Computer Games - Vocabulary and Tools, part 2

F.A.D.T & M.D.A

Now, continuing from the last post about "Computer Games Vocabulary and Tools". In this last post I've written about the appropriate vocabulary used when talking about game designing and what tools are the best to use. I talked about a vocabulary applied to the gaming world now the tools used should be brought in the discussion.

So, abbreviations ... why do they stand for?  F.A.D.T or "Formal Abstract Design Tools" and a more detailed form : M.D.A or "Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics". So F.A.D.T first and then M.D.A. Why? Because I consider that MDA are tools and to talk about them first we must talk about tools in a general-ish way.

F.A.D.T - Formal Abstract Design Tools by Doug Church

So what a computer game is really made of? Some would say art, some would say code, some would say ideas. I would say that  all of them. And what puts them together is: design. The putting together of  ideas, art and code  across genres is the work of designers. But sadly, "design" is the least understood aspect of computer game creation. It's the aspect that puts together art, code, levels, sound into what players experience while playing. As Doug Church puts it "The Design is the Game; without it you would have a CD full of data, but no experience for the player"


Also it has the most problems evolving. There have been made discoveries in terms of technology, art and sound creation, data input and output, better equipment and better problem solving, but not in design. And that is because not enough is done to put together and build on past discoveries, sharing the concepts behind successes and apply lessons learned into one domain or genre to another.  Even as an academic domain it's still a confused about what it wants. Most courses fixate only on coding, while other only on art.

The primary problem with the evolution of design is the lack of a common design vocabulary. Going back to the last blog post I did, about Costikyan's article, as he said that the main thing Computer Games Design needs is a proper vocabulary to be used when discussing and analysing this topic.
As Church has it: "Most professional disciplines have a fairly evolved language for discussion ... In contrast game designers could disscuss <<fun>> or <<not fun>> but often the analysis stops there."
Following this point, you could say that a conference between game designers from different companies, teams, genres would just sound like a huge jumble of gibberish. To be able to communicate precisely and effectively, designers need a form of understanding each other. To do that, there's a need for shared language of game designers. And now we're back from where Greg Costikyan started.

Doug Church believes that a clear vocabulary could be discovered by analysing the tools that are used to build games with. But even though you have this tools available to you, as a game designer will have to be able to come up the idea for the game, what is fun, what's the game about and what goals it has.
He sees the vocabulary as a tool to pick apart games and set aside the pieces of  the game's design, that resonate with your idea and your vision of the game and refine them so they can be applied to your game.
You should carefully analyse what you take from a game and throw it into your game, because a game won't be made good if you stuff it up with lots of stuff that you like, making the game about just one aspect.

He gives examples of how this should be done by analysing games that give good examples of game design. The games he talks about is Mario 64 and Final Fantasy VIII. The way to undergo a critical analysis has about two phases: Prescribe the formal proprieties of the game. Then try to understand why the designer choose this particular set of elements and structure, what would've happens if they have chosen differently.

The tools or F.A.D.T's found in Mario are :

• Perceivable Consequence :  which is a clear reaction from the game world to the actions of the players.  The players are capable to assess what will happen with the game world, given the effect of their actions. This way they know to expect a blow coming from around the corner, not just getting randomly killed, loosing the progress in the game. 
• Intention: making a plan, taking into consideration the player's actions in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options. 

Another game to which he refers to and in which he finds one last important F.A.D.T  is Final Fantasy VIII:

• Story :  the narrative thread, whether designer-driven or player-driven,that binds events together and drives the player forward toward completion of the game

Other tools that he talks about are : Cooperation, Conflict, Confusion. 

All this tools are used to help the game designer understand different aspects of the game's design and to maximize the players feeling of involvement and self . There are more tools than the ones explained by Doug Church, but the ones presented by him are the basic ones to understand the vocabulary of game designers.

"A good game has to have a "fun" core, which is a 

one sentence description of why it is fun"

Paul Reiche III - Compute Magazine, January 1992.

...

But, for the moment I believe that this is okay and I will cover M.D.A in a future post or rendition of this post.