Standardizing creativity

When we think about game design, we usually think about long brain-stormings, endless design documents and the constant research of a common direction all over the span of a videogame development. Actually, the work of a game designer is far from that. Yes, they still have the idea, they still decide how events unroll during the game and how to interact with the environment. But this, as I was told a while ago from professionals, requires just the 20% of the total working hours. The main task is to follow the production process and make sure developers, artists and programmers do not lose sight with the most important aspects of the gameplay, and that the original idea is always arranged for the better. No design document reaches the deadline unchanged from the first draft.

So, it would be a good idea to standardize the game design chain, so that designers can easily follow a series of steps instead than always improvising. But what about this kind of management getting in the way of innovation? What if this new behaviour dries off every creativity, standardizing the games themselves, instead of making them richer in content over the years?

We had the opportunity to follow a presentation from the team director of a Ubisoft studio last month. The way they adopt is a perfectly coded alternation of elements and measures to enrich the original idea. A little example: the initial input for the Assassin's Creed series was “a game where you can climb up buildings walls”; it eventually developed in an immensely deeper gameplay which allowed the game to become a franchise. They simply put things together by following their method.

Such method is common to all Ubisoft studios. They basically kidnap people who work for them, escort them to some kind of hidden location in France and teach them this way of implementing gameplay during a week long full-immersion course.

I really apologise for not being able to get in more depth, but Ubisoft policies are very strict and I can't see the point in getting myself into legal troubles. I can ensure that it's all extremely precise. Each element has its own name, each structure has its design, measurement systems are common. Suppose a game designer in Toronto is speaking with one in Shangai: they would use the same vocabulary to communicate and exchange ideas about their respective games.

The aim of this post is obviously not to teach you this system, but just a way to discuss how this way of working stands in the way of pure creativity and gaming experience provided.

First of all, are games born from this “method” different each other?

The most successful games for the company in 2010 have been “AC: Brotherhood” and “Just dance 2”. I can't think of the more different titles. The former have come out just one year after the predecessor, and considered how big it is and how different it is from ”AC 2” defining it a miracle is not exaggerate by any extent. The latter already has a sequel, “Just Dance 3”, just announced. In a huge reality like Ubisoft, with many teams working on many different titles, variety is not a problem. In a small company, that would be a problem. Ubisoft is also wise in avoiding to publish two similar games from the same genre in a relatively short span of time. This measure is going to keep them away from repetitiveness. So, speaking about numbers and figures, it's the right approach, but what about new genres, new ways of entertaining independently from the hardware?

How innovative are the new Ubisoft sagas? Not much. The first AC, for example, was very boring for its lack of variety, which didn't make it stand out. It eventually developed into a franchise, but more because of marketing and other secondary reasons than because of gameplay. Ravid Rabbits is fun, fast and one of the best third party franchises on Nintendo consoles. But it's not a new genre. The new project “Child of Eden” out soon, might seem a totally new way of entertaining, and somehow it will be so, but denying any resemblance with “Rez” would be unfair. So, the question remains... will Ubisoft be able to grant us brand new gaming experiences? Maybe not, even if they're pretty close.

Child of Eden is bringing new ways of using Kinect to the mainstream

In conclusion, systems like the one I just briefly discussed are very productive and can allow a whole worldwide company to keep a common style without sacrificing any creativity. Maybe they won't let us do the “next step”, even if they actually are used on each of the new hardware (Kinect, 3DS), but, as of now, “games come out by themselves” and, given the reality of the gaming market, just this will guarantee a lot of income.