Combating the open-endedness of creativity

Ok so yesterday I found myself wondering why it is I am able to finish less creative projects and not the creative ones. For example if I were tasked with making a system that generates a video with automated animation, I could do that and finish it. If it were some kind of tool to read in a spreadsheet and use the data to generate some charts or something, I could do that. If it were even a matter of creating an application like maybe some image processing app or something, I could do that. But when it comes to games... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee open-ended, vague, why-am-I-doing-this, lost and confused, unclear and unfocused.

As I thought about this I noticed that making apps is easier because I pretty much know what the end result needs to be, it's a very logical process of getting there, it's structured, it has finite limits, the goal is completely clear and I know what the audience wants. It's kind of like, the end result is so completely well defined that this automatically acts as a barometer to measure whether certain 'development stuff' is going to achieve that result or not. I would not be adding code to paint colorful rainbows if my goal is to output a video containing scrolling text only. The intended, known, concrete, clearly-defined goal acts as a focal point and keeps things on track. Achieving that clear goal is then a simple process of putting the appropriate parts in place in the appropriate arrangement. Similarly, an app typically addresses a need through some kind of process and produces an output. The output is usually the production of some kind of result within the computer.

But when it comes to a game, it's different, because the final stage of the process is not inside the computer, it's inside a human being. The goal of the game also isn't to simply generate some kind of result, it's to ignite some kind of result within a human being. There is a sort of bridge between where the computer result leaves off and the human being takes that and digests it, translating it into their experience. That `communication` link is vitally important to accurately transferring the computer result to the human user. If it does not 'speak their language', they will just be confused and upset. So the last stage of development is out of my hands, as least in that I can only hope to present information as clearly and relevantly as possible for a particular user, and indeed, not knowing what that last stage exactly should look like up-front makes the whole process vague right from the start. Making a game for 54-year old Hilda from the Netherlands who likes cats and ponies is a totally different set of aims than a game for 24-year old rocker who likes intense action and fighting.

So obviously this implies we need to have a really good understanding of who the audience is, what they want, why they want it, and how this 'game' is going to provide that. Is it a matter of problem solving? Well, is entertaining someone a problem-solving task? What is their problem, not enough happiness? Do we need to be a kind of 'life coach' in order to be effective at creating a game that improves someone's experience? And why do we always resort to this really vague goal of 'entertaining' or 'making it fun'? That's so incredibly wide and open-ended and has absolutely no discernment about who this is for or what makes them tick or how they react or what their interests are or why we're even doing this in the first place.

So I think this is where I fall down. I am unclear on the `purpose`, the GOAL, and what the final result is for. What am I trying to achieve. How am I going to achieve it. And because a human being is involved in the overall process, as the final step, I don't get to control and manipulate them the way I can do with program logic... and that is precisely where people keep saying `oh game success is just luck` or `who knows what people will like`. Why are we so incredibly dumb and blind to what people want? Why do we not understand people? Why aren't people part of the equation of game development? Why aren't the people's goals the entire purpose of making the game at all?

In a similar way to how making an app can solve a concrete problems, maybe the way to succeed with game developing (the process itself), is to narrow down and clearly define as precisely as possible who this game is for, what they want, why they want it, and what exactly is the intended result. Instead of being so open as to allow 'just about everything' to become a possibility, with all these possible paths that lead to ... somewhere, as a kind of goal-less mishmash of potential creation. If some specific person were to come to me and say "I want you to make me this particular game which looks like this and behaves like that and does this and then I will be happy". ... that's concrete, and it's achievable. But if it's just "Hey, I'm a huge audience, make a great game that's fun and we'll all celebrate"... that's bullshit.

So how to move forward with this.... gotta get really clear about who the game is for and be sensitive to knowing what they want and giving them what they want, for a known reason that can actually be achieved. Goal-setting? That'll work if you know what the heck the goal is. I think this entails two things, 1) understanding who this is for and what they want, and 2) narrowing down to a niche with known needs and desires and interests so that you have guidelines about what is appropriate to create and what should be left out. Maybe then development is more of a justified and reasoned process rather than a shot in the dark.

 

Maybe you're thinking too hard. There's a concept which goes by a lot of different names. I'll call it "Constrained Design". Simply stated, it means that humans are more creative when working within constraints. The constraints eliminates the pure, 'WWWEEeeeeeEEEEEE' feeling because most of those extra letters won't fit within the constraints. Some constraints might include budget, time, or processing resources. Total freedom is not all it's cracked up to be.

You've been asking these same questions for years! I love your discussions. And, it's also possible you might be thinking too hard. Instead of asking, "What does it all mean?!", consider picking a game idea, building it, and moving on.

Life is a journey. Enjoy it.
Gigi

 

Yes the constrained design... describes it well. Without those constrains it is just too big and vague. I thought maybe something was wrong with me that I needed to have some structure, but instead it seems that structure is really essential of a game is going to have a chance of being completed. This also boils down to being comfortable with creating something limited, rather than the glorious fantasy of creating something vast and incredible.

Yes I know I think a lot, I don't believe it's a bad thing. I want to know why I'm doing what I'm doing and not just do what everyone else does on autopilot. I believe this can be an advantage in a competitive market. It does sound simple - pick an idea, build it, move on... but that hasn't worked for me. It sounds very practical and actionable but it's not really how I operate, so I need other guidelines. I need to `understand` this vague process. I'm also trying to come up with a sort of set of `rules for success` that I can use on other projects too.

 

@Gigiwoo nailed it I think. Everything you are doing needs to have some constraints in place. You need boundaries established at the start and then you channel your creativity within those boundaries.

The problem with wide open creativity is without any constraints in place you'll be "all over the place". With no clear boundaries including end goal for what you are making how can you know when you are done? I don't think you can.

For the games I actually complete one thing they all have in common is I set constraints from the very beginning. The end goal is generally a sort of fairly polished MVP. The constraints make it much easier to know where to focus your energy and time.

Many times I use dev time as a constraint. Literally just setting a certain budget of hours and that is all I have to complete the project. Other times I use other factors such as only x different types of objects, limited palette with limited colors on-screen (current game uses the NES palette and onscreen color limitations of no more than 25 out of that ~52 color palette make the best Halloweeny feeling game I can... and do it all within 2 weeks start to finish) and so forth.

Creativity works best when you force it to flow through a narrow path like a river. It brings great focus and there is lot of power in that.

 

The part of me that doesn't mind plugging for @Gigiwoo calls this the "Paradox of Choice" thing in action. When every action in a multitude is valid, none are.

 

Particularly in the creative areas is where I see things being open-ended, like ok I know I need some enemy sprites, but... .what? what are they going to look like? how will they move? but that's still so vague and open that I can't work with it. Without knowing who its for and what they like etc how can I know what to choose? It seems like so many people are in more of a 'I added it because I thought it was cool' kind of mindset with absolutely no awareness of the end-user's desires at all. I don't see how that can work. With that mindset I would be there for weeks with no result.

So as a follow-up question of sorts... obviously you don't want to completely throttle creativity and artistry. You likely don't want to boil it down to 'game must have a pink pony because that's what the customer likes' because that sort of removes all the creativity, right? So how do you draw a line where you allow `some` creative freedom but while still keeping it under control?

I'm seeing more and more the importance of a game-design doc as well because obviously you need to at some point get things to be concrete and defined and limited, decisions made and committed to, otherwise it's just going to balloon hopelessly.

 

An App is a "tool to handle a task", but games... You can say lot of things about what people want, niches and whatnot. For me a game has to be one thing, "a compelling task".

So don't think in goals, think if the task itself is worthwhile. But i would advice you not to take advice from someone who never released an actual finished game... but hey, i played a hell lot of them

 

There was an article recently on Gamasutra or something about how a particular game studio deals with that issue. They were tasked with creating some sort of horse-themed game targeted to young girls. The developers initially came up with game-y ideas on how to add RPG elements and skill trees and such, but realized they were going off track.

They hung a photo of a specific 8-year old girl and the project lead or someone instructed them to make the game for her. If something in the game design wouldn't make her happy, it didn't belong. So their advice was to make a game for one specific person. You can't make everyone happy, but chances are that if one player absolutely loves your game, others with similar tastes will too. Obviously game design is a very fuzzy thing and ultimately requires a ton of focus testing, but that's at least a way to maintain a bit of focus.

 

I think you're right... most games are not just a final result but a platform on which to go through a guided process - a result over time.

 

Yah that was the guy from hipster whale re crossy road.. I read that.. was inspired by the `make a game for one specific person` approach. At least then you are reigned in much more and have something `real` to bounce ideas against, versus trying to make a game for some vague `maybe` audience.

 

Good discussion! In another recent thread, I mentioned Kotaku's interview with Matt Hall. (I see @Steve Tack just mentioned it while I was typing this.) When he's designing a game, he targets it at one specific person -- Toru Iwatani for Pac-Man 256, a girl "Amanda" who loves ponies for Pony Friends, etc. I think that's a good design constraint. He cites the pony game as an example. The adult male designers started talking about deep skill trees and complex game mechanics, when "Amanda" just wants to play with ponies.

This falls in line with Jesse Schell's Lens #1 in Art of Game Design: essential experience. In this context, constrain the design to do nothing but serve that essential experience for that one person.

 

Agreed. Though even within productivity apps, you have the concept of a "user experience", so even in that world, there's more to it than just functionality. The human element is always there.

 

But with apps you can create a user-friendly experience with good usability, clarity, easy of use, etc... as a kind of flavor of implementing the specific functionality... more to do with how things are presented and how they operate and how you use them.... but that's also kind of far removed from a game where e.g. there may be just a controller and the game screen, with no menus or things like that to operate (although you interact with other objects etc). You can make it user-friendly, but enjoying it as `a game` has a lot more to it than just that. How do you make an app exciting? How do you make an app memorable and something people want to share about? How do you make an app engaging or immersive or 'fun'?

 

My best advice for you is to just choose a small game. I mean a very small game such as Kaboom, space invaders, missile command a one-screen playfield tank battle game etc and then create it. The overall scale and staying close to the original game designs are your constraints. Focus your creativity in those narrow channels and see what you come up with. Not designing it all out just designing the basic concept of the game and how you can make it unique.

There are tons of things to do. So many people have made a Space Invaders clone. I am not talking about simply straightforward cloning it. How can you stay true to the general concept and game design yet make it unique? I have never seen a SI game with a wizard at the bottom shooting fireballs/lightning bolts at an army of demons (perhaps all in top down view). Or a dude with a rifle shooting at a bunch of bats for Halloween. There are a ton of things that can be done to clone a game and yet make it very much your own unique creation.

So I suggest starting here. Clone a very small game and make it very much your game. I think the answers to many of your questions are waiting there.

 

Hmm, I don't know if they are as different as you say. Sure, the ultimate goal of "getting something done" versus "having fun" is very different, but a productivity app *can* be enjoyable with the right feel and user interface and even color scheme. The user experience of a game can involve the right "feel" of a gun's kick or the ease of navigating its UI in many of the same ways an app's responsiveness and the intuitiveness of its UI contribute to the overall experience.

 

Well see I'm not a beginner and I have more creativity than wanting to clone anything. I am capable of thinking outside the box and coming up with something highly original. But my issue is being able to wrangle that creativity and actually execute on it and produce a finished product. Cloning for me would be too boring. I do however hear you on the project scale thing... being creative tends to inflate the scope really quickly, which is one of the issues. So like, when you say to me, clone a simple game like space invaders but put your own thing on it.... I'm off in the 'weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee' could do this, could do that, could be sitting here a year later still conceptualizing and adding stuff.

I think part of it is that I'm a sensitive, detail-oriented person who needs guidelines at a much more fine-grained level otherwise, relative to how I function, it's too open-ended. I probably need more planning, not less.

 

So when you want to relax and have fun and play and be entertained, you fire up a copy of some app software? :-D

 

I get what you're saying. The value in the exercise I described comes from the process. Mainly just "doing it" will give you a lot of great take-aways. I am not a beginner to game dev either and yet doing the same exercise would be quite challenging and exciting with the right constraints in place. That may be "make Space Invaders" and yet nobody should be able to easily tell it is actually space invaders. That would be a very empowering constraint.

If the biggest problem you are wrestling with is nailing things down then I'd suggest using time constraints. I have the same struggle to a degree. Setting a firm time constraint forces you to act.

If you are very much against cloning a small game then maybe try setting an amount of time for designing your game. Say 1 hour. That is all you have to think about your game. And say you have only 2 weeks to build the entire game. You obviously cannot just sit around thinking and thinking about the game design because you only get 1 hour to do that. After that you are building and you only have 2 weeks to do that.

I realize these specific constraints might not work well for every person. They might not match your personality or whatever. The main thing I am talking about is to set constraints that you can work with. If thinking of ideas "forever" is the biggest issue you are facing then setting a firm limit on the amount of time you can do that should be a great way to begin.

 

I think the real problem is why someone is making a game for cash and not for love. Even in AAA, a vast majority of the developers are doing it out of love.

If you don't love games, then doing a game will end badly, simple as that.

 

I managed to not make my point clear. I'm just saying that some of the touchy-feely design elements that make apps enjoyable to use would involve gathering user feedback and less "logical" design elements in similar ways as games.

I'd guess that most developers find the user experience aspect of an app challenging. Why? Because it isn't just input/processing/output. It's how a design is intuitive and yes, even fun to use.

Even just the weather app on the iPhone is pretty pleasing to use. There are huge animated thunderstorms, rain, snow, etc and it's just rather pleasant to use. No, I'm not "entertained" in the same way as playing a game, but the app could have just been some bland numbers and it wouldn't be as pleasing.

Or the Domino's pizza website. When you order a pizza, you've got a little animated guy making your pizza and a progress bar, and you can even change it to a heavy metal theme. Let's face it, a lot of programmers would go with "ESTIMATED TIME: 15 MINUTES" and be done with it.

 

Found this article, an interesting read ... https://medium.com/kickstarter/12-questions-on-game-design-ff994420de9d#.vbju1spvo

 

Sounds like a lot of responses from bright normal people instead of dark depressive maniacs like myself.

 

That was a very interesting article. Particularly the parts about "what are game mechanics?" Not so much I'm rethinking the mathematical basis for the GMP, but maybe a way for me to expand my work beyond my 12-week Gauntlet.

 

Yah some of those game designer people have their heads in a dark crevice. Or are just super intelligent or something. But some of it was inspiring and informative.

 

The Games(tm) magazine I'm reading has an article about the latest Mad Max game & the designer was saying that having the constraints of the world freed them for the design. This was because they had decided to stick to the existing lore of the world so every time they thought of something awesome to add they had to check that it fitted & if it didn't, no matter how awesome it was in their head, it was excluded right away. They even went so far as to not provide any hints as to what caused the world to become the way it is, sticking to the original movies in that they never clarified those events either.
He said he originally thought that this would be hard but having those constraints meant he focused on what was within the boundaries rather than thinking about all the other extra stuff.

 

Here's an example Constraint. Build a casual game for teens titled, "Cats on Donuts in a Candy Galaxy" in 12 weeks. Everything you need is right there - the audience, the theme, the art. And there's plenty to be creative with like platform, game genre, and to-clone-or-not.

If, what's holding you back is a deep fear that your game won't be some universe-defining-experience that will help to define what it means to be human, then you're out of luck. If instead, what's holding you back is the lack of a guideline, then boom, there it is. Cause, it's a game just SCREAMING to be made!

You're welcome ,
Gigi

 

Yeah... That's kind of a terrible theme. If the point is clarity, a good theme is a central question or conflict that you can look back to and ask whether adding or removing a feature helps or hinders the expression of that theme (and what @tedthebug posted about using the Mad Max setting also fits). I suppose the other way to put it would be to instill purpose, then it's just a matter of staying inline with that purpose.

Making the theme "cats on donuts in a candy galaxy" just says to me that the color palette is pink and purple and would give me an ulcer, but it doesn't say much about what can or can't go into it. Would adding a dog be sacrilege? What about a ferret? Cinnamon rolls?

 

I agree with the colour scheme that popped into your head but to me a dog could go into it if it fits in with what the game is, since most people associate cats & dogs together. Ferret is a bigger stretch to me as I have no basis for associating them so I would probably discard it.

What popped into my head when I saw the theme was cats flying through space on donuts & having to collect sprinkles. When you mentioned dogs it changed to collecting sprinkles for ammunition to shoot at dogs (I haven't worked out what they are flying yet, maybe some type of health food/warning) & trying to find different toppings to give different movement power ups (I think jam would be a massive speed boost because who hasn't raced around after biting into a really hot jam centre).

In this instance starting with the theme provided the bounds that kept me thinking of the game type that would work, once I had the type I could progress to what would or would not make sense if it was included. Being a noob I would stick to the one core mechanic with minor additions that enhance that mechanic.

As for my own games, I've been stuck in the same loop as the op but since listening to the podcasts (thanks @Gigiwoo ) I'm in the process of getting things moving to try & release my first game. It won't be within 12 weeks as I need to find an artist, programmer & sound person at school that can clean up my prototype & we all have major assessments going on til December, but it will be done. Having made that decision has applied a further constraint so I'm re-looking at my prototypes & even sending them to school with my kids to have their friends play test (& that is a freeing & also scary moment in itself).

So, constraints can provide focus as everyone has agreed. It's just that sometimes you may need to tighten or add to the constraints. Loosening them would be counterproductive & lead back to where you were.

TL;DR
Constraints are useful for providing focus. That's probably why houses have different rooms, & sports have sporting fields.

 

But the theme itself isn't constraining. It's a launching off point for a million different ideas, but it won't veto any of them. There is nothing there to restrict your imagination, so there is nothing but business sense to say that something is a terrible idea. The artist is unbounded to come up with a trillion terrible ideas, while the businessman has to tell him he's stupid. The humor in this case is that it's the same person.

 

Asvarduil, I've got a great game idea! We're going to write about a Unicorn with a tophat and monocle who shoots lasers from his eyes at invading alien space pirate zombies! It'll be called Don't Mess With Unicorns, and it'll be on Steam!

Asvarduil, you're a @#$%ing moron, in so many ways. This is just the latest. Do you know how few core gamers are going to play a game about a Unicorn...at all? Even then, what's the genre? Twin-stick shooter?

I was thinking first person shooter. Obviously the monocle will take the standard place of the gun.

...Ok, that part could be cool, but the idea still stands firmly in the 'Bad Idea' column even with zombies being present. Go back to writing music you tea drinking hippie!

Good point! I forgot about my nice soothing mint tea. Do you want some?

No. Go away.



...Sounds legit to me.

 

Thinking of unicorns I'd be interested to play something like Dark Souls as a black unicorn. It could make for an interesting experience to learn a combat system for an animal that is shaped so differently than what you normally play in such games.



But back to topic. I find the open endedness in gamedesign and creative work in general both fascinating and paralyzing. Constraints certainly are good to give you some "solid ground to stand on". I mainly design for myself and compare to other games I like. I'll also show my progress to one close friend of mine, so he is the one person I design for that is not myself. Our taste in games is not identical, but there is some overlap.
At the moment I stick to pen and paper to work on my game. I write down thoughts, try out patterns on paper, make some scribbles. I play games and I think about what makes me like or dislike them and how I can incorporate some of the things I like into my game. I've never worked with a GDD before and I intend to change that. This time I want to get a very clear vision of how the final game should look, feel and work before I put much more time into the implementation. If I manage to get that done, I think the implementation will get a whole lot easier and I hope I will feel less "lost".
That doesn't make the part about the endless possibilities during the planning much phase easier though. For that I try to create constraints myself. The most important one is I try to avoid things that are a lot of work with very little value coming from them. I try to remind myself of what I like in games and weigh possible design choices against that. For example I want a game experience where I can think and make choices that I feel good about. Those should be well integrated with the context of the game and not feel tacked on. And I want the game to have a potential to have non-scripted situations that someone playing it would want to tell someone else about. I think that is a very important point for me to end up with something I care about and that doesn't feel empty and shallow. How can I expect someone else to care if I can't achieve it for myself?

 

You pointed out an interesting paradox.... that creative freedom can be paralyzing - an imprisonment. So total creative freedom and openness is too broad to focus and apply to specific real people, while too little freedom is also somewhat imprisoning. The idea of reducing development down to some totally scientific methodical process obliterates all of the artistic freedom. But too much freedom and things just go haywire. Somewhere in between the two? How do you allow for some freedom but still keep it limited?

I also like what you said "creating restraints myself".. like deliberately imposing restraints on yourself right from the get-go, whether it be some big general limit or confined genre or whatever, making sure the entire project starts on a constrained footing with some kind of box/focus, and then further refining it. Accepting limitations on purpose, proactively, as part of the process.

 

I like those self-imposed constraints to be on a gameplay experience level (e.g., trying to induce a clear, specific emotional response in a specific person), rather than a technical level (e.g., limit to 320x200 resolution with an 8-color palette). Granted there's always going to be some overlap; 8-bit graphics by themselves are going to induce nostalgia in some people. But I feel like the emotional experience can transcend the technological presentation so it's a good place to funnel my creative efforts.

 

As long as there are choices to make during development that is your freedom. You will never be able to eliminate that. If there are no more choices to be made the game is done and you are no longer developing it. I'd say focusing on sensible constraints is a lot more important because there will always be more than enough freedom left.

I'm not sure it always makes sense to separate technicalities and gameplay so strictly. For example I'm working on an isometric mech shooter and the decision to go with lowres retro graphics impacts gameplay because I have to keep things big enough onscreen so that they still look ok at the low resolution. The technical constraint leads to a constraint in camera perspective which leads to gamedesign implications for the engagements that will be happening and the leveldesign. Another big decision is the control scheme. If I go for keyboard and mouse only, it's ok to design the game so that you have precise control of where you shoot instead of just the general direction like in typical twin-stick style shooters. I try to find as many "fixed" points as possible and fill in the blanks later. If I can't find a solution for something that arises from the constraints, I'll re-evaluate the constraints that lead to the problem. For example I'd rather not have a HUD visible at all times and only show it once in a while to tell the player where he could go next, but if I can't make that work I reserve the option to change my mind and go with a classic HUD solution instead.

 

@TonyLi you said once all decisions are made the game is done. At least the design is done. Implementation still to do, especially if you do all the design in the design doc up front. But I find it hard to pre-think absolutely all of the possible things I'm going to have to know or all the decisions that need making, all at once, up-front, without actually being engaged in the implementation. But then when you're in the middle of implementing and there are decisions not made yet, that massively slows down development.

 

The good way to think about this is that technical constraints impact how things are made, but not what gets made; and it's the what that seems to be the real issue. Well, maybe like everything else in life it's actually the why that's most important.

 

@imaginaryhuman - If you're referring to the "when to switch from prototype to production" thread, I suggested switching to production as soon as the core game mechanics are fun for your target player. But even in production you never stop making decisions and reevaluating. But there's a big difference between reevaluating and second guessing. By reevaluating, I mean chipping away the marble that isn't the statue. Second guessing is deciding to try to sculpt a different statue when you're already halfway done sculpting your original intent. When it comes to design, I think a vision document is more important than a comprehensive design document. If you're doing a lot of detailed world building, you'll eventually need to document it all to maintain consistency. But this shouldn't co-opt your vision document.

Agreed; and they can feed into each other, too. Restrictions can be liberating.

Totally agree. I think Jesse Schell's "essential experience" is a good approach to the why.

 

It's the whole paradox of choice thing. We are advised not to give players more than about 3 choices at any one time or they will start to be paralysed by having to many options to consider & may start to either not make any decision or just pick randomly as they will feel that with so many options then no matter what they choose it is likely to be the wrong one. The thing is designing from the start forces the same issue onto the dev/designer. In the game we try to apply constraints on the player & provide all the information they need to make an informed decision so they feel empowered instead of overwhelmed, we just need to try & do the same to ourselves as we develop the game or we will end up suffering the same fate.

 

So not only does the end game need to have constraints so that the player has a sense of direction/purpose/goals, but also the development process itself needs these. So then developing and playing the game as the same thing? Okay maybe that's too broad a question ;-)

 

I don't think it is even possible to plan out every last detail that way. @TonyLi made the perfect comparison:

I'd say a good scribble of how the statue should look like and carefully choosing the material helps a lot, compared to just hacking away at a block and seeing where it goes.

 

Developing a game is also type of game. It's just a REALLY hard game, that takes a VERY long time. Most people would say it's not a very good game. Or at least it's not a game most people want to play.

Gigi

 

I don't think it's the same thing ie. identical but I do think our reaction to similar situations in design is the same as our reactions in playing.
Just as we may feel overwhelmed playing some games where we are presented with to much choice we will have similar feelings when making our own games where we are presenting ourselves with to many choices. You'd think we'd notice the similarities but when we are creating we want it to be as whizz-bang as possible so we try to include every idea we have, even if we have to shoe horn it into the game, & then get caught up in our own enthusiasm. Plus things always look amazing in our heads.

At the moment my self imposed constraints are:
* No more than 3 mechanics, one of which is the core mechanic the game revolves around.
* around 3 minutes per game
* max of 4 keys (I prototype with keyboard versions) for control with no dual-key actions

These are forcing me to cull severely, & making me document all the other 'amazing' ideas so I can try to use them another time.

 

And most people never finish it!

 

Well this has been quite an interesting discussion thus far and I do feel clearer now about how I can approach development in a smarter way and hopefully progress further. I see that I need to nail down some important restrains/decisions so that the overall production is limited and clear.

One thing I've experienced before though was that I thought I was doing this, I have a game design document that's detailed about a game I wanted to make. It just sort of needs implementing, except where the art is concerned, because that's where I ran into the open-ended thing. Maybe a revisit to it with adding some extra limits will help.

 

It starts off insanely fun, but the push for the finish will kill people.

I would say they are opposites. The design process is following an infinite number of possibilities into an end result, while play is figuring out how to take a limited toolset (mechanics) and expanding the possibilities towards infinity.

 

So development is an act of inventing problems and limitations, and gameplay is an act of removing them again. And supposedly that's supposed to be enjoyable. ;-) Development is self abuse, and gameplay is healing?

 

In the Raph Koster, Theory of Fun, system mastery definition, sure.

 

I would say, for development, that it is also inventing a way for the player to overcome those items so that for gameplay, rather than removing them, the player is presented with the tools to overcome or 'remove' them themselves so they feel they accomplished something.

 

So you make a mess and then hand the cleaning supplies to the player? lol

 

A lot of interesting and helpful things in here. Thank you.

(Based of this thread..) For my game I set 2 (more) restrictions:

Portrait screen-> playable with one hand, one thumb (personally I prefer this for casual games) (results in limitations in graphic and layout because of aspect ratio)

Player input with 1 main mechanic, plus 1 rule to consider ('but if a, then also press b..')

Perhaps, this helps someone for further ideas