Wouldn't it be cool to make your own game?

Learn more: www.cgspectrum...
Do you want to turn your passion for video games into a career? Ryan Laley, Instructional Lead for Game Design at CG Spectrum, explains what our Game Design Foundations course is all about.
Connect on:
📍 / cgspectrum
📍 / cgspectrum
📍 / cgspectrum.film.and.ga...
📍 / cgspectrum

[@alondite215]

I've gone through several Game Design education programs and have always found them very much wanting. The focus seems far more on games-as-business and how to make games for mass markets than the fundamentals of digital game design and how to design deep, dynamic, high-functioning game systems that support a high degree of emergent gameplay. Hell, we never even learned what it meant for a game to _be_ deep or dynamic, those were just vague buzzwords with no real meaning. Not to mention that terms and concepts weren't defined or demonstrated consistently, so everyone had different ideas about what different things meant or were.
Learning how to use development tools is absolutely valuable, but I didn't find much of the other information to be of much value, or to have been obvious to anyone who has ever played a video game before. It felt like we were starting halfway up the design pyramid every time and leaving out all of the fundamental elements that inform good game design.
Eventually I gave up and said "to Hell with it." I was going to try to codify my own ideas, and apply a consistent set of standards. I wanted to focus on ideas that I _knew_ were sound because they could be objectively demonstrated in-game, and apply specific language and definitions to the ideas so they could be clearly expressed. Thankfully someone else had already done most of the semantic work; I was able to find a full-blown glossary of specifically and discretely-defined game design terminology that suited my needs perfectly and helped give specific form to certain concepts.
Breaking a game down into its fundamental components parts has enormous value that I feel is lost on people because these elements aren't really a part of games discourse.
Let's look at the original Super Mario Bros on NES, for example. Mario is a relatively simple game, and most people recognize its significance but don't really hold it as anything special other than an old platformer that succeeded because it had the most well-designed and usable jump mechanic in video games at the time, plus some fun/quirky gimmicks and level design ideas that stood out.
I'd make the claim, though, that, SMB is head-and-shoulders better and more well-designed than 99.9% of the games that have followed it, and does things that other games rarely, if ever achieve even to this day. Would you believe me if I said that Mario can potentially reach gameplay twice as deep as almost anything else? It can reach a depth of 7 interplay counters with a Koopa Paratroopa, a solid level element, and a jump mechanic. Most games are lucky to reach 3. Super Mario Bros came out in 1986, and was made on archaic hardware using primitive development tools, and with basically nothing to serve as a guide.
As for the terminology I use: Think of "interplay counters" as "units of gameplay": You act, the game responds, you respond to the game's response, etc. Each subsequent counter is "deep" to the prior because it can only be reached by interacting with the prior state; one has to come before the other, you have to jump on the Para-Koopa to knock its wings off, then jump on it again to force it into its shell, then again to knock the shell away, but then the sliding shell can interact with other objects and can even still be a threat. "Depth" is like interplay dominoes, one has to fall before the next can. And if the game is dynamic, each domino falls onto multiple other dominoes, which each do the same, creating an evolving web of emergent gameplay.
These kinds of ideas can be applied to virtually any game of any style or genre and be beneficial; a game is never worse for being more deep or more dynamic. But Game Design education programs don't cover these kinds of ideas, and especially not in adequate depth or specificity. At least not for me and what I wanted. I feel I've learned more useful information by just observing and noting how games work in as much detail as I can.

[@UULAdministration]

thats the thing im tryin to do on roblox lol, but i dont no how to code anything

[@Cgspectrum]

No problem, this isn't a coding heavy course as it focuses on what Game Design is truly for, making fun. You'll learn the theory behind design prior to jumping in to UE5 with our GameKit which has many of the gameplay features all set up for you so that you can focus on bringing your ideas to life.

[@UULAdministration]

well i just have one simple game on roblox lol and its a meeting room with 9 chairs [i keep forgetting to fix on of em cause the seat is reversed]

[@jakeshoe3727]

It would be wonderful if I could make my own game but this school is very expensive and the industry is very competitive and I don’t think passion is enough for it

[@Cgspectrum]

We hear your concerns about cost and the gaming industry's competitiveness. Our courses, though an investment, are priced more affordably than traditional education and offer greater depth than bootcamps. True, passion isn't enough on its own, but combined with our comprehensive training and your hard work, it lays a solid foundation for success in making your game development dreams come true.

[@jakeshoe3727]

Yes and I’m willing to do anything it takes to make it into the gaming industry but like I said before it’s expensive but I really want to get started atleast untill next year since I’m already going through taking my general courses and hopefully be done by this year or early next year

[@Cgspectrum]

No problem at all, you certainly have the passion and we look forward to seeing where that goes. Best of luck with your general courses and when you're ready to chat, we'll be glad to connect to see if we can help you reach those goals.