Quote from: flyingmice;581507This is great! It explains perfectly why my games don't sell more - they are just far too well designed! I don't have to bother putting a solid system together any more! I can just shovel a bunch of crap together and sell it and make a mint! Pure awesome!

-clash

Actually, if you want to sell your product then one of your design goals would be to appeal to the audience you want to sell it to. If it does not that means you have not reached one of your design goals which means you need to improve. It also could be your lack of arketing as I've never heard of your games.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;581518No, they were designed to function with a blue led light.  And it met that design because they worked as they were designed.  You're making an assumption that they had a design goal of, "Brightly visible in all light conditions and contrasts well against any reflections that may occur."  Obviously they did not have that goal, otherwise it wouldn't have passed user acceptance testing.  

So you think they decided on "blue LED" before "should be visible?"

Quote"Work well" is never a design goal.  It's way too vague.  Design goals are a list of very specific requirements.  It's Quality Control 101 to eliminate any vague goals or requirements.  And "Work well" is about as vague as you can get.  Sure, you want it to work well, but the design goals and requirements should tell you exactly how that is going to be accomplished.

I was talking about multiple things simultaneously. Unless they all had the same design goals I was pretty much going to have to get vague.

And one of those items actually does not work. At all. Based on that screen. There's no way in hell you're going to convince me the clock/calendar was actually supposed to look like that. It wasn't.

QuoteThey illustrate my point perfectly.  That is, you can have a list of design goals, and you can meet all of those goals, but that doesn't mean you have a well designed product because you forgot to account for various scenarios that may impact design.

Clock calendar broke. Clock calendar (presumably) wasn't made to break. Doesn't demonstrate your point. Likewise for most of the examples.

Quote from: beejazz;581521So you think they decided on "blue LED" before "should be visible?"

Again, "should be visible" is vague.  It most likely passed all of that.  "Should be visible in all levels of light and reflection" probably wasn't included, otherwise it would have passed.  It met it's design goals, but obviously those goals weren't inclusive enough.

QuoteAnd one of those items actually does not work. At all. Based on that screen. There's no way in hell you're going to convince me the clock/calendar was actually supposed to look like that. It wasn't.


Clock calendar broke. Clock calendar (presumably) wasn't made to break. Doesn't demonstrate your point. Likewise for most of the examples.

One example of a broken item does not discount the other items.  Most of them were clear examples of something working as it was designed.  My whole point is that "met our requirements" does not equal "well designed".  I would think it should be obvious by now.  If the requirements are bad, or faulty, or missing, you end up with a bad design.  Ergo, you can meet all of your goals and requirements, and still end up with a shitty design.

I do this for a living.  I know what I'm talking about.

Quote from: beejazz;581513The examples really don't illustrate your point at all.

Don't know why you're even responding to Sacro seriously. That link is a good way to sum up how far Sacro has to reach in order to make a point.

I'm fairly sure one of the design goals of having AC controls was to have the options be consistently visible. They were only visible half the time. Design goal not reached.

You want cell phones to be user friendly. JAR files and counter intuitive messaging make that design goal not reached.

Eye mask was meant to be humorous. Humor is hard to do sometimes. The joke was probably meant to say that the sleeping person needs caffeine to operate and thus the message on the eye mask. The person not getting is going to happen with something like humor. I'd say the actual major design flaw of this one is that it looks ugly but hey, beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that.

Toaster, again, supposed to be user friendly. The counter intuitive toast canceling mechanism falls short of that design goal.

Seriously I can go down the list forever and point out flaws in the designs. Something having design flaws does, in no way, counter my point like at fucking all.

What are you design goals for you glove MGuy?


It appears that you have no idea about the design process.  But how about you actually back up your assertion?  An ad hominem isnt' usually considered "backing up your point" by the way.

What are you design goals for your glove?  It's a very simple item.  Shouldn't be hard.

Oh, and this?  

Quote from: MGuy;581523I'm fairly sure one of the design goals of having AC controls was to have the options be consistently visible. They were only visible half the time. Design goal not reached.
.

Isn't true.  I'm not shocked that you would get things wrong at this point.  It was not "not visible half the time".  It was not easily visible in bright light against the reflections of the chrome.  That's a significant difference.

Quote from: beejazz;581514The internet says RIFTS.

:rotfl:

QuoteI really wouldn't know except that I'm willing to put up with a lot from 3x. It's mostly stuff I didn't notice when I started that was easy to fix when I noticed it. Does that seem like a good rule of thumb for tolerable problems?

Sounds like a good place to start, anyway.  Reasonably, then, there is some limit to problems that eventually crop up even in an initially 'good' product.

QuoteBetter than okay but before really good...

...it's hard to quantify this stuff in any meaningful way, unfortunately.

Definitely in general terms.  I think the best that can be done is to assess each 'product' individually with perhaps a general set of guidelines.  "If takes more than X , the product has a problem in usability (for me)".

Like movie, game, or music reviews, it is probably more important to articulate why than to point out where.

Guys, get your humor hats on! I was joking! If I gave a fuck about selling a shit tons of games, would I be writing crap like In Harm's Way: Pigboats and Tools of Ignorance? Not on your life! Thanks for the kind words, though!

-clash

Game design matters a lot.

However, as Zak S notes, game design doesn't end with the guy who wrote it.

Quote from: StormBringer;581525Definitely in general terms.  I think the best that can be done is to assess each 'product' individually with perhaps a general set of guidelines.  "If takes more than X , the product has a problem in usability (for me)".

Like movie, game, or music reviews, it is probably more important to articulate why than to point out where.

As much as I like having clear terms and pointing out the distinctions between similar things... you get into discussions of overall quality you're gonna (usually) have to be pretty damn vague.

Games are expected to do a lot, be fast, be playable fresh out the book with no prep but still open to tinkering and a million other things depending on who's using them. Reviews are useful the more they get into specifics because one person's bug is another's feature. Analysis of design is tricky as hell because you don't (necessarily) know what the design goals were or what compromises had to be made. You end up discussing balance pre-3 for example, when dissimilar character power was probably a deliberate feature of the game.

It's probably why I've gotten to be such a stickler for clarity. It's not enough to say the game is slow; it helps to know if it's too-many-rounds slow or too-many-rolls slow, you know?

Quote from: beejazz;581602As much as I like having clear terms and pointing out the distinctions between similar things... you get into discussions of overall quality you're gonna (usually) have to be pretty damn vague.

Games are expected to do a lot, be fast, be playable fresh out the book with no prep but still open to tinkering and a million other things depending on who's using them. Reviews are useful the more they get into specifics because one person's bug is another's feature. Analysis of design is tricky as hell because you don't (necessarily) know what the design goals were or what compromises had to be made. You end up discussing balance pre-3 for example, when dissimilar character power was probably a deliberate feature of the game.

It's probably why I've gotten to be such a stickler for clarity. It's not enough to say the game is slow; it helps to know if it's too-many-rounds slow or too-many-rolls slow, you know?

I agree with all of this especially the bold part.

Quote from: MGuy;581605I agree with all of this especially the bold part.

I think the part you bolded about not knowing what compromises were made is especially important.

Quote from: beejazz;581602As much as I like having clear terms and pointing out the distinctions between similar things... you get into discussions of overall quality you're gonna (usually) have to be pretty damn vague.

Agreed.  As entertaining as it was, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance didn't exactly make identifying 'quality' a simpler task.  This is where discussing design in broad terms of what it does accomplish, somewhat regardless of what it set out to do, is likely the better path.

QuoteGames are expected to do a lot, be fast, be playable fresh out the book with no prep but still open to tinkering and a million other things depending on who's using them. Reviews are useful the more they get into specifics because one person's bug is another's feature. Analysis of design is tricky as hell because you don't (necessarily) know what the design goals were or what compromises had to be made. You end up discussing balance pre-3 for example, when dissimilar character power was probably a deliberate feature of the game.

And they are expected to do all those things more or less simultaneously.  Judging each individual part is hard enough, judging how well they interact is exponentially moreso.

QuoteIt's probably why I've gotten to be such a stickler for clarity. It's not enough to say the game is slow; it helps to know if it's too-many-rounds slow or too-many-rolls slow, you know?

Absolutely.  Handle time is one of those rare things you can actually have some specifics about.

Quote from: Benoist;581402Sure. All these creatures illos in the MM, the first page or so of the DMG that shows an actual bell curve graph along with the text discussing dice and probabilities, the maps in the modules that were part of the cover you could use independantly from the booklet of text, the dice and crayons in the boxes, or the format of the supplements of OD&D you could neatly put *gasp* in the box of the original game... none of these things were thought through at all. They appeared and/or happened by pure coincidence.

Look. I'm all for a jab once in a while, but that's some pretty dumb comment you just made, you gotta admit.

(shrug), it was pithy, and like all pithy comments it's a 95% sarcastic house of cards that won't stand up to detailed analysis, but, as John Cleese once said, the best humour is either extremely smart or exceptionally stupid.

Quote from: Catelf;581447No, the question may be more valid if one compares "all the other" games:
Does good game design really matter when comparing ...

It matter sonly insofar as the game assists and encourages rather than detracts or makes it more difficult for a GM to run games that create the "feel" of a certain genre. But because this is so personal, there can't be a definitive "winner" or ultimately superior system, but that doesn't mean there isn't identifiably badly designed systems.

Not to ruffle Pundit's feathers, but let me make an analogy to art to clarify what I'm proposing.

DaVinci, Picasso, Goya, Rembrandt are all without question regarded as Masters. They are the pinnacle of art and only an uneducated philistine would claim that, say, "Picasso isn't all that great. Alex Ross's stuff is way better". But ther eis no objective comparison between them. One can't say Davinci was better than Michaelangelo (well, lots have said stuff like this , they simply have no means of objectively proving it without resporting to elevating personal taste to a worthwhile consideration). How could one even compare the works of a Pre-Raphaelite to an Impressionist?

Below this unquestioned tier of masters, there are the various famous artists throughout history, everyone from Waterhouse to Warhol, Lichtenstien to Albrecht Durer, Andrew Wyth to Brian Froud, hell, Julie Bell to Frank Frazetta. All different styles, all "speaking, to a different audience, all talented but in no way comparable on any kind of scale.

Then there are the primitives. People who have not learned the basics, have no formal artistic education, haven't quite mastered any form or devoted study to any school. Primitive and crude artists are recognized as sub-par to the "artist artists" of the middle category, and don't even bear mention in the same breath as a master, but some of their works can still have a great deal of value, especially when creativity is strong enough to overcome the artists limitations in skill, if not talent. Erol Otus falls favourably in this category, as do a lot of comic book artists, and the majority of RPG art.

But as myriad and ephemerous as those three tiers are, there is still a fourth category. There is still objectively bad art. No skill, no creativity, no talent.
This is The Liefeld category.

I think game system can be evaluated in the same way, at least metaphorically (I should probably state now that I don't believe roleplaying is art, even if I believe a gamebook can be a work of art, though this has little bearing on whether it's a good game).

Quote* CoC, Trail of Cthulhu, and any other horrorgame?

CoC is second tier, classic, a solid system that does its job, has been revised and playtested to what is (now for certain) it's final form, and has provided thousands of roleplayers with years and years of good gaming.

Trail of Cthulhu joins Chill, Dread, Nephilim,  Litle Fears, and a host of other third-tier horror RPGs. They work just fine for their small audiences, they don't have a broad appeal but there's nothing broken about them, and each one caters to a specific taste that's "pushed a button" for some small segment of the roleplaying "community".

I don't know any crappy horror RPGs, but god knows they certainly exist.

Quote* Different editions of Shadowrun?

All I can say to this is that with third edition onwards, it doesn't matter what they did to the system, it felt to me like they gave up on the game's soul. After 2e, nothing else "felt" like Shadowrun, not the world presented in first and second edition. Some people may like the new Shadowrun better, the same way some people prefer d20 to AD&D. But for me, the heart of the game was gutted and lost.

Quote* HERO, Heroes Unlimited, and Aberrant?

All third tier games, certainly. Of them only Hero comes close to having the robust staying power of the classic MSH (FASERIP) or DC Heroes/Blood of Heroes systems that are still played and beloved decades after going oop and being "replaced" by new games. But Hero gave up its genre to be a "universal system" ( a pipe dream if ever there was one in this hobby), so I don't think it really bears comparison with other superhero games.

But oh man, there have been some godawful supers RPGs. Heroes & Heroines, which is probably now only remembered because they managed to get the lisence for a supplement based on the now-classic The Maxx series by Sam Kieth. That was bad design. That, like Fantasy Wargamming, was a Liefeld of an RPG.

Quote from: TristramEvans;581792It matter sonly insofar as the game assists and encourages rather than detracts or makes it more difficult for a GM to run games that create the "feel" of a certain genre. But because this is so personal, there can't be a definitive "winner" or ultimately superior system, but that doesn't mean there isn't identifiably badly designed systems.

Not to ruffle Pundit's feathers, but let me make an analogy to art to clarify what I'm proposing.

However, you forget a couple of important things here:
* Do you know the difference between one of "The Masters" and one of their diciples?
The difference can be so totally miniscule that people have to use x-ray and other means to find any notable difference at all!
And yet, if they find that it wasn't "he Master", but a diciple, it isn't deemed as the same "great art" as "The Master".
I find this sentiment towards "The Masters" to be utter rubbish, and it shows that "Tha Masters" are only dubbed thus due to "having been first" ...
Much like D&D, it was "first" and is utterly revered for that.
It doesn't matter that there are others that could be said as having been better, or just a bit earlier, somehow, they haven't gotten as well known.
* As far as i see it, "cubism" and Warhol only had one purpose, namely to change the view on "art".
As far as art goes, i consider most of Warhol's work, especially the most known ones, as rubbish. ... And the same goes for any cubistic work.
* To me, a drawing by Frank Miller is far more valuable than a drawing(not a painting) by most of the "Masters" you defined.
I consider comics a work of art if well done, and more valuable than possibly any painting by "the masters".

Ok, the last two seems, or is, highly subjective.
However, that "The Masters" ar worty of those titles, is also highly subjective, nothing else, since several of their diciples might even have become better, but weren't treated as such.

But i agree, rpg's can be compared to art:
"Masters" has a great standing, despite them having no other validity than seeming to be "first", and any flaws there are, people seem to think "those flaws are supposed to be there".
I also admit that there are really good systems, and bad ones, but some people has gotten so used to flaws, that they either ignore them, work around them, or think they're a good part of the system.