Blog

Patrick Sullivan

As many of you probably know, we at Cryptozoic Entertainment have openings in a couple of departments, including R&D.  The resumes have come pouring in, and I’ve been in on a couple of phone interviews, all in an effort to discover the next talented designer who will unknowingly try to sneak in multiple infinite loops into a WoW TCG file.  We’ve already had some very promising interviews, and I think whoever we sign is going to be an outstanding addition to our team.

There are some recurring trends in these interviews, people tripping up on the same questions. That isn’t to say there are right and wrong answers, strictly speaking.   We are actually looking more for how people think than the specifics of what people like or dislike. I want to share some of what we've experienced so far so you can see how we approach some common fallacies in game design. Even if you aren’t interested with working with us specifically, these lessons can be applied just about everywhere.

“Good for me = Good for everyone.”

You don’t design games for yourself.  Well, you can, but not if you actually want to get paid for it.  The most important trait a game designer can have is self-awareness.  You yourself are a type of game player, and attracted to certain things.  Being able to identify that and set it aside while making games for others is essential to success.  Designers often get themselves into the most trouble when they get married to their ideas; the time this is most likely to happen is when they are designing something that they personally would enjoy using.  There are tons of different players out there and it’s vital to cater to all of them.

“Casual = Bad.”

We often make the distinction between casual and competitive players.  Certain cards and mechanics are likely to be well-received by one group but not the other (the best mechanics are ones that can hit both, of course).  In the minds of many people, “competitive player” means “good at the game” and “casual player” means “bad at the game”.  That’s not what this distinction means at all.  For starters, I know lots of casual players who have serious chops.  It’s more of an outlook than a judgment on play ability.  “Competitive” more closely equates to “primarily concerned with winning the game” while casual is something around “primarily concerned with things other than winning the game”.  There are degrees across the spectrum, but a player can be plenty competitive without ever leaving their kitchen table.  Understanding this distinction is a huge part of the job.

“Quality of mechanic = Power level.”

We often ask people what their thoughts on mechanics are.  Too often, the answer is tied to power level.  As in, “Will of the Forsaken is a great mechanic.  Look at Dethvir.”  or “Sabotage is awful.  No one played with any of those allies.”  The power level of specific cards doesn’t actually speak to the quality of the mechanic.  Something like, “I don’t like Will of the Forsaken because it’s very complicated from a rules perspective” or “Sabotage is a cool concept, but the tracking involved on some of the cards is a lot to remember” are answers that actually talk about what’s going on.  It’s easy for us to make cards more or less powerful.  Dethvir could easily be a 4/4.  Or we could have made some very powerful Sabotage allies.  Neither of these alternate realities changes the core concept behind a given mechanic.  Yes, certain mechanics are more intrinsically powerful than others (all other things being equal, I would rather have Shadowmeld than Berzerking, for example), but we are asking about the impact the mechanic has on gameplay as a whole, not the impact that a specific card may have had.

This is ultimately the dilemma in trying to hire people for the job.  Most people who want the job are, naturally, very passionate about games.  This is not just a good thing, it’s a requisite.  Still, many people have a very specific perspective about what they enjoy in games, and that can distort their perspective on what other people find fun.  The best fit for us are those that can set their own tastes aside and create games that can be enjoyed by the maximum number of people.