Frederick Raynal stopped by Virtools headquarters on October 21, 1998 to talk Game Design with Bertrand Duplat and Frederique Krupa. PART TWO: Tools and Methods PART THREE: The Future of Game Design	Frederick Raynal, seminal French game designer and author, needs little introduction. From the depth of our collective memory, his games always made their mark by pushing the boundaries of what was technologically feasible or what was expected from a video game. He initiated us in the world of 3D with Alone in the Dark back in DOS's good old days when we were still thrilled at the power of our 386s. In Little Big Adventure (released as Twinsen's Adventure and Twinsen's Odyssey in the US), we were treated to a visually stunning children's fantasy world at a time when Quake was teaching us to shoot everything that moved. Game Design What is game design? For me, Game Design comprises a game's global vision. First, it's:"How do we play?" "What do we do in the game?" "What do we see on-screen?" "What kind of technique will we need?" From that point, we develop details in that global vision. The first part's really the Conception, because after that we get into Game Design Production, getting really specific about each screenshot and what each character is going to do... That's how we work with Didier Chanfray, our artistic director. Once he has the global vision of the game - the function of what we can do with a character and how a world is constituted - he designs each frame, what happens at each level. So Game Design starts off with a global vision, and then other game designers help fill out that vision with precise information. What is gameplay ? Gameplay is what we feel when we play something, what we emotionally respond to, and what we manipulate. A game can be very pretty and attractive with an interesting story and super technique, but if it doesn't have good gameplay, it will not last... It is the single most important task of game design. In the end the game itself can be good or bad, but its gameplay has to be good. You've stated that Gameplay is the most important aspect of game design, are there other key notions of good game design? Or once we've achieved good gameplay, the rest is already won? Gameplay is not enough, a game has to have everything around it as well. It has to have graphics with a bit of traction, and the same goes for the music. In the end, it needs to be homogeneous... As much as gameplay's the most important aspect - a very abstract notion, really, the pleasure of playing - everything else has to fit in as well. Once in a while we even lower some game elements to get a more cohesive feel to a game, in the graphics, or music, or how one character is compared to another... When one element is too flashy, you think "cool!" But it makes you wonder why the other things aren't like that. It detracts from the others, so we have on occasion made some sacrifices to make the whole more homogeneous. And what about developing good narratives or scenarios? Once I have a broad story line, we develop the scenario in a team of four to six people, not too many because otherwise all hell breaks lose. We get a good mix of coders, musicians and designers to really develop the story line. Writing the scenario is a separate activity than game design and not one to be undervalued. A game's scenario also has to be good. A game can have super gameplay, but if after five minutes you start to lose interest because there's nothing fun to do, well then the game's no good. A good story leads the player along and makes the player want to continue. Any other secrets to good game design? I think Peter Molyneux once said, "To make a good game, we know all the ingredients, but we don't have the recipe." That said, we know what to do and what to avoid, but we don't know what combination works. That's the surprise. Afterwards, there's still the marketing. So why the game works or doesn't work, sell and doesn't, we cannot say. There is also the bizarre phenomenon of bluffing the media. When a hundred games are released, you need to be able to draw their attention. So at first, the visuals are important to make people want to try your game. It needs to be attractive, it needs to look like something. So that is really the fist step - the visuals to catch the eye. Second, we have the initial contact where gameplay is critical. If you get beyond that, we have the third stage concerning the story or scenario. If we manage to hold their attention, then we have succeeded. So while we know what not to do, there is no recipe for a good game. On the other hand, formulas exist. Especially for television series like Mission Impossible, they use guidelines to develop their scenarios. For example, you have your entry here. At this precise point this character is introduced. Then at this moment, the first event happens, and so on, until the end when the solution is revealed. Plenty of television series are developed like that. It's a formula that works so people use it. With interactive content, if there a choice between the character going right or left, the scenario has to accommodate those options and cannot be developed the same way. In effect, some games are completely free, so we don't exactly know what we have to do. Other games are really linear, so we get bored because we are completely limited in our choices. We have always tried to develop 'scenario games' with some prerendered sequences, but instead of being completely free, the player knows that something is going to happen. There are lots of different things to do, and he has a choice in the way that he does things. The player may have a choice between seven different quests, but as he starts one, he figures out that, no, he really needs to do another one first. So you have the impression of being free, but you always know in the back of your mind what you have to do next. Who makes games? Well the game designer is the person that conceives the game. In our case, Didier and I, then we turn the work over to the team. For game conception, a good technical background is required to set up the limits so that others can know what to do and can bring their own ideas to the project. A game designer must be able to conceive the constraints for others. But without a good technical foundation, the game simply may not be feasible. How does someone learn game design? Are there schools, books, conferences? I don't really know this since I got into this very young working with electronics, and before that I was designing board games. In fact I've always preferred making games over playing them. And even with other games, once I understand the principles of the game, I don't necessarily want to get to the end. So I don't know if one can learn, but game designer need to be steeped in Game Culture to be able to pose questions for future generations, since games are getting more complex and more conceptual. There needs to be an understanding of the foundations of gaming. I was putting coins into the first Pong machine, and I've followed the entire evolution of game design since. So now when I play a game, I know in a nutshell why it works that way and why bonuses work that way.... Those are the rules of the game. There can be several ways that bonuses work, but each time, it is referential. LBA for example is a game for connoisseurs, even though plenty of people without that background managed to get into it anyway and to make it work. But LBA makes reference to notions of interacting in the world that have been around since the beginning of games, that have matured and become a system of functioning that makes it so that we now know that it's how it works. Why are there genres in game design ? There are basic game design genres around since the beginning, ie adventure, action or reflex. They are universal themes. Few genres are being invented, but there's still a few left to be created.... Now there are more genres but they seem codified. There seems to be fewer new genres and more slight variations? Game design has become a real industry with really big groups behind it. When a guy with an original game idea presents it to another - who may not know what he is talking about - if the idea is not in a known genres, the other guy may think that he will not be able to sell it and he may be put in a precarious situation. On the other hand, if the designer presents a game that is "Quake-like," "Tomb-Raider-like," "Command-and-Conquer-like" - then it's, "Okay, it works, run with it." They don't realize that when there are ten Command and Conquer clones, some are left for dead. At the same time they can be sure of moving at least a certain quantity. With new genres, a game can either do really well, or it can be a dead in the water without selling even 3000 examples... It's already happened plenty of times. Can presenting a prototype help communicate an original idea or a new genre? Yes for a start. That's one of the things that makes Creation really interesting right now - to be able to market a new genre if only to present it as an idea or a new type of game, even if it doesn't function as a game yet. To be able to orchestrate or put on-screen some graphics, some characters, some interaction, to able to visually explain, "Here is what it is." If you arrive with a new concept on paper, there's a strong chance that the person behind the desk - not that he's incompetent - may not necessarily understand what you have in mind. I've seen people responsible for acquisition of games, some firms hire real gamers, so they really know game culture. But just as often, you wind up with an interloper that - when a concept doesn't fall into a known genre - will be very short with you. A tool that can help you explain how it will work, showing the graphics, can help overcome the first two hurdles of the three hurdles mentioned earlier. When the guy sees what your game looks like, then he can be seduced. If your tools can help you show a bit of gameplay, the game can become understandable. When do new genres appear and disappear? When someone has the chance to do something completely different, even if no one believes in it. I mentioned it took me two years, but for a full year, I worked in it at home. Someone in engineering had said that it couldn't be done, ie "animated 3D with skins," so they didn't want to do it. As a result I worked on it at home, it worked, and it passed. How a genre dies, maybe fashion? I don't think they can really. I think that old concepts are often used as new ideas. This may be a personal view, but old genres reborn through new techniques or new technology. Old themes resurface. Games like Quake have been around forever. They existed on networks when networks began. Quake brought a new technique that made it even more popular. It's a very simple concept, one that we played during recess at school. You hide, you point at a target. Now we add adventure to it, or bring it to the real world through paintball. How do you see genres evolving in the future? Without speaking about what I want to do, no. Maybe I'm missing out... Part Two: Frederick Raynal on Game Design Technology This article may not be reproduced in any format without the authorization of Virtool S.A.