level.

This is the "core experience" preceded by a layer of "strategy for finding core experience", which stems from the recognition of the current world trend.

This is related to everyone's talent and experience, it is no longer possible to work hard, and the proportion of effort at this level is very low.

Some people say: "Thought determines behavior, behavior determines habit, habit determines character, and character determines destiny." ”

But in fact, more often than not, it is the opposite: fate determines character, character determines habits, habits determine behavior, and behavior determines thoughts.

I currently have the idea that "top success" might just be a product of the law of large numbers. Good producers have their own design ideas, and others can't learn them. And because there are enough people with unique ideas, there must be people whose design ideas are closer to the trend, and there will be large and small successes.

Learning other people's design ideas cannot become the top, only by forming your own unique design ideas. I don't know how to form my own unique design ideas, but I know some of the necessary abilities, that is, there is no necessary one.

The following is a brief introduction to these capabilities. Keen perception

The top designers in all design fields have a very keen observation of human behavior and mental activities, and can gain insight into the psychological activities behind most of the user behavior. And not only for individuals, but also for groups and for one's own mental activity is deeply perceived.

For example, I saw Zhao Benshan laugh as soon as he appeared in "A Generation of Grandmasters", but this is not a comedy, why do you laugh?

From this incident one can draw a conclusion: the actor can become a spell, and as soon as he appears, the audience will laugh. Not because his performance is funny, but because he is funny.

So is the same thing available: can cultural consensus, human instinct, also become a mantra? Later I figured out that this mantra is called "conditioned reflex.".

Another example, when we watch TV and movies, do we often think that the characters are stupid, and such obvious things are not clear?

If we can watch tv in a daily way, we can see our own or other people's or groups' behavior and the psychology behind them, which is actually "meta-thinking".

Of course, very few people can do it, just try your best. High-quality and diverse information reception

You are what you read.

Innovation needs information, and without enough diverse information, it's like staying at home and doing nothing, expecting a good idea to pop up.

Fine art has evolved over many years and has developed a mature way of finding design elements. But the game didn't develop for a few years, and the game design was more abstract and difficult to think clearly. Therefore, there is currently no systematic way to find a design reference.

But good game designers must know how to absorb design elements in various fields, otherwise how to innovate?

The better way is to learn with questions, keep thinking about "how to use this knowledge in game design", and slowly develop habits. This is actually the essence of the art to find reference methods.

You can take a look at various experimental designs, mini-games, competitive competitions, and some fields of principles and concepts, which are high-quality information.

The quality of inspiration by playing games and reading novels is much lower. Think big questions

I don't know if you have found that leaders of organizations of a certain size often like to talk about "essence", or "mission", "the future of mankind", and "the value of life".

There are three possibilities, one is that they are just bragging, trying to attract attention and gain profits.

The second is that there are people in the world who feel that life is once, and they will live in vain without doing something big.

The third kind is very rare, and people with a strong sense of responsibility really feel that "the great hero is for the country and the people" and wants to change the fate of the nation as a lifelong mission. For example, Lin Juemin, who died young, will obviously not be the first two.

Of course, it is more often a compound purpose.

Whether it is to attract attention or really want to do big things, its essence is because this thing has "meaning", everyone knows that this thing has great value, but there are very few people who can do it and are willing to do it, so the people who can do it and are willing to do it are naturally very attractive.

The same is true for making games, if you just chase the drama every day, watch other people process things, rather than study more essential things, it is impossible to come up with any infectious design, nor can you organize a large-scale overall design.

This is the superficiality of thinking, only thinking about what is "visible".

For example, some people know something like "the goal of life" and may think about what they want to do in this life: "To be financially free!" "Be happy and be happy!" "Do what you love!" "And then there was no then.

Leaders raise big questions that are logically supported, and it is impossible to shout two slogans without brains.

Big problems are supported by a complex set of theories, and only by understanding the whole set of theories can we barely understand this problem. For example, people who truly understand the "three views" must grasp a certain degree of the laws of the operation of the world, thus forming values, and finally forming a view of life.

Thinking about big problems is not because it really has much value, but the complexity of this logic and the process of building it are similar to the design logic of the game, and it is also very similar to activities such as starting a business and building an organization, so it is very helpful to think about it.

Don't lose sight of the value of the process because the results aren't useful.

And from the perspective of design thinking, it is also beneficial to understand more big problems, if your design ideas can "answer" these big questions, and just follow the trend, it is easier for players to feel thoughtful, high, and special.

Now that there are so many games, games with little difference will become more and more difficult to succeed. Logical and objective enough

This is a competency that looks very basic and is actually not so easy. It is also an essential ability to build a cognitive system.

To be "logical" requires a wealth of knowledge. You ask most people," are you a reasonable person? The answer is generally "yes.". However, due to the problem of human knowledge and ability, it is impossible to fully achieve "reasoning", which is the concept of "limited rational man".

Objectivity is even more difficult, and people actually rely mainly on emotions, not reason. Reason is an acquired ability, and the qualifications are still shallow. So basically it's still controlled by emotions, fear, anger, excitement, sadness, etc. As far as I can see, most people's so-called "objective" is based on their own imagination, not facts.

There are two simple ways to do it that is better than most people: to distinguish between what should be and what is, and to distinguish between emotions, facts, and opinions.

If you learn to learn logic again, it is the top 1%, and then cultivate yourself, maintain emotional stability, and can objectively evaluate things, basically choose a person who can "think independently".

The art of games differs from other arts in that they are far more complex than other arts. Not only is the personnel complex, but a large number of people with their own ideas are required to cooperate with each other. The complexity of the content is also extremely high, which requires a lot of gameplay, organic combination of functions, and "fighting wits" with players.

Designs that are not based on facts and logic must be full of loopholes, not only is the team difficult to bring, but the design results are certainly not good. Games are expected to grow in size in the foreseeable future, and this ability will become increasingly important. summary

Every art has a law of development, that is, with the improvement of the level of artistic creation, the aesthetic level of the audience will continue to increase.

This is a process similar to an arms race, and if it does not improve, it will be eliminated. If the level of artists does not improve, the works will not be seen by anyone, thus losing their jobs; if the level of the audience does not increase, they will be in a disadvantaged position in social activities and will be easily eliminated.

For example, film, it is a relatively new art, a hundred years have given birth to a lot of good works, it is easy to see that the level of the entire industry is constantly improving, and the audience who have seen good movies naturally put forward higher requirements for new movies.

Of course, movies are the same as games, and the economic benefits are not necessarily related to whether they are good or not, and there are also bad movies that have sold well, but in general, the income of bad movies will not be high.

And the future will pay more attention to continuous experience, not a hammer deal, the value of good works will last a long time.

Emotional goods are rarely "bad money eliminated good money", more is the opposite, probably because emotional goods are optional goods.

Good design thinking can design good works, design thinking is the designer's underlying thinking, which needs lifelong learning.

In addition, I divide the player into three levels:

Like to play games, experience good games willing to play more. (Pan-User)

He has a good understanding of various game mechanics and development history, can reach a high level of play, and is very keen on games rather than other forms of entertainment. (Hardcore Player)

Pursue the core of the game. Similar to high-end film fans, they no longer care about the actors, cameras, scenes, special effects, etc., but are more concerned about the core ideas of the movie. (Connoisseur)

The third tier of players is not the goal of commercial works, because there are too few such people. And to meet their higher requirements for authors, such authors are too few.

The first tier of players is the target of commercial works, but how can people choose you?

In general, the level of the first tier player will slowly increase, or the preferences of the second tier player will be affected. So we need to stand in the perspective of the third layer, let the second layer players feel valuable, and let the first layer players feel good experience.

In this way, the second tier player becomes a loyal player, radiating to the first tier player. Players in the first tier can also have a good experience, and in the game they will be influenced by the players of the second tier or become the players of the second tier, and slowly become loyal players.

So the importance of high-order design thinking is self-evident.