Blog

Checksthesky

I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I have read every story at least ten times, and I can’t get enough of them or the modern iterations; from Basil Rathbone to Jeremy Brett to Robert Downey Jr. to Benedict Cumberbatch (yeah, that’s a real name) to novels, short stories and comic books (even Muppet Sherlock Holmes (I know)). I devour it all. Recently I got to thinking - how well do the Great Detective’s methods apply to a different pursuit, like say, game design?

"He has considerable gifts himself. He possesses two out of the three qualities necessary for the ideal detective. He has the power of observation and that of deduction. He is only wanting in knowledge; and that may come in time."

Knowledge

"As a rule, when I have heard some slight indication of the course of events, I am able to guide myself by the thousands of other similar cases which occur to my memory."

Holmes had an exhaustive encyclopedia of ashes, tire prints, and multiple other exotic forensic subjects. He also kept a log of past criminal cases, both his and others. He was, quite simply, a criminology junkie.

In order to be a good game designer, you also have to know what is out there; to learn both from mistakes and what has worked. You have to play games to make games. It’s that simple.

Observation

"Quite so," he answered, lighting a cigarette, and throwing himself down into an armchair. "You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear."

“Never trust to general impressions, my boy, but concentrate yourself upon details."

Holmes’ second pillar of detection is probably his most well-known. He was a man who could notice the smallest smudge and the briefest flicker of emotion. He trained himself to notice these things as an athlete trains his body for specific physical tasks.

Good game designers need to observe people’s physical reactions to games. Body language, tone of voice, emotion – all these things will tell you a ton about how people feel about different games and mechanics. You also need to observe how difficult mechanics are to learn, where the fun is, whether people want to play again, game length, turn length, the amount of interaction and a laundry list of other things.

Deduction

"The ideal reasoner," he remarked, "would, when he had once been shown a single fact in all its bearings, deduce from it not only all the chain of events which led up to it but also all the results which would follow from it.”

Holmes final pillar is his most important. Anyone can acquire knowledge or become observant, but how many can sift which facts are relevant and then draw the correct conclusions from those facts?

This is the most difficult part of game design– analysis. You have to take everything you have learned from games you have played and from the game you are working on, and figure out why. If you played a game and people hated it, why? If you observe people were not interested in the game, why? If the turns were too long, why? If the rules didn’t make sense, why? Determine the key factors in your game, isolate them one at a time and make them great. It is a learned skill to be certain, but being able to analyze a piece of a game, and fix it or discard it, is essential to good game design.

I think Holmes’ methods and our good game design practices overlap quite a bit already. And based on his deductive method alone, I think Holmes would have great promise as a game designer. But there is more to game design than even the best scientific process. Next we’ll explore his thoughts on some other key issues of good game design.

Variance

"These hieroglyphics have evidently a meaning. If it is a purely arbitrary one, it may be impossible for us to solve it."

Holmes tried as much as possible to eliminate any amount of chance in his work. Would he be able to make a game with significant random factors?

A designer has to know where on the spectrum his game falls (and should fall) between complete skill (say, Chess) and complete chance (say, War). I believe strongly both that games deserve to exist all over this spectrum but also that the closer a game is to the middle, the more appealing it will be to the average player.

Emotion

"Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner.”

Holmes tried very hard to keep emotion out of his work. Although there are a handful of instances when he betrayed the fact that he was capable of emotional attachment – his strong friendship with Watson, his disgust with certain criminals – I still think this would be a blind spot if he made games. Maybe Watson, as he does with his friend’s detection skills, could humanize his designs.

This area covers the goal of all good entertainment, eliciting a strong emotional reaction. You have to be able to answer - is your game supposed to be tense, silly, terrifying, provocative? How do you want players to feel when they are told about the game, when they are playing it and perhaps, most importantly, afterwards? Are they relieved they survived or relieved it’s over? Are they thinking about how to play better next time or how they never want to play again?

Complexity

"Perhaps when a man has special knowledge and special powers like my own, it rather encourages him to seek a complex explanation when a simpler one is at hand."

Holmes reveled in unraveling complex cases I have no doubt he would be great at breaking down games, but I do wonder if he could “design-down” for those of us not blessed with his type of mind.

Perhaps the most common trap designers fall into is the issue of complexity. Many designers, especially new designers, feel that more decisions and more rules equal better gameplay. At first glance, this makes some amount of sense. “If I give players a ton of choices, and there are rules covering every permutation of events, the replayability will be very high.” I would argue that complexity is a necessary component in games, but it has to be inserted in the right place and culled from everywhere else. The more time players spend reading or learning the rules or feeling overwhelmed on their turns, the simpler it is for them to never play that game again.

Imagination

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

The need for imagination may seem contrary to Holmes’ base principles. However, his solutions often are very imaginative, like their perpetrators, and he is a master in imagining how events will cause specific people to behave.

I see games as an outlet for escape, much like movies or books. Most (American) games today have stimulating themes, art direction and evocative names. Even abstract games can achieve this, if they are diverting enough. I would argue the best games incorporate the best features of the most elegant abstract games into an immersive theme.

Perspective

"Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing," answered Holmes thoughtfully. "It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different."

"It is of the first importance," he said, "not to allow your judgment to be biased by personal qualities.”

Holmes was a true virtuoso when it came to seeing things from other characters’ perspectives, despite his own ingenious and unique point of view.

Designers often design inwardly. Remember, you’re not a player anymore, you represent potential players. Don’t make the game for yourself. Don’t design a game you will love at the expense of making a broadly appealing game. It’s extremely difficult to remove yourself and your knowledge of the mechanics and the rules, and look at your game objectively. A good way to start is to imagine specific people you know well – but with different life perspectives - and how they would react to the game. Would my dad like this? My girlfriend? Why or why not? What do I want the players to get out of this? What will they get out of it? Of course, not every game wants, or needs universal appeal, but the most popular games obviously appeal to more types of players. I believe perspective is the number one challenge for game designers.

Collaboration

"Nothing clears up a case so much as stating it to another person."

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Although he cast an immense shadow, Holmes was of course an addicted collaborator (though not always a polite one). He needed Watson more then he would probably care to admit.

Perspective can sometimes be best achieved by collaboration. Find people you trust to be objective and really listen to them. Ask them hard questions; show them tons of iterations and CHANGE THINGS. The worst mistake you can make is to assume you know best. Designers looking for validation instead of honest feedback are one of my biggest pet peeves. I have a lot of experience making games, but the first five minutes of the first playtest never fail to ask me a new question.

Innovation

"I am fairly familiar with all forms of secret writings, and am myself the author of a trifling monograph upon the subject, in which I analyze one hundred and sixty separate ciphers, but I confess that this is entirely new to me."

"Chance has put in our way a most singular and whimsical problem, and its solution is its own reward."

Holmes was a singular talent, and the world’s only consulting detective. He had the vision to create new methods of detection, but also the wisdom to know which standard methods were reliable. Yet he always yearned for a new, creative criminal.

How original is your game? Does it matter? Don’t be original for originality’s sake. No one is going to give you points for creativity if your game sucks. But don’t be an iteration machine. Explore new space; learn when to pull back and when to push it. There is a time and place for innovation – and it’s not always now and here.

Instinct

“When a woman thinks that her house is on fire, her instinct is at once to rush to the thing which she values most. It is a perfectly overpowering impulse, and I have more than once taken advantage of it.”

Holmes had preternatural instincts about social behavior especially. He could predict outcomes with an unusually high success rate.

Instinct can’t really be taught, but it can be honed through experience. One overlooked and underappreciated instinct is the ability to know when a game is developed too much. There are instances in my career where we have overdeveloped games. When a game “looks developed”, it’s tough for players to connect with it. Developing your instincts will save you both time, energy and design momentum.

Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed and maybe even found helpful, my and Holmes’ perspectives on game design. It was a lot of fun to write, yet is much longer than I expected. There are just too many factors that go into good game design. I suppose Holmes may have summed up my writing this way…

"But he had not that supreme gift of the artist, the knowledge of when to stop.”