长文探讨：从核心+聚焦+推力（Core、Focus &Power）看游戏设计

原作者：Adrian Novell 译者：Vivian Xue

前言

作为游戏设计师的我们经常需要快速做出复杂的设计决策。我们应该如何看待这样那样的系统？这些机制和功能真的必要吗？我们应该首先开发什么？这些听起来很有趣的想法真的能结合起来吗？

当我们面对二选一并且两个选择都不错时，我们该如何抉择？

这些是我们经常面对的问题，如果我们拿不出一个简明巧妙的方案将会（并且通常会）导致两类后果：

i. 糟糕的设计：没有可靠的根据或明确的标准，只凭直觉或无根据的品味进行决策通常会导致蹩脚的设计，使游戏变成“功能叠叠乐”。

ii. 团队受影响：团队合作很大一部分取决于团队决策，这意味着如果你无法清晰、有条理地向全体成员解释你的决策，他们会觉得自己的工作似乎基于随意的想法。这可不好。

另一方面，干这行的人（无论他们的角色是什么）通常会在创造性的驱使下提出想法，渴望将它付诸实践。在这种情况下，如果作为设计师的我们不能合理地解释他们的想法为什么有意义或无意义，你可能会陷入不安和困扰的状态。

现在，有一些工具能帮我们做选择、忠于目标、避免反复做无用功。其中一些包括：常识、对技术和制作方面的了解，别的游戏如何解决类似问题，以及把游戏当作一种表达和沟通的媒介进行学习。

i. 常识：我相信设计游戏很大程度上运用的是常识。一些基本的概念，比如我们在平衡游戏体验时需要“取舍”，为了不让玩家被游戏难倒我们要设计“困难曲线”等等，这些工具不是通过数学运算被发现的。这也是为什么很多玩家在玩游戏时会感觉自己能设计出更好的版本，因为几乎每个人都能发现使游戏体验或多或少更有趣的事物。

ii. 对技术和制作方面的理解：电子游戏是制作难度极高的产品。你需要让完全不相干的学科结合起来，可想而知会遇到多少问题。到处都是限制和条件：时间、资源、使用什么技术、在哪个平台发行、团队的知识和能力、优先事项、目标等等。游戏设计师不可避免地需要在这些条件限制下工作。你可能会得出这样的结论，这么多的限制对设计是不利的。从长期来看也许是这样，但至少在日常决策中它们能够发挥用处（它们实际上是一种额外的工具）。对于开发周期短的小团队来说，决定游戏包含5个角色还是100个相当容易。你没办法做100个，就是这样，必须在设计上妥协。多亏这些“限制”的存在，这个决策花了我们五秒钟不到并且得到了一致认同。

iii. 参照：当我们在设计过程中遇到复杂问题时，一个最基本的方法是参考别的游戏如何解决类似问题。大量试玩各种各样的游戏无疑能帮助我们更好理解这一媒介，无论是它的优点还是缺点。一位平面设计教师曾说“你没必要重新发明轮子，”（意思是别人已经创造或者发明出来的东西，没必要浪费精力再去钻研同样的事物），这句话适用于任何创意行业，包括游戏设计。

iv. 把游戏当作一种媒介去学习：相关的工具书非常多，比如The Aesthetic of Play、Uncertainty in Games、Rules of Play、Game Feel、On the Way to Fun、A Book of Lenses等等，这些书能帮助我们理解这一媒介，掌握游戏的大体结构以设计出更棒的体验。它们有助于你进行宏观设计和微观决策。我们尝试通过这一媒介表达自己，从而创造优质的体验并为我们的日常开发决策提供支持，因此了解这一媒介的特性、优势和弱点很重要。

然而，即便掌握了这些工具方法（我在开发过程中成功拥有了它们），我仍觉得缺了点什么，某种帮助我们创造优质体验的方案或理解设计的方式。这些体验是如此优质以至于如何设计它们是毋庸置疑的（我把它们成为“自动被设计”的体验）。这类产品拥有如此清晰的愿景以及强大的核心，以至于决策过程几乎无需讨论，你可以把精力集中投入到创作上而不是争论上。

因此我想到了一个能填补这个空缺的方法，我称之为“核心、聚焦和推力”（Core, Focus and Power）。这种方法可以应用于任何开发，并有助于实现预期的结果（优质的体验和愉快的开发过程）。

————
“核心、聚焦和推力”（方法的简单介绍）

这就是我所说的方法，它很简单：

i. 首先，定义游戏的核心。

-核心乃目标，即设计的意图，整个设计过程的指南针。

-核心定下后不再更改，最好在建立模型之前就定下。

ii. 接着聚焦于核心

-游戏中的一切均应指向核心，聚焦于核心，如果某样事物不指向核心，那么它的存在必须具备一个恰当的理由或目的。

-每当提出一个新功能、或者需要做设计决策时都要重复这个步骤。

iii. 得到了聚焦于核心的功能后，试图给它们推力

-推力意味着至少某一个游戏功能应该更进一步，把产品带出舒适区，使之具备新鲜大胆的外型。

-在设计了一个聚焦核心的功能或元素后进行这个步骤，通过不断问自己：我应如何使它得到突破，甚至让它达到极致？

———–
核心（Core）

核心是游戏的中心部分。它是我们想要传递的东西。它是我们想传递的信息。

核心可以是一个词语、一种感觉、一种情绪、一个机制、一个角色。

它可以是一个商业目标、一个平台（比如：利用Swith平台的能力）。

我喜欢将核心总结为：“设计的意图”。

实际上任何事物都可以是核心。例如，在这篇文章中我会反复引用我开发的一款游戏Mages & Taverns，它是一款桌游。这款游戏有一个怪异的核心：“生成玩家间的互动”。

一些其它游戏的核心：

-Fez：视角

-Ico：两个角色之间的关系

核心是基石，在此之上我们搭建起整个体验。它是目标，也是设计的指南针。

它在设计过程中发挥了两个作用：

i. 作为区分优劣事物的筛子：所有的创意都要通过这个筛子。这个功能、这种艺术风格、这个游戏名称，它指向我们的核心吗？它与核心是一致的吗？（被动作用）

ii. 激发相关创意：一个定义明确的核心将激发更多创意。（主动作用）

它还提供了什么其他好处呢？

iii. 促进功能的重组：游戏的各个部分将更好地融合。所有的创意都围绕着一个明确的目标。我们不会面临上面提到的 “功能叠叠乐”问题。

iv. 为团队提供了一个共同愿景：拥有共同的方向无疑有利于团队工作。这样一来，承担创造责任的人只是在守护这个被一致接受的概念，而不是毫无目标地命令他人做这做那。决策能够更好地被每个人理解和接受，甚至团队的反馈和新创意也更准确了。

相关实例：

我的游戏Mages &Taverns最初是一款介于阿根廷典型游戏 Truco（一款简单的以投机打法为主的纸牌）和《万智牌》之间的游戏。它变成了简化版的《万智牌》，三个玩家各自扮演一名巫师，到达客栈后发现只剩下一杯啤酒，于是他们决定通过打牌决定谁喝这杯酒。

这是最初的设计意图，但在建立一个模型后，我发现游戏使玩家产生了如此多的互动，因此我认为游戏的核心更准确的来说应该是：使玩家之间产生互动。

那次修改之后，我在游戏中加入了一张重要卡牌“火”。

这张牌的效果很强：摧毁对方的一颗宝石。获胜的条件是集满三颗宝石，可见它的影响力之大。

这张卡牌的意义在于，另一名对手（游戏邦注记得这个游戏至少需要3人参与）可以通过支付一种基本资源（这款游戏的货币叫做“宝球”）增强这张牌的威力，使对方丧失两颗宝石，这将会是毁灭性的打击。

我带着这个新版本去了在Tembac ‘s house的聚会（Tembac’s house是著名的游戏开发者聚会地，Ron Gilbert、Jonathan Blow、Dino Patti等大佬都在里面），我们举行了一场长达30分钟的比赛。前二十分钟一片沉默，玩家之间没有任何互动。游戏体验糟透了，可就在最后几分钟，某人打出了“火”牌，另外一名玩家给牌加码，于是混乱开始了。玩家们为这一举动争论了五分钟，这让我松了一口气：游戏的核心、设计的意图达到了。

附加说明：

-这一“核心”有多新？

Ubisoft或EA等公司都提出过类似的概念，他们称之为“Fantasy”。它在用户与产品任何具有沟通性质的内容开始交互的那一刻激发用户的雄心。并且游戏必须使这种体验焕发活力，满足用户的期望。为了实现这一点，一切设计与开发都围绕“Fantasy”。它是游戏的轴心。《龙腾世纪:审判》就是一个运用“Fantasy”的例子：“Become the Inquisitor！ ”（成为审判者！）简单的一句台词使玩家了解自己扮演了什么角色，应该期望什么，等等。它不仅是一句优秀的营销口号，它也是整个设计过程的指导。

还有一些人把这种概念称为“设计支柱”（“design pillar”）。

-定义你的核心，或早或晚

我建议你在开始设计其它内容之前定义核心。但我也理解在某些情况下，我们做设计时没有太明确的目标，一旦你做出了一些东西，你必须停下来看看游戏的核心。

举个例子，当我们在Global Game Jam（48小时内开发出一款游戏的极限挑战活动）上开发模型时没有太多时间思考，结果发现尽管做出来的模型可能很有趣，它在设计上有一些不确定性，因此你必须放慢速度，找到游戏的核心，并从那一刻起时刻以它为中心进行设计。

————
聚焦（Focus）

聚焦是一项思维练习，涉及到筛选并只留下与核心一致的元素。聚焦要求我们在每次往游戏里添加东西时问自己：这个功能是否指向游戏的核心呢？

虽然你可能觉得这是理所当然的，但不是所有人都能真正理解全体功能和元素都必须明确地指向核心。

我之所以把它称为“聚焦”，是因为这个过程就像是把游戏核心置于舞台中央，游戏中的一切都应该为突显这个核心服务。实现这一点叫做“聚焦”。

哪些东西可以指向核心呢？一切事物。

游戏中的每一个小部分都是沟通的机会。这里列出了几个我认为可以实现聚焦的元素：

-机制
-场景
-关卡设计
-HUD界面
-视觉效果
-对话
-艺术风格
-游戏图标
-游戏名称
-菜单
-音效
-背景音乐
-游戏宣传材料
-概念艺术

场面调度（Mise en Scène）

在研究过程中，我发现电影界早已提出了一个相似的概念，他们称之为“场面调度”。

这一概念主张我们在电影中不能仅通过台词和表演传递信息，场面的每一个组成元素都会影响观众的视听感受，如光效、构图、布景、色彩、服饰，等等。它们结合在一起传达特殊含义。

我们可以通过暂停观察电影的任意一帧来理解这个概念的运用。

举个例子，在《美国丽人》的这个场景中，我们可以观察电影是如何展现凯文·史派西的脆弱：

-构图：人物被置于中线以下，使他看上去很弱小
-服饰：人物衣着松垮，使他看上去不自信
-光效：很微弱，虽然有一点光线，但它柔和地从侧边打到人物身上。连光都不愿倾听他的渴望。
-表演：非权威的姿态
-布景：房间里只有几个物件，散布在各个地方，没什么明确的意图。它们反映了人物的心境。

通过做减法设计

实现聚焦的一种方法是问自己“我们要加入的这个功能是否真的指向核心”，但它同时也是一个反向练习。时不时地回头看我们投入的功能，并再一次问自己它们是否聚焦于核心，这是很重要的。

相关实例：

让我们再次回到桌游的例子，在我找到了能够凸显核心（玩家互动）的机制之后，我意识到可能不是所有元素都与这个核心一致。因此我开始运用“聚焦”概念，并且为了改进游戏设计，我认真研究了每一张卡牌和每一条规则，修改或删除了一些内容，最后增加了一些卡牌。

在“聚焦”过程中我采取了以下做法：

-玩家不仅可以用卡牌保护自己的宝石，还可以保护对手的宝石了（促进玩家自发结盟）。
-我本来想去掉一张名为“剽窃”的卡牌（能够复制任何施放的效果），因为它过于强大，但我发现它是使玩家之间产生最多互动的卡牌，所以我决定保留它。
-我设计了一些会惹恼某些类型的玩家的卡牌，这样他们就不得不合作抵抗这些卡牌，从而产生更多互动。比方说 “盾”牌。
-考虑到游戏的每个部分都应围绕核心，我根据核心设计了游戏名称、场景和图标。玩家在社交场景中扮演互相竞争的角色，毕竟谁不愿意为啤酒而战呢？

有了明确的核心，通过“聚焦”的方式进行二次审核后，游戏更加具体化了。

附加说明：

-场面调度

我觉得这个例子最有趣的地方在于，场面调度含蓄地展示了电影所要传达的意图，它需要跨部门的合作（服装、光效、后期、导演、演员，等等），这与游戏开发过程其实相当类似。在电影制作中，电影所传达的讯息是“核心”，场面调度“聚焦”于这个核心。

————
推力（Power）

罗伯特·阿博特(Robert Abbott)是一名程序员，爱好是用扑克牌设计一些智力游戏。

其中一个游戏叫Babel，每个玩家拿10张牌，打出两组5张的牌型或一套10张的牌型。牌型和普通扑克一样（满堂红、顺子、同花等等）。玩家得分的高低取决于拿到的牌型。如果某个玩家打出了要求的牌型，Ta将成为裁判，负责记录分数和发牌。怎样得到自己需要的牌？通过交易。游戏没有限制，玩家们只需要互相讨价还价。最后你会发现人们在周围疯狂吆喝，希望用他们不需要的牌换缺失的牌。

罗伯特在华尔街目睹了交易商们在混乱中吆喝并快速交易，他觉得那个场面太有意思了，回来后他决定做一个这样的游戏。

-罗伯特游戏的核心：通过一个桌游，还原在华尔街交易的氛围

定义了核心后，他开始紧紧围绕这个核心设计游戏。他设计了一款适合3-6个人玩的游戏，游戏没有固定的回合，主要活动是交易，有一套计算得分的规则，等等。

-聚焦：没有回合、交易

然而，游戏虽然从理论上看没有问题（核心明确、聚焦于核心的设计），但它没能还原他想要的那种“混乱”的体验。因此罗伯特决定给它“推力”。

罗伯特设计了一套规则，允许尽可能多的人玩游戏。如果你让房间里的一百个、一千个人同时玩游戏，那么游戏变得庞大、不受控制和强大。

-推力：扩大游戏规模的规则

这个更进一步的决定，正是我所说的“推力”。

前两个步骤（定义核心和聚焦）是为了创造一个优质、具体化的体验。但最后一步让体验走向与众不同、新鲜和大胆。

一款游戏成功遵循了前两个步骤，但在最后一个步骤失败，就相当于一名歌手能够熟练地演唱一首曲子，但没有灵魂和感情。它缺了一点“妙不可言”的东西。

“推力”就是让某一个功能实现突破，仅仅合适不够，它必须突出。

一些其它的例子：

-《兄弟：双子传说》（游戏邦注Brothers A Tale of Two Sons）的双摇杆控制

游戏讲述的是一对兄弟的冒险旅程。两个角色各自成长但又互相依靠，这是游戏的核心。虽然游戏可以让两名玩家同时玩，但开发者想出了一种让单人玩家同时控制两个角色的有趣方式。他们本可以让AI控制另一个角色，或让它在原地等待你，但开发者却选择让玩家通过两个摇杆同时移动两个角色，这不是个简单的决定。这是一个大胆新鲜的设计，它给了游戏和其核心一个推力，使之变得与众不同。

-《暗黑地牢》(Darkest Dungeon)的高度随机性

这款游戏的核心在于全程带给玩家心理压力。游戏的一切围绕这个核心，但最能凸显它的是游戏的高度随机性。游戏中出现一些随机元素很常见，但这款游戏中随机事件成为游戏的主体，使游戏核心得到凸显，并且玩法变得新颖、充满不确定性。

这是其中最困难的元素，但如果我们能成功做到，它的回报也是最高的。

根据我的经验，这个“推力”基于：

i. 对核心的研究

无论核心是什么，只要你对它进行研究，肯定能发现潜藏的乐趣。如果核心是“抑郁”，那么深入研究“抑郁”的含义、与之相关的疾病、与它相关的历史人物、它的治愈方式等等，肯定能让我们获得对这个概念更有趣、深入的理解。

ii. 彻底的应用
彻底地执行。它是一种观念，即愿意尝试伟大的想法。罗伯特的游戏正有趣在这个地方，因为决定扩大游戏规模的同时，也使它变成了一种很难重复进行的体验（因为你需要好多牌、玩家、一种跟踪记录的方式、一个愿意当裁判的人，等等）。不过，即使不扩大规模，游戏本身还是很吸引人就是了。

附加说明：

值得注意的是，即便推力意味着“更进一步”，它必须朝着核心的方向更进一步。推力并不意味着它应有所倾斜。它是在理解核心的基础上做出的新颖而有风险性的决定，不会改变你的方向。

—-
结论

这不是一种革命性的方法，而是其它几种方法的交叉，是行业长期以来各类最佳实践的总结。它源于吸收了我与其它同事讨论的想法和方法并应用到日常开发中的经验。

写这篇文章主要是想把我的想法付诸笔端，修正我曾经加入过的不同团队的想法，并以无伤感情的方式为某些决策做辩护。从这方面来看，我认为拥有一致的目标对团队大有好处。

最后，每次设计游戏时，您都应该记住以下三个步骤：

i. 定义核心

ii. 每当萌生一个想法或讨论决定是否应用某个功能时，问问自己：它聚焦于核心吗？

iii. 如果答案是肯定的，那么接着思考：我们能否使这个功能得到突破，创造一个更强大的体验？

一些余下的细节：

i. 通过建立模型练习这种方法

-先决定游戏的核心是什么，并建立一个最基础的模型。保持它的功能要素以便能够验证它是否有效，但记得让每一部分聚焦于核心。

-通过研究类似的游戏、开发历史或任何对你有帮助的事物，为游戏提供更多推力并增加游戏的深度。

ii. 这种开发理念不仅能帮助你制作游戏，它也有助于你分析其他游戏和提供反馈。如今，当别人让我评价某一款游戏时，我首先做的是试图推断出游戏的核心，紧接着我开始围绕这个核心分析：这个功能聚焦于核心吗？为什么不呢？这个聚焦于核心的功能怎么样呢？

-提供反馈总是困难的，因为你不了解开发团队的设计意图和团队能力。但通过这种方法，我发现自己经常能得出有效并切实相关的反馈。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Intro

As game designers we often find ourselves having to make decisions quickly. Complex design decisions. How should we face such and such system? Are all these mechanics and features really necessary? What needs to be developed first? Do all these interesting-sounding ideas actually fit together?

When we get to a fork in the road and both options sound good, how do we choose one over the other?

Having to face these situations often, not being able to provide a concise and clever solution can (and usually does) lead to two types of consequences:

i. Poor design: making design decisions with no solid fundament or clear criteria, guided only by instinct or contextless taste usually leads to a design that’s limp, with games that end up suffering from “feature creep” (a heap of features, stacked on top of one another).

ii. Suffering team: a good portion of the teamwork stands on the decisions made by the creative team, meaning that if you can’t explain those decisions through clear and logical reason the entire crew will feel as if their work is headed towards random whims and/or chance. That’s no good.

On the other hand, industry folk (no matter their role) usually show a creative restlessness that drives them to put forward ideas, yearning to have some input. In that context, if we as designers can’t justify why someone’s idea is or is not relevant, you can end up on a stage of discomfort and ailment.

Now, there are tools that help us make choices, to stay true and not reinvent the wheel over and over. A few of those could be: common sense, an understanding of the technical and production aspects, examples of how such problems were solved during other games, and lastly the pure study of game design as an expressive and communicational medium.

i. Common sense: I believe that the craft of game design is largely an exercise in applying common sense. Basic concepts such as “trade-off” in order to balance experiences, or the difficulty curve in order to create an experience that isn’t frustrating, etc, all tools that were not discovered through mathematical formulas. That is why so many players might feel that they “could certainly design a better game” than the one they’re playing, since practically anyone can notice what’s necessary for an experience to be more or less enjoyable.

ii. An understanding of the technical and production aspect: videogames as products are extremely hard to create. You’ve got completely unrelated disciplines that are working together, with all the problems that this scenario implies. There’s constraints and conditions everywhere: time, resources, what technology to use, what platform it’ll be released on, the team’s knowledge and ability, priorities, objectives, etc. And game designers, not exempt from this reality, have to work in this context. You could draw the conclusion that so many constraints end up being disadvantageous for the design, and maybe they are in the long run, but they are at least useful (they’re practically an extra tool) when it comes to everyday decision making. In a small team and with a short development cycle, it’s rather easy to decide if the game will have five characters or a hundred. There’s no way you can do a hundred, so that’s done, the design will have to compromise, and that decision is made thanks to the constraints. It doesn’t take us even five seconds to reach that conclusion and we’re all in agreement.

iii. Benchmark: studying how other games solved this or that design issue is one of the most basic tools we’ve got when it comes to tackling complex problems in our own games. Playing an assorted collection of games (and plenty of them) is without a doubt a source of useful knowledge when it comes to understanding the medium, with the good and the bad. “You don’t need to reinvent the wheel”, a graphic design teacher used to say, and it’s a phrase you can easily apply to any creative space, including game design.

iv. The study of games as a medium: books such as “Aesthetic of Play”, “Uncertainty in Games”, “Rules of Play”, “Game Feel”, “On the Way to Fun”, “A Book of Lenses”, and a long etc. can provide tools towards understanding the medium, to grasp the anatomy of games in general and thus being able to design better experiences. They are useful when you’re looking to design at a macro level and when it comes to making decisions at a micro. It’s important to understand the quirks, strengths and weaknesses of the medium where we’re trying to express ourselves in order to create solid experiences and to nourish many of the design decisions that we must make everyday during development.

However, given these tools at hand (that I’ve managed to acquire along the way through experience) I still believe there’s something missing. Some solution or way of understanding design that allows us to create solid experiences. So solid that there can be no doubt how they should be designed (what I call “auto-designed” experiences). Products with such a clear vision, such a strong pivot that decisions leave almost no room for discussion, and you can focus your creative efforts towards creating rather than arguing.

This is how I came upon a methodology I nowadays call “Core, Focus and Power”, which fills this void, can be applied to mostly any development and delivers the expected results (solid experiences and an enjoyable development)

Core, Focus y Power (in a nutshell)

That’s what I call this methodology, which is simple:

i. First you define the core.

-Core is the objective, the intent behind the design, the North that we’ll keep through the design.

-This is defined only once, preferably before you even begin making a prototype.

ii. You then Focus on that Core.

-Focus means that EVERYTHING in our game should be pointing toward the Core, focusing on it, and if something isn’t then it should be for a good reason and it should be on purpose.

-This step is taken every time a new feature is brought forward, or every time a design decision needs to be made.

iii. You take every focused feature and you seek to give it Power.

-Power means that at least one of the game’s features should go the extra mile, take the product to a non comfort zone, with a fresh and bold outlook.

-This step is taken after having designed a feature or an element that focuses on the Core, and is achieved by asking: how can I take this beyond, or hopefully to the extreme?

Core

The Core is the central piece in our game. It’s what we want to deliver. It’s the message.

The Core could be a word, a feeling, an emotion, a mechanic, a character.

It could be a business objective, a platform (for example making use of the Switch’s capabilities).

I like to sum this up by saying that the Core is: “the design’s intent”.

Practically anything could be the Core. For example, all along this essay I’ll use a game I’ve developed as reference. It’s called Mages & Taverns, and it’s a board game. In this case the Core is something as quirky as: “generating an interaction between players”.

Other examples of Core can be:

-Fez: perspective
-Ico: the relationship between two characters

The Core will be the cornerstone with which we’ll be designing the whole experience. It’ll become the objective, and thus the North.

When it comes to design it fulfills two functions:

i. Being the sieve that separates what’s good from what’s not: every idea will go through this sieve. This feature, this artstyle, this name for the game, does it point towards our Core? Is it aligned with it? (Passive usefulness)

ii. Releasing relevant ideas: having a well-defined Core will surely bring ideas that would not have come up otherwise (Active usefulness)

What other advantages does it provide?

iii. It leads to reprioritization: our game should now be much better fused. The ideas should all be circling around a clear objective. We shouldn’t have to suffer through the disease that we mentioned above, the “feature creep”.

iv. It provides a unified vision for the team: of course, having a common North will prove undoubtedly helpful. That way, whoever holds the creative responsibility is merely the keeper of concepts that have been previously accepted, and not a dictator that handles other people’s efforts without a clear course. Decisions can be justified in terms everyone understands and accepts, and even team feedback and new ideas will be far more accurate.

Practical example:

My game, Mages & Taverns, started as a cross between a typical game from Argentina, the Truco (a simple game, built on bluffing), with Magic: The Gathering. This turned into a simplification of Magic, with three players, where they each took upon the role of a wizard that arrives at an inn with only one last beer left, and they all decide they should play this ancient magic card game too see who gets to drink it.

That was the original design intent, but after having made a prototype and noticing how much the game forced players to interact, I decided that my game’s Core should be precisely that: generating an interaction between players.

From that modification on, I introduced a very important card: “Fire”

This card has a strong effect:

-Destroy one gem. Getting three gems is the winning condition, meaning that this becomes certainly impactful.

The point of the card is that if another player (remember this involves a minimum of three) pays a basic resource (an orb, this game’s currency) then this card becomes stronger and destroys two gems, which can become devastating.

I took this new version to a meetup at @Tembac ‘s house (a place known for hosting game development parties with characters such as Ron Gilbert, Jonathan Blow, Dino Patti, etc) where a match took place, lasting approximately thirty minutes. The first twenty minutes of it were completely silent, where no player was interacting with anyone. The experience was turning out to be a failure. Up until the last few minutes when somebody used a “Fuego”, another player paid up an orb (to give the card a power-up) and chaos ensued. The argument this move created lasted about five minutes, and it made me sigh with relief: the Core, the intent of the design, had shaped that experience and I had achieved my goal.

Annex:

-How new is this “Core” concept?

Some companies such as Ubisoft or EA work with a similar concept, and they call it “fantasy”. It calls upon an ambition the user assumes from the moment they interact with any communication piece of the product. And the game must make that experience come to life, fulfilling those expectations. In order to do that, all the design and development has this “fantasy” as its center. It becomes the pivot. An example of “Fantasy” could very well be Dragon Age Inquisition: “Become the Inquisitor”. With that simple premise, the user understands what their role will be, what setting to expect, etc. But that’s not only good as a marketing tagline, it has to also work as a North and a guideline of the development itself.

Other people use the concept of “design pillars”.

- Defining the Core sooner or later.

I recommend defining the Core BEFORE you start designing anything else. But I also understand that there might be cases where something gets to the design table without a clear objective, and when you’ve already got something that’s alive, you have to stop, catch yourself, look at the game and understand what its Core is.

A example can be found doing a prototype for a Jam, where maybe something gets done without thinking about it too much and then, realizing that however interesting it may be it already brings up several design uncertainties, you must slow down and comprehend the game, figuring out what its Core is and designing with that in mind from that moment on.

Focus

Focusing is an exercise and a mindset that involves applying a filter that’ll only keep those elements that are aligned with our Core. Focusing is asking ourselves every time that something is about to be implemented: does this feature point towards the Core of our game?

Even if it most of this might seem obvious, what’s not is that the whole package of features and elements must have a clear intent that’s aimed towards the Core.

I named it Focus precisely because it involves placing the Core in the center of the scene. Everything in our game should highlight the Core, front and center. Achieving that is Focusing.

What can point towards the Core? Anything.

Any and every tiny piece in a game is a chance for communication. Here, as an example, is a list of a few elements that can achieve Focus, so as to understand the range I find it to cover:

-Mechanics
-Scenarios
-Level design
-HUD
-VFX
-Dialogues
-Artstyle
-Logos
-Game name
-Menus
-Sounds
-Music
-Communication pieces
-Concept Art

Mise en Scène

During some research, I found that the world of film already holds a similar concept they call “Mise en scène”

This concept claims that the way you communicate in film isn’t just through the script or the performances, but anything that takes part of a scene will have an effect on what’s being told. Elements such as lighting, framing, the surrounding, the colors, the wardrobe, etc. They’re all working together towards conveying something in particular.

We should be able to pause a movie during any frame and appreciate this concept in action.

For example, in this frame from American Beauty, which tries to place Kevin Spacey in a position of vulnerability, we can observe:

-Composition: he’s placed below the medium line, making him to look small.

-Wardrobe: his clothes are loose-fitting, which doesn’t make him look confident.

-Lighting: softly lit, and even though the actor gets hit a bit by the light, it’s still soft and from the side. There’s nothing, not even the light, that’ll listen to what he yearns.

-Acting: not an authoritarian pose.

-Decor: the room has few elements, which are scattered and placed with no clear intention. They work as a reflection of the state the character is in.

This video explains in a very interesting fashion the concept of Mise en Scène and the detail involved in this scene from American Beauty:

Design by subtraction

A way of achieving Focus is asking if the features that we’re implementing really do point towards the Core, but it’s also a backwards exercise. Taking a moment every now and then so as to actually look at what we’re throwing in and asking once again if they’re Focused on the Core can be really important. In this video, Mark Brown explains the process other developers had to go through:

Practical example:

Going back to the board game example, after having found the mechanics that highlighted the Core (player interaction), I realized that perhaps not everything was aligned towards the same concept. That’s when I applied this notion of Focus, and, in order to improve the game design, I went through each of the game’s cards and rules, modifying a few of them, taking a few out and eventually adding a couple more into the deck.

Some of the measures I took when applying Focus were:

-The cards that only allowed a player to defend their own gems now also allowed them to defend any player’s (allowing for spontaneous alliances)

-A card called “Plagiarism” (which enables the copying of any effect that’s been put into play) used to feel overpowered so I was considering pulling it out, but when I noticed that it was the one that created the most interaction among the players, I went back and left it in.

-I thought up cards that would feel annoying for particular types of players, making it so that they had to collaborate with others during the game in order to get the card out play, leading to more interactions. Hence, “Shield”.

-The name, setting and logo of the game were shaped around this Core afterwards, keeping in mind that every piece of the game should Focus on it. The players get into the shoes of competitive characters in a sociable setting. After all, who doesn’t like fighting for a beer?

This second runthrough, now with a defined Core, in hindsight and with the benefit of Focus, turned the game into something far more tangible.

Annex:

-Mise en Scène

What I find most interesting about this example is that achieving a positive, good Mise en Scène, one that implicitly portrays the design or communication intent, you find the need for interdisciplinary teamwork (wardrobe, lighting, post-production, directing, actors, etc), quite similar to what happens in game development. In that sense, the Core is the message or the design intent, and the Mise en Scène is the Focus.

Power

Robert Abbott is a programmer who, as a hobby, enjoys designing clever games with decks of poker cards.

One of them, called Babel, involves each player getting ten poker cards and then inviting them to play two hands of five cards or a hand of ten. The hands are the same you’d find in poker (full house, straight, flush, etc). Depending on the hand they’ve got, they’ll get a higher or lower score. Once a player manages to play the necessary hands, they go up to the judge, who takes the cards, tallies the points and deals out new random cards. How do they get the cards they need? They bargain. There are not constraints, they just have to bargain with one another. You end up with a bunch of people running around, yelling at the top of their lungs for cards they’re missing and offering up those they don’t need anymore.

Robert Abbott designed this game after visiting Wall Streets and watching the traders shouting and dealing at high speed and in the middle of the chaos. He thought it was rather a ludic situation, and he aimed to recreate it by designing a game.

-Babel’s Core = To recreate, through a board game, the feeling of being a part of Wall Street

Having defined the Core, he started designing, always keeping his ideas and his features Focused towards the Core. He designed a game for three to six players, with no set turns, where the main activity was trading, and with certain numeric rules that defined scoring, etc.

-Focus = No turns, trading

But the game, even when it was alright from a theoretical point of view (a clear Core, a Focused design) didn’t manage to create the messy and chaotic experience that he had hoped for. It was then that Babel got the full treatment and when he gave it Power:

Robert designed a set of rules that allows the game to be played by as many people as there are available. If you’ve got a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand people in a room, they can all play the game, turning it into an experience that’s massive, out of control and powerful.

-Power = Rules that allow it to become massive

That decision, going beyond, is what I define as “Power”.

The two previous steps (defining the Core and Focusing on it) are there to make a solid and tangible experience. But this last step aims towards also making this experience extraordinary, fresh and bold.

A game that’s successfully followed the first two steps but fails on this last one in the equivalent of a virtuous singer that expertly portray a melody, but cannot “perform” it with soul and feeling. It lacks that “je ne sais quoi”.

Power is going that extra step with one of your game’s features. Deciding that it won’t do to just fit, it has to stand out.

Other examples of Power could be:

-Brothers A Tale of Two Sons and its disruptive controllers:
This game tells the story of two brothers that go down a path together. The characters grow as individuals but their relationship also flourishes, and that’s the Core. Even though this game can be enjoyed by two players at once, the developers figured out an interesting way for one player to make the most of it. They could have made it so that you could only control one character at a time, while the other one was operated by an artificial intelligence o just waited until you came back. However, both characters move at the same time, each of them controlled by a different stick on the same joystick. It’s no minor call, to decide that. It’s bold, it’s fresh, and it gives the game and it’s Core a Power that makes it unique.

-Darkest Dungeon and its excessive randomness:
The Core of this game lies on the psychological troubles that plague our adventurers. The Focus is everywhere, but above all it’s in the randomness that determines a good portion of the game. Having a few elements left to chance is fairly common, but the Power here shows in how excessively it relies on random values. With this decision, letting chance rule the day on the center stage, the Core becomes evident, and the gameplay becomes something new. Chancy, of course, but new all the same.

This is the hardest element, but its fruit is the juiciest and the most rewarding if we manage to reach it.

In my experience, you need two things in order to give it Power more easily:

i. Previous research:

Whatever the Core, it’s sure to be hiding something interesting that won’t be discovered unless researched. If the Core is “depression”, a thorough investigation of what it really means, what diseases are linked to it, what historical figures were associated with it, how it can be dealt with, etc. will sure take us to a more interesting and powerful attainment of the concept.

ii. Thoroughness (thorough implementation):

Go all in. It’s a mindset. It involves being willing to analyze the opportunities provided by powerful ideas. The Babel example is interesting in that department, since deciding to make the game massive also makes it a difficult experience to replicate (since you’d need several cards, people, a way to keep track, someone willing to play the judge, etc.). But, without that decision, the game would have remained a sort of compelling experience, nothing more.

Annex:

-Heading

It’s worth mentioning that, even if Power means “going an extra step”, it should always be heading towards the Core. Power doesn’t mean it should be askew. It involves understanding the Core and making a novel yet risky decision without losing your heading.

Conclusion

It’s not a revolutionary method. It’s a cross of several other techniques, a formalization of best practices that been echoing in different shapes along the creative industries for a long time. It’s the result of my experience absorbing ideas and methods I’ve discussed with other colleagues, and fitting them to my day to day needs.

One of the main reasons this came to existence was in order to put my thoughts to paper, mending the opinions of different teams I’ve been a part of, and justifying some decisions without harming sensibilities. In that sense, I have no doubt that sharing a North would greatly help a team when it comes to getting along.

In closing, every time you design a game you should remember the three steps:

i. Define the Core

-Every time an idea comes up or is debated about a feature, ask yourselves: this thing we’re discussing, is it Focused on the Core?

-If the answer is yes, then there’s a follow-up: can we take this feature one step beyond and create a Powerful experience?

Some loose ends:

i. A good way to practice is through prototypes.

-Decide what the Core of the game’s gonna be, and do a prototype of the bare minimum. Keep it to essentials in order to try and see if it works, but keep it Focused. Every piece of the prototype should point towards the Core.

ii. It’s a good time to investigate similar games, science, history or anything that’ll help you provide more Power and depth to the design.

-It’s a concept that’s not only helpful for doing, but also for analyzing other games and offering feedback. Now, when I’m presented with a game and asked for my opinion, the first thing I do is try to deduce what the developer’s Core is. From then on, I work on my feedback: does this Focus on your Core? Why doesn’t this? What do you think of this feature that does Focus on your Core?

-Offering feedback is always tough, because you never have the context for the design intent or the capacity of the team. But through this method I often found myself handing out truly helpful and relevant feedback. （source：Gamasutra）