less is more for mechanic design, while the more the better for details design

For example, if making a survival game.
The player only has 4 important stats:
1. Life
2. Sanity
3.Hunger
4. Thirsty

Don't combine the stats into one class. Separate them into different class. Then let the stats drive the gamer looking for food, collecting materials.

If you made food cooking process very complex, that's good design. It is not considered as mechanic, it can be considered as one part of the details. The gamer want to learn complex cooking process because of hunger (it's mechanic).

So simple mechanic drive the gamer into the complex details.

I hope my explanation is useful.

 

Please calm down. Or the trains will crash.

 

Let newbie take fail faster as a mantra, that's OK. Because newbie need to adjust their mindset to accept failures easily. But for experienced, you shouldn't let it as a mantra.

First, this mantra is so general. Sports, examination and so on things also can use fail faster as mantra. It's more about attitude, not game industry expertise.

Second, I borrow from other article (link) :
Fail fast, fail cheap, but don’t fail because you are cheap.
Even in the early days of a new concept when failing fast and failing cheap is often appropriate, businesses don’t want to fail because they are cheap. That is, make sure that the thing you are taking to market is robust enough to have a chance of succeeding. You won’t learn much about the viability of a concept if the item that you launch is so cheaply constructed that it breaks as soon as it’s taken out of the box.

Used at the right time and in the right way, failing fast and failing cheap is a powerful tool. Used at the wrong time or taken to an extreme, this concept can result in significant destruction of value. Like fire, used appropriately it can be a powerful force for good, used inappropriately it can cause great harm. Choose wisely.

 

After seeing the 50 prototypes I'm on @hongwaixuexi's side again.

That's a pretty sizable amount of work put in. And despite Hong's protests, they represent failing fast and iterating.

He knows those prototypes were kinda bad, which is why he's looking for more theory.

That said, the prototypes still don't represent a high enough skill level to make a "diamond" game. There is still a lot more to learn, and a lot more skill to gain.

________________

After looking more carefully, this is another example of asset store making someone believe they are much closer to a real game than they actually are.

The prototypes are closer to test run of various assets, than actual prototypes.

This is a very common story, the asset store really can trick a lot of people.

 

I think you don't have the slightest idea what "failing faster" and "failing" in this context mean. What destruction of value exactly?
If you know the term "fail faster" and "failing" in this context what value do you lose if you exercise the vigilance and only go ahead with a battle-tested prototype for full production-scale?
I don't get it.

Fail faster means build a prototype as soon as you humanly can. Test it, play it, show it. If it's not fun, iterate on it, if it's hopeless, drop it, try the next idea. -> which means you won't take useless, not fun asset-flips and pure carbon copies of other games to the market. So what value will be lost if you fail faster?

It was my impression as well, I don't really get the roller-coaster parts... and the completely off-the beat music.

That's not the Asset Store's fault. People are who don't want to learn and accept the fact that they aren't experts after reading a book. This is what we're telling him for a while now. But oh well.

 

I learned a lot of assets. Why not?
I found different popular assets owners are different. That means they spend a lot of time and energy just on one type asset. I immediately know it's impossible for one person to develop them from beginning, even some of them. So why not learn. In fact, they are all enhanced version now by refactoring. The modular system is stronger than the original one in function and also clean, because I compared a lot of them, by optimizing the good part.

1. I made the asset modular, and I can easily add it or remove it from my project. I refactor the codes by renaming and separating. Even the function seems alike, most of my file size are smaller than 200 lines, and I read many codes and separate them into different files. After refactoring many of them, I think I am good at modular different system.

2. I didn't upload all my work. I also test many projects from Github, while most of them are not good.

3. I know it's challenging, but I am ready to make a new game with many codes from the beginning. But these modular systems can save a lot of time.

 

After I learned many assets and tutorial from Youtube or Udemy, I know it's not enough to make an interesting game. Because these assets or tutorials have very few contents on game design, they just show some functions. Make the player move around, fight around, but have no good mechanics to make the gamer like it.

 

It's good you know the difference. I just don't want anybody take "fail faster" to an extreme.

 

IDK WTF are you talking about.

 

If something has a good result, but not fit for fail faster principle? Do you ignore this or accept it as an exception?

 

Since "fail faster" means throw away the garbage ASAP and iterate on the good parts, there is no such thing as exception. So I still don't know WTF are you talking about.

 

Apple is the opposite of "fail faster". They are so rich and they can hire any experienced person, while they limit themselves only on several products.

 

- Which Apple made game are you talking about?
- Since when Apple is an indie game developer?
- Which Indie game developer has the monetary resources Apple has?

 

Telltale is a victim of "fail faster", and they hire several hundred people on many games. This game lost, then next game, then next game, finally let's close business.

 

You still have no idea what "fail faster" really means.
You have no idea what happened to Telltale.

Ok. I'm out, let us know when you learned at least the basic things we are talking about.

BTW, about Telltale.

 

I talk about "fail faster", I do this because I am serious.I never want to convince anyone.

I borrow math here as an example. "fail faster" is a method, in math, there are many methods looking for optimal solution.

I think they are similar.

Sometimes the solution is called local optimal solution.

“fail faster" lead to local optimal solution either. Your final result depends on your start position. You maybe get different results if you start as a newbie or in a different field. The start point is very important.

If you are in town A, after "fail faster" you become best of town A. While maybe if you in town B, you can become more better.

"Local" is the limitation of "fail faster". Choose the right start point is lucky.

 

You are attempting to redefine the meaning that has been explained to you to better suit your needs. Failing faster is a concept in game design because it bases itself in rapid iteration. Stop ignoring the practical realities of game development in favour of personally untested theory.

 

So "fail faster" is a good method, but has two limitations:
1. Garbage considered while diamond in it. Need more work to test. "fail faster" can provide how much work should be done.

2. Local solution. Different start points may lead to different results.

 

I don't think take "fail faster" to an extreme is good. Especially for person who have been done this many years.

 

You have not done this many years and nobody is suggesting an extreme.

 

OK. I make it complicated.

 

For those who click "likes", Do you really watch the video?
Please watch 15:35

Spoiler

*****
****


TT really pride itself on the ability to iterate, the ability to take really large sets and apply them quickly.

 

OMG, really? So in your opinion Telltale didn't hit the ground head first because of a clueless management forced the people to develop things which people knew won't work properly. So they didn't fail because the management screwed up the money front entirely and they couldn't secure another investor. So they didn't collapsed because of mismanagement, because they kicked out the toxic head too late?
No, they failed because they threw away the boring, useless garbage which shouldn't hit the market fast. Ehm.
You, my friend, totally seem legit.

 

Of course, the video has been there for a while now.. (read :it's not new news)
Do you really watch the video and understand what happened to Telltale so they have to shut down?
They (in this case, Telltale upper management) failed to do "fail fast" and instead they force their developer to continue developing games that will most likely fail (read: the management choose to "fail later, and hard").

"Taking a really large set and apply them quickly" is not the concept of "fail early". It's just forcing people to crunch a large amount of work in a minimum time...

Here's something to read if you fail to understand the concept of "fail early"
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...upercells_ruthless_approach_to_production.php

 

In this thread, Ninja means "fail faster' equal iteration fast.
You mean game fail faster, that's not Ninja talked.

 

Anyway. This video is on a small aspect. I found one article analyzing why TT fails. There are 3 reasons.
I use TT as an example. The purpose is that "fail faster" maybe can't let you succeed in game, it's just a method to make game fast. The marketing and strategy is also important.

 

I do think Ninja means the same thing as the others (including me, and maybe people at Supercell too)
See this :

Of course, I'm (and I think no one here is) not in the position to force you to do this "fail early" things, or anything else, the decision is up to you to make, we just want to make clear of what "fail faster" iteration is...

 

Test it, play it, show it. If it's not fun, iterate on it, if it's hopeless, drop it, try the next idea.

How do you know TT not does this?

 

Yes, because they were doing it much too late. Context matters. Context she even explained.

 

Do they make any game that's not a point and click game lately?

 

That's what I mean by saying "fail faster" has one limitation "local". "fail faster" only let them make more point and click game, less time, more games. It's local optimal solution.

Get out from click and play, it's strategy thinking, higher level than "fail faster". "fail faster" is a method, not strategy thinking.

 

It's a limitation you fabricated, you just pulled it out from the thin air. In reality, the decision to what kind of game you build and the fail faster principle have nothing to do with each other.
Whatever type of game you want to build (it even applies on pen&paper rpgs and board or card games as well), you need to build your prototype (either software or paper or even choose your adventure-style short story, whatever works) as soon as possible. You need to play it as soon as possible and you need to show others as soon as possible. You need to recognize which elements are fun to play, which elements need iteration and which elements needed to drop entirely. In other words: fail fast.

It has nothing to do with the decision what kind of game you build.

 

They are expertise on click and play and story. How they iterate it to sandbox games? They have no experience on sandbox games. There is a chasm between click and play story driven game and sandbox games.

 

There are similarities in the way feedback loops affect players across genres and similarities in how games are developed in general.

Stop. Making. Everything. Prescriptivist. Nonsense.

 

I don't what Prescriptivist is.

But they are hired for story driven games, and their edge is story driven games. Unless they are taken over, TT won't make sandbox games. "fail faster" can't save them. It's called fate.

 

Irrelevant.

Fail faster is not to save companies when the management sc**w them over. If the management sc**w you over, does not matter what kind of game you're working on, you're sc**wed. Your argument is invalid.

And BTW, Telltale is not the best example when you're talking about indie studios. It wasn't an indie studio per say.

 

I dont think there are any fail faster thing happen at all, they just continue to reskin their previous game with more content and more episode, hoping that the new games/episodes will share the same success as their previous, while overlooking the fact that people might lost interest in playing their game since people could just watch it on youtube's let's play, there's not much gameplay in their game anyway..

[EDIT]
I do think that you still doesnt grasp the meaning of this "fail faster" things... But, I'll just pretend that you do and leave it as it is...

 

What an incredible thread.

My hat's off to all of you for making this thread possible and keeping it alive. Just incredible!

 

OK.

 

Lies, you're not wearing any hat in the first place ...

 

Look, I started the "fail faster" thing a few pages back.

What I meant is, in order to create anything non-trivial, there are always mistakes, always errors.

At a very young age we are trained to approach writing by doing 'drafts'. You write an essay in 3rd grade, you do a first draft, then a second draft, then a third and final draft. Each draft revises and improves the essay. Small mistakes like spelling or grammar get fixed, bigger mistakes like sentence ordering, and even bigger mistakes in how you structured your paper - with each draft these mistakes are identified and corrected (or at least, this is how the exercise is supposed to work).

For writing, at a very young age, we are trained to iterate. Refine our writing.

If we were flawless creatures, capable of perfection, there is no need for drafts. No need for iteration. No need for prototypes.

These practices exist, because in the real world, we are flawed and imperfect creators. We make errors, we organize poorly, we imagine how something feels inaccurately. We are human, and we make mistakes.

The need for iteration, the need for drafts, this is, ultimately, us accepting ourselves and our flaws, accepting our own human limitations.

"Fail Fast" is just this, it is beginning from a humble place, a place where you are aware of yourself as imperfect. "Fail fast" is expecting yourself to make errors, allowing yourself to make errors. Fail fast, is planning for your errors ahead of time, and organizing your work so that you can identify a mistake as early as possible so you can correct it.

 

The only thing I would add to your otherwise excellent summary is the fail fast allow teams to utilize the "no idea stupid to come up with". Because with quick prototyping and iteration the non-working parts can be thrown away quick, the awesome parts can be saved.

 

Congratulations from Casinos：
”We are proud of you.
We have been working hard for many years to teach visitors how to fail faster.
If you need consultants, please come here.“

Spoiler

Don't reply. It has no meaning.
If there's something wrong (culture) in this, please let me know. I will delete it.

 

mods change the name of this thread please

 

When you let the mods change the name, then it has a meaning. It is no longer no meaning, because it let you do something. So the mods can't change the name of the thread, because now it has a meaning.

Spoiler

It's a catch-22 situation.

 

After these debates, I think I should reorganize my thought with updates and corrections. (single player emergence games for example)

First, mechanics are clear to coders. Gamer can't see any mechanics. If these mechanics are simple, then the coder can code easily and modular.

Second, this is only my thought. I divide mechanics into two categories: core mechanics and modular mechanics.
1. Modular mechanics: refer to the mechanics used in modular system like inventory system or skill system. These mechanics are modular, and you can purchase them from asset sore or learn them by online tutorials. They are so common, and in fact, I don't want to call them mechanics, and I called them details which already confuse many person in this thread. So I will call them modular mechanics from now no, and they are not as important as core mechanics, because you can find them everywhere.

2. Core mechanics: I used to call core mechanics mechanics. The core mechanics refer to stats of the player. Such has health, hunger, disease....

3. Let me make a metaphor. Suppose designer is a hunter, gamer is a smart fox, modular mechanics (inventory system, cooking system so on) are traps, then core mechanics (player stats) are the baits. If you don't have baits or good baits, then the fox will leave. You put bait (for instance, hunger) down, then the fox catch it (gamer will collect food). Then if you put another bait (for instance, disease) down, then the fox catch it (gamer will cook raw food before eating, because he doesn't want be poisoned).

4. Core mechanics attract the gamer, then modular mechanics let the gamer spend time and energy. Working together, let the gamer like the game.

5. Gamer know nothing about these mechanics. They only saw they have health, hunger, disease and so on stats. They don't where food is, don't where danger is. When hunger is down, they will collect food. When they get disease, they will cook food before eating. The gamer has many stats, so he has to choose his priority which work is important. Only several stats (baits) drive the gamer walking around, crafting, cooking, and balance his work for meeting these baits. That's the reason why I call less (core mechanics) is more.

6. Even the baits can't work alone, they needs traps' support. if the trap is so simple and poor, then the fox (the gamer) can recognize it easily, they will feel their wisdom insulated. So make the trap like shining palace, even the gamer knew it, he still like it. That's the reason why I call the more (story,trap decoration , modular mechanics) the better.

7. Why some simple traps still work? The main reason is they have special baits (the stat is not common in many games) or the story is amazing ( then gamer focus on story) or the trap is new to the gamer (the gamer like new things).

Finally, I think discussion is helpful for organizing thoughts.

 

honestly this thread was absolutely hilarious and hong is an absolute madman for this level of trolling, props

 

Pure gold

 

Hehh. Trolling would mean he has any grasp on things. That is not the case.