The No Twinkie Database

richard on 2010/07/24 20:14

In time for the next challenge is the "No Twinkie Database", a collection of “Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie!” game design columns. "Each one is an egregious design error, although many of them have appeared in otherwise great games."

(log in to comment)

Comments

saluk on 2010/07/24 22:24:

Nice find!

saluk on 2010/07/24 22:35:

Wow, although I agree with some things on the list, I take offense at some of the things on there.

Bottom up game design:
Without bottom up, we would not have Shigeru Miyamoto. No mario, no pikmin, no zelda. World of Goo? Nope. (Heck, most physics based games started as just a physics experiment). Bottom up design is just as acceptable as top down. What matters is whether the idea actually had legs or not. Sometimes you'll never know if you don't try. You can usually tell after a quick prototype whether its worth building a real game from that. And a good prototype really only takes, lets say, a week to complete?

Incomplete design document:
A complete design doc is most likely going to be very out of touch with reality. Once the game starts to shape, the design will change a lot. It's good to have a plan to start with, but it's ok to leave some things open as well.

But theres some good stuff there as well :)

Martin on 2010/07/24 22:41:

Yeah, I think it should be understood that all this stuff is one guy's opinion. That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it right either. Still, it's obvious that he's thought about all this stuff a lot, which is the real lesson, I think - it's fine to go against each and every one of the things he talks about, but it should be deliberate, just like any other part of your game design.

Akake on 2010/07/24 23:06:

saluk:
    I think the source of the disagreement between you and Ernest is different definitions of what makes a game creative. His seems to be thematic, your seems to be technical.
    I'd tend to side with you, by the way.
    I have a different definition of "game." His definition is "interactive experience delivered by a computer-based system," whereas my definition is "activity participated in for amusement that has conditions for victory and loss."
    Just as an example of how definitions color opinions.

Cosmologicon on 2010/07/26 02:06:

Thanks for posting the link, richard! I read through the whole database now, and I also disagree with a lot of it. I kept thinking of the Zelda series, and how many of his "mistakes" it exhibited. Zelda, while not necessarily everyone's favorite, is extremely popular and widely thought to exhibit excellent design. Here's a few more where I think he's just plain wrong:

And not to say anything about the content on this one, but his rant about "huge breasts and puerile humor" in video games is not written in a very mature style, which is ironic given that his message is "grow up". :)

Tee on 2010/07/27 00:53:

Haven't gone through the database but I had read some of these articles before, and I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who disagrees with some of his opinions. :)