Although this makes him come off as arrogant, he does have a point. Game Design isn't really a skill you can go to university and get a degree in and become good at through education, but it seems to be treated a bit like that. Sure, you will probably be able to avoid making terrible games, but you won't be much better off than some random person who treats game design as a hobby, including the programmers and artists that contribute other stuff as well.

The role of designer is obviously still necessary, but if you don't have anyone with an actual portfolio of existing games to choose you'd have just as much chance of success with any random person who takes an interest in game design. It might as well be someone who can code or make art because the understanding of those technical aspects will help them out. Many indie games don't have a dedicated designer, they get by just fine having a programmer or artist that is also the design lead, and while they may not always produce something revolutionary the result is often comparable to what would have been created with a dedicated designer that does nothing else.

Think of it like hiring a writer for fiction. You don't really care if they have an English Literature degree or if they worked as a typist for 5 years, what matters is what else they have produced in that field and if it was any good.

Kim Swift? Jenova Chen? Zach Gage?

Geez, what an idiotic set of comments by Garriott. I have no opinion on the qualifications of people who's job title is "game designer", but I know that there are a ton of well-designed games out there, and they must have been designed by someone, no matter what job title that someone had.

Furthermore, although I am a developer and not a game designer, it appears to me that game design is a teachable skill in the same way that musical composition or graphic design are teachable skills. There's a curriculum, too: books by Schell, Fullerton, Braithwate, and so on. Most of the badly designed games I can think are 'bad' in ways which are fairly well understood, if you look at those books or at examples of 'well-designed' games. Maybe Garriott is right and most game designers he met were lazy, but it doesn't make sense to condemn a whole profession / discipline in this roundabout way.

While I think he exaggerates both his merit and the absence of good game designers, he does have a point, specially when he gets to that Medal of Honor part. It isn't hard to find AAA games that blindly follow video game conventions without really understanding them.

The games feel exactly like he said, like someone played something, liked it, decided to do a game just like it but with bigger guns, completely missing what makes a game tick. That makes me a bit sad, to see tons of talent and resources tossed into a game that's entirely weak, while incredibly talented people don't get access to all of that. Not that it is unfair, I know it actually isn't, it is just a shame though.

Developers need to learn when to leave game conventions aside, or at the very least try to understand why they exist.

Many designers fighting on the trench with bosses, producers, etc, because have more weight to take decisions, they have close combats bayonete with low budgets, bad programers, nighmare milestones, while he lives on your castle.
made me sick

Of course he has a point about design not being a skill that can necessarily be learned, though i still think you can pick up best practices along the way. Design is something that is a talent, you have to have an eye and a natural understand for good gameplay or good level design.

However the rest of his comments are just plain wrong, arrogant and do not consider the reality, in which he might well be one of the problems.

Game designers often have no choice but to come up with ideas for bigger guns and more health packs. Because that is all they are allowed to do in the game they are working on. Due to the creative/game directors "vision" or publisher/studio/marketing demands, that might be all they can design.

Personally i have often worked with creative leads who had no time for original ideas and shot down any outside of the box design concept straight away. They were not interested in ideas that could make the game better, if it did not match 100% their vision. Some of those creative leads were considered to be "big names".

Game designers are at their best when they are allowed to be creative, when they are encouraged by their creative leads to come up with original ideas and to think outside the box. If Garriot has found some bad game designers in his work experience, perhaps that was down to the fact that he did not encourage that, that anything not matching his vision was considered bad design. The names he lists, Molyneux etc, are renowned for this.

I have had the priviledge to work with some creative leads who encouraged my latteral thinking, who did not make me paint by numbers, and as such i have grown as a designer and am now fortunately in a position where i can do the same for others.

Design is not a skill you can "learn" in school perhaps, but it is a talent in many, many people and if that talent is nurtured and given space to grow, we can see amazing things happen.

Anyone played Ultimate Collector?

Let's not forget this was the guy responsible for Tabula Rasa.

Along with Peter Molyneux this guy is the most overrated game designer of all time. When was the last time either of them had a hit game? Garriot hasn't had a successful title for 20 years and Molyneux for 12 years (Black and White being his last actually good, innovative title).

I think he's deluded. Just because he was a 'First' doesn't mean best; he was a developer who also did game design. When he did development and did the first Ultima games they were the only games out there so became popular, but design wise were just a translation of pen and paper RPG to the home computer. Once you get onto the later Ultimate games, they're average when compared with the competition from the early 90's, Ultima IX had nothing on Baldurs gate or Planescape Torment.

Then look at Tabula Rasa, a game he spent 6 years on, redesigned twice and was closed within a year because the design was so archaic and out of date. He didn't even want a PVP system included within it. The poor game design led to the near collapse of NCsofts western franchises and the loss of hundreds of peoples jobs.

Now while he tried to pass the buck on who was responsible, he was ultimately the Lead Designer and Exec Producer I find it utterly hilarious he could possibly hand out judgement on other game designers when he was chiefly responsible for that disaster of a game. For the record I did spend time working on Tabula Rasa and felt extremely sorry for many of the staff who worked directly under him and his clique, who all subsequently lost their jobs, along with many in the Austin and Brighton offices, myself included.

Ha! Big fun. I think game we designers are like alpha male trumpet players. In every orchestra, the trumpet player is the arrogant jerk who thinks he's better than all the other musicians. I for instance, think I'm not just better than Garriot, Brathwaite, and Molyneux, I think I'm far far better. I was designing cool games way before there were even computers to play on. Ha!

One thing peole don't discuss much is that fact that it's never a level playing field. Game design is so much about interacting with the other people on the team, and so little about theoretical design concepts. Game design is pure pragmatism. It's like: Are you fun at the party, or aren't you?

BTW, Wendelin, I think making idiotic comments is actually what makes the world move forward. So frequently it's the idiotic statements that are actually the wisest in retrospect. Like when Picasso uttered the at the time considered idiotic phrase "Gee, maybe we don't have to paint like that."
Richard, we've never met, but it would be fun some day. I'm a big fan of yours. Buy you a drink? GDC Wednesday?

"Off the back of his Shroud of the Avatar Kickstarter success..."
--

Still 18 days to go. A little controversy might stir up enough publicity to reach some outer stretch goals.

Wow, way to grab one line out of context from a long talk to use as a sensational headline at Richard's expense! You stay classy Gamasutra. Glad to see most people are actually taking the time to read the article at least.

Gamasutra,
Thanks (NOT!) for the sensational headline! While I appreciate those of you who read the whole thing, to see better the whole context, even still, this article is skewed to make a sensationalist slant. My point was, that game design is the hardest, but also the most valuable skill to build in the industry. That every company lives and dies based on the talent of its game design team, and that as an industry we are not doing so well creating the talent we need in this industry, because educational systems have not caught up in this area as well as programming and art. I was not trying to toot my own horn, rather state that game design is hard. Ah well. :)

Are we talking about game designers or the publishers that control most of the design decisions anyway?

How can a game designer really show their flair for design when they are forced to adhere to so many rigid expectations of what a game has to be in order to be worth making? It can't be coincidence that almost all the great designers started off making games independently, got recognized and hired by big publishers but have since returned to independently designing their own games again.

The problem we had pre Kickstarter at least, is that games were not being designed by game designers anymore.

"I've met virtually no one in our industry who I think is close to as good a game designer as I am. "

Thou has lost an eighth!

The games that are actually good these days are the result of collaborative design. Most of the team is actively participating in the process and the designers are just a part of the team, not the damn "leading creative energy". When there is no team available, like in the case of solo developers, community is always there to act as a team. These are the modern ways.
Beside that, any kind of designer out there, good or bad, is just a lost soul in the dark without a proper team behind. Yet we see all these "stars" talking too much using "I" instead of "Us". So if design is hard, just bring more people in and give them credit. Is that simple.

I got nuthin'

LOL

From the title i thought that this article was about somebody constructively breaking down what's wrong with the industry, but then i read that "Lord British" said it and started laughing uncontrollably.

TBH, i don't know the guy personally or anything, but i have come to expect these things from Garriott and i wouldn't hold these quotes against him. Most people who are on top eventually become somewhat arrogant and this guy at least has the balls to say what's on his mind when talking to the press.

One of biggest problems that game designers face in their path towards mastery is respect. It's easy to respect an artist with a demonstrable skill, no average person assumes they can do what an engineer does. But game designer? For one thing our profession faces a common misconception, that game design is coming up with ideas (as noted by Garrott's comment on lazy designers). That all you need to do is clone, that you are no better than your competition (as noted by Mark Pincus).

We are a compromised profession, tasked at executing a formula to minimize risk. Unfortunately, executing on formula is counter to mastery of any skill. If the marching order is "status quo" instead of "challenge yourself" then how does a game designer grow? To master game design requires iteration, to iterate one must be allowed to "fail forward" in their search for a design solution. Very few forward thinking organizations celebrate failure but for the majority of our industry any kind of failure is frowned upon.

All game designers need mentorship. It's a profession that flourishes if approached from an apprenticeship angle. It is both an art and science and we need great teachers, we need great role models. We need those who "can" to reach out to those who are "about to be", to take the necessary risk and hire junior designers and mentor them properly.

I look to my heroes of game design to inspire me and frankly nothing Garriott has said in this interview inspires me. In fact, its the exact opposite. I am once again reminded that my chosen career path is not respected, what makes it equally painful is that I feel disrespected by my own kind. I think it's easy to call out the problems of a profession when you are on a pedestal. So many young designers are looking for guidance, who have a passion for this career. They crave mentorship, they crave the chance to work and develop their skill. The last thing I would ever tell them is that "most game designers suck". Guess what, we all sucked at one point...but we got better, with every failure we got better.

Be part of the solution Mr. Garriott, it's hard work for sure, but it's more beneficial to the profession than just pointing at the problems wishing someone else will fix it.

I think there are tons of talented people out there, I think the problem is not the talent doesnt exist, its that new talent gets too few opportunities. The industry is 1) one that is very hard to crack, and get into 2) for those who do get into big budget design, often they are limited and shackled to how much true freedom they have. Ex- I mean just look at the author, he has to go to kickstarter to get funding in order to allow for the freedom he needs, and he is well known as they come.
If you look around the mod and indie scene you will see that talent is everywhere in this industry, its opportunity that is lacking.

As a student in one of the programs that teaches Game Design (I'm an artist, but there are several Game Designers among us as well), I can safely say that the hardest-working people I know here are in the level design track.

That Game Designers suck is a broad generalization and subjective. But one thing that is accurate across the board for level designers is the difficulty of breaking in. Getting useful and constructive criticism. Getting mentors and good examples.

Mr. Garriott (and anyone else who is interested), if this is something that you think is a problem I encourage you to look at the different game design schools - and to support us!

So what happend with ultima 8 then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QzComfZU4

While I see the point of the article, I think a chance for a good conversation was missed. The education system is definitely not geared toward or equipped to teach these fields outside of proficient use of the tools. However, the real key to anyone becoming "good" at anything is being given the chance, and learning through a mentor, the sharing of knowledge.

If you have never come across some one you deemed "good", that is a failure on all of us. All of these lazy and untalented designers, did we ever share knowledge or experience with them? Did we impart what made us successful, pushed them to question the norm, or given them the tools to cut their own path?

If people are no better for knowing us at the end of the day, we have failed as a person. You don't create the "next big thing" alone, if you can't better the people around you, and share your passion and talent, the project is doomed to mediocrity.

So all I ask, is that next time you see some one struggle, call them out and push them in the right direction, "consider the "why" alongside the "What"". It may not be our job, but it is our duty as human beings to elevate one another beyond what we are.

He's right. Most game designers suck. He's one of them.

Look, you guys are all falling into the trap of Crappy Internet Sensationalist Reporting. Again.

You are being played by bloggers for ad hits. It is a very, very strong bet that Richard said a lot of substantive things about design in the interview but his comments were filtered to sound maximally punchy. Something that is just a small aside gets warped and blown up until it sounds like "HEY I AM A JERK AND I HAVE CALLED A CONFERENCE TO SAY I AM THE BEST DESIGNER SND EVERYONE ELSE SUCKS." Seriously, do you think anyone would actually do that?

You are all being played. Don't fall for it.

Wow. This whole thing is so disappointing, in so many ways.

1. The headline and description are way too sensationalistic, snarky, and personal, which seems to be an unpleasant trend here lately. How does slanting like this inspire confidence in fair reporting, or encourage thoughtful discussion?

2. How many of the anti- reactions here are from people who aren't designers and don't appreciate what distinguishes a good designer from someone else? How many working game designers disagree with Richard's point that filling design roles by default will usually be less effective than finding people who are designers because that specifically is what they love doing?

3. For those who believe that game design is mostly something that can be taught: what would you teach? Is reviewing good games versus bad games, or memorizing lists of design "laws," enough to turn a non-designer into a good designer? Can innate qualities of good game designers, which distinguish them from people who've backed into the role --- such as an insatiable curiosity about how the world works and a gift for classifying and creatively manipulating conceptual systems -- be taught? How?

4. Carlo, I agree with the first part of your comment. But I think your point about respect is actually supported by Richard's statement (which he's now reiterated) that good game design is as hard in its own way as good programming and good artistry. That observation seems quite respectful of the rare combination of talents required to be a good game designer.

It's because I see good game design as valuable, and good game designers as mostly born, not made (and thus diminished when people back into design roles), that I'm disappointed by the presentation and reaction to Richard's full comments. The phrasing of those comments was pretty strong... but did they really deserve the treatment they've gotten here at a site that wants to serve industry professionals?

I agree with the above posters that the title is sensationalist and that by having it, it stopped everyone from having an useful conversation. If the whole point of the article was to say "Richard Garriot is an a**" then that headline seems fine to me but then I'm not sure what it's doing in Gamasutra. If the point of article was discuss things about Game Designers/Designing then I don't see the point of the headline because the thing that it will do is poison the majority of the readers before they even read the article. After people read that headline they dive into the article with the thought about how X is a bastard and ways to disprove anything valid or useful that person might of have said because you don't like that person or just find ways to hammer that person.

Wow. Even though I agree there are a lot of posers and wanna-bes in game design, Mr. Garriot is certainly not on my list of good designers.

When you make a series of inflammatory, unsubstantiated barbs at an entire industry, I'm not sure how you (or your supporters) can claim a headline is "sensationalist." Maybe next time don't dismiss the work of thousands of talented individuals for the sole purpose of propping yourself up. At the very least, it's just insensitive and tactless.

Further, when the only folks you're offering up as being in the same class of awesomeness as yourself are peers from 20+ years ago, it might be a sign that you haven't been keeping up. I think this is where the fundamental problem folks are having with these quotes. It seems -- seems -- to betray a total lack of awareness or involvement in the many great works, and talented individuals, who have emerged in this industry since the 80s.

If you don't want to inspire sensationalist headlines and angry forum posts, perhaps it'd be better to think first before speaking, and get a little humility.

The idea of a Bauhaus approach to video game design, or any creative profession, is, I think, correct. We've culturally strayed away from that idea, and toward high levels of specialization, and it has made all of us weaker artists, whether our art is graphical, code, or game design.

Both article edits are a shame.

Garriott stopped by my former studio once just to hang out, ask questions about our work, and share his own designs. He was one of the most respectful designers we'd ever had visit, asked great questions, and was generally very interested in our work, as well as open to discussing the internals of his own works in progress.
He'd also mastered a design skill most ego-driven, junior designers haven't: listening.

Give the dude a break.

I'll take this opportunity to let everyone know that I'm a natural genius game designer living in the Western suburbs of Chicago. If anyone needs a game designed above Richard Garriott's exacting standards, contact me.

I have no technical skills and limited technical knowledge, but I love games, design, and laziness.... I mean hard work. I feel lazy, but I'm very hard working when put into a favorable environment. I wholly believe that if given a job in the industry I would more than pull my weight, if not lightly push it around (I'm 185 pounds).

It is of my opinion that I'm a bag of talent waiting to be opened, or spilled over.

Sensationalist headline aside, there are some very strong and unambiguous comments from Richard in the article. The context is very clear. No 'Crappy Internet Sensationalist Reporting' required to twist the meaning.

I can only presume Mr. Garriot has simply worked with very few designers over the years, especially if he can only name a trio of extremely high profile developers as examples.

Based on the article and M. Garriot's comment, I still see a missing variable: what's resulting in a good or bad game design?
Is it commercial success? Fan base? Is it innovation?

Sure, taking a working game and adding/changing three or four game mechanisms may be seen as "lazy" but what was the reason behind this? What was the management impact on this decision? As stated, a programmer or an artist may act as a Game Designer too. Did they fought back about it?

For each situation, many questions unanswered. That's what we call in game design, User Cases. Going for the straight answer isn't always the best choice.

I could name a lot of games that is using this technique to produce sequels in masse. Should I say it's bad game design? Why so? If they are making money out of it, it means customers are appealed by it.

Without hesitation I could look back at "good game designer" games and describe them as bad design. However, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be entirely the game designer's fault.

"But if you follow," he continues, "they generally say, 'You know, I really like Medal of Honor, but I would have bigger weapons, or I would have more healing packs, or,' you know. They go to make one or two changes to a game they otherwise love versus really sitting down and rethinking, 'How can I really move the needle here?'"

This, is the only part of the article where a real good working advice was given. I was hoping to see more of that to back up the sensationalism.

I guess We'll wait for Round 2.

I would agree with some of the underlying points, but mentioning Molyneux as one of the few good designers? I would go so far as to say he's a good, if not great, visionary. He has moments of inspiration that are sheer genius, and transcend almost anything in the market.

But as a designer? He's honestly not that good. From the horrible blackboxing of Black and White's AI to the complete inability to introduce any interesting decision in his levelling vision in Fable 3 (and countless other examples), he makes some really weird (and bad) design decisions that fail to articulate and realize his rather interesting vision.

My point is, with mentioning Molyneux as one of the few "good designers" in the industry, I'm not entirely sure what Garriott's definition of "good designer" really is. Since it's clearly not ability to make really well-constructed low-level decisions that form the game as a whole to make it "good".

In my experience this is very true. Not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings but I've had the chance to work with a few designers that went to "game design" schools and to be honest they sucked. To me it seemed like they would just throw out random ideas with no thought as to how it played into the game/story/mechanics at all. Not to mention the inability to think outside the box and a strong tendency to suggest the oldest most used mechanics.

It's a downer when the team brings on a designer who has a big ego after graduating "game design" school and then commences to litter the game with shit ideas. Most game designers I've meet have big egos and tons of bad ideas. I know bad ideas are part of the process, they can't all be good but a good designer will see right through his own bad ideas and work to correct the issues.

The designer I work with now had no prior game experience but natural design ability who thinks outside the box and tries to do new and creative things. I do think there are a lot of great designers out there but just because you went to school does not mean you have any natural ability and trust me you wont get by on just what you learn in school. In many trades school is for those who need it, those with natural ability will always shine through.

I also agree it's a very good idea to bring up designers from inside the development team, a designer that does not understand how the internal parts of the game work can also be very hard to work with. You can't teach someone to be a great designer it is very very much intuitive and not so much a learned skill.

I agree with him, but I think a lot of the problem is that game developers are generally terrible with hiring, especially at the bigger and "better" companies. I've worked at companies where I really questioned the new hires coming in through the door, and wondered how others that have been at a company are keeping their jobs. So I could say the other half of the problem is companies that areretaining people that should obviously be fired due to under-performing, but that NEVER happens.

I'm an Audio Designer, and I've worked at companies where literally people would do nothing but fool around all day and browse the web until about a week before end of milestone. Then everyone tries to crunch, does crap work, and things have to get cut solely because of laziness. I'm not saying I'm amazing (much like Mr Garriott also says), but I know I work hard and that I pour my heart and soul into making games. Sad to say, there are very few others working in the game industry that I feel share these qualities.

The worst part is that I've personally had a very hard time finding work in the industry. I am still looking nearly 24/7 for new opportunities and have been for about 2 years now. Granted I am only 3 years into my career, but it often saddens me that these under-performing individuals are being put in roles I know I would excel at.

I feel the game industry is terribly guilty of hiring those because of networks or those that just have excellent interview skills and portfolios. Addressing the network issue, so many jobs are filled with friends/family/people in their network. However, when choosing a hire from a network, I've seen companies actually forgetting to check if they are qualified! If your network connection is also great at what he does and super reliable, by all means hire him, but I see too many hires done from friendship alone... That's the first recipe for disaster.

Then there is the great interviewers or those that have amazing portfolios. For one, just because you have an awesome demo, doesn't mean you do awesome work. You could have stolen the material outright, had others do it for you, invested 20x the amount of time you normally would be allotted for that task, and many other factors. I've seen people with truly awesome demo materials, but they can't handle REALLY working a day to day 8 hour day. Then there are those with amazing interview skills. They charm the company with their charismatic personalities. Push comes to shove, they get hired because they seem like an awesome person I want to work with, and lo and behold, they either made the whole charade up and are actually quite arrogant/rude, or they are actually a nice person but can't accomplish work well...

I think there are plenty of great game developers out there, they are just not the ones that are sitting in their lofty AAA salaried/benefits jobs. They are the ones going out starting their own companies and making their own games because they actually like to work! It saddens me that I feel this way about an industry and medium that has brought so much joy to me, but honestly, there are just so many terrible employees filling precious spots in game development. How they get there... it still astonishes me till this day. And all while I send another personalized resume and cover letter to a company trying to get one of these precious spots, only to be turned down in favor of someone that I can almost guarantee will under perform - and keep that job as long as he wants... :(

In my experience this is very true. Not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings but I've had the chance to work with a few designers that went to "game design" schools and to be honest they sucked. To me it seemed like they would just throw out random ideas with no thought as to how it played into the game/story/mechanics at all. Not to mention the inability to think outside the box and a strong tendency to suggest the oldest most used mechanics.

It's a downer when the team brings on a designer who has a big ego after graduating "game design" school and then commences to litter the game with shit ideas. Most game designers I've meet have big egos and tons of bad ideas. I know bad ideas are part of the process, they can't all be good but a good designer will see right through his own bad ideas and work to correct the issues.

The designer I work with now had no prior game experience but natural design ability who thinks outside the box and tries to do new and creative things. I do think there are a lot of great designers out there but just because you went to school does not mean you have any natural ability and trust me you wont get by on just what you learn in school. In many trades school is for those who need it, those with natural ability will always shine through.

I also agree it's a very good idea to bring up designers from inside the development team, a designer that does not understand how the internal parts of the game work can also be very hard to work with. You can't teach someone to be a great designer it is very very much intuitive and not so much a learned skill.

First of all and like in everything, very few designers understand what makes video games super satisfying and how to achieve it.

The current size of AAA devs teams is huge. When 10-40 designers are involved, they all have a different understanding of video games and all design things from a different pespective. They just can't all be top of the world designers. That makes everything less consistent and leads have to adjust the vision all the time. And, they all need to be mentored to improve their skills. And if we can agree that AAA games are getting worse over the years, it doesn't help our current designers to get better at their craft either. At the top of that, the design department is the one that suffered the most from the super-size me phenomenon and they lack proper creation tools. The role and meaning of a game designer position also changed dramatically over the past 15 years.

We literally created a downward spiral.

To solve the problem we would have to reduce the size of our development teams to only 10-50 employees.

The designers have NOTHING TO DO with "moving the needle" here (in AAA gaming). Hence tweeks to existing franchises.

It's the publishers. And I don't blame them.

With these budgets and the limited channel, companies live or die on the release of a AAA game (see THQ).

Do you think an EA or Activision can afford the risk of a completely new title given these budgets and numbers? One screw up (hello Sim City) and bam!

That's why the innovation happens with lower budget fare. As in mobile, casual, social, steam etc. etc. That's where the new franchises will come from.

Why are so many people feeling butt-hurt over such an obviously true statement?

Point #1: There are hundreds of thousands of games in existence now.
Point #2: Each game has at least one designer.
Point #3: Many games are revisions of previous games.
Point #4: Most games suck.

Using these four points, one can see that Mr. Garriott is speaking the truth when he says, "Most game designers suck." If only, say, 20% of the games are worth playing, and especially since many designers design two or more games, it becomes obvious that most game designers suck. It is even more obvious when considering point #3, since the "lazy" designers that Mr. Garriott talks about are making slight changes to previously designed games, many of which have bad or mediocre designs.

He ultimately wants designers to be more daring, and to have solid, defensible reasons for their design choices. Is that bad for the industry? Is it bad to be justifiably radical, or is it better to be more conforming to existing ideas due to publisher and financial pressure? Is it bad for anybody to create more design ideas? After all, the more unique design ideas there are, the more they can be cloned, revised, and implemented by mediocre game designers. ;-)

fellow designers, please stop being such cry babies. as far as i am concerned this man has earned himself a jester's license to call me an inferior designer 100 times over, then spit on me and deposit his bubble gum in my ear.

This looks like an article written by a bad designer. Despite it's validity, a designer will never get anywhere by blaming other designers for their inability to create "good games". The best designers will help others be good.

Lord british is right.

>_> This thread reminds of Global chat in an MMO when someone says "WoW was the first MMO". I'm thankful that "There Can Never Be One" <<---(insert Highlander VO here).

In the 80s and early 90s, there was a luxury called, "nobody's done it yet." It was an amazing time, and it is still an amazing time. I've come to enjoy hundreds and possibly thousands of games since then, including 44 MMOs, dozens of console games, board games, numerous social games, mobile games, and card games. While the designer is merely one player on a team - the evolution of the design process is touched by everyone in order to turn a vision into reality and therefore belongs to everyone (and no one single person) ever. To prove my point, allow me to reverse engineer. Just imagine if Sid Meier, Steve Jackson, Greg Johnson, Roberta Williams, Brian Reynolds, Peter Molyneux, Chris Roberts, Will Wright, Tōru Iwatani, Hironobu Sakaguchi, Minh "Gooseman" Le, Ron Gilbert, Erik Yeo, Matt Toschlog, Tom Hall, Derek Smart, Sandy Peterson, (and so many more) never existed.

Am I a bad guy for agreeing with his sentiment (perhaps not his exact words)

For big 100+ person AAA projects; how much "designing" do "game designers" do? aren't they frequently more "Project Managers"?

To put it another way, if an entire team of people (programmers, artists, level designers, etc.) has to interpret the vision of a single "game designer", would it be unfair for them to expect this game designer to have personally developed/implemented/iterated on many games from idea/concept to implementation/delivery? (whether they be tabletop games, simple RPGmaker games, etc.)

I'd like to know that a game designer can take an idea/concept/vision and understand what it takes to make that a reality (and then iterate on that vision) even if what they produce is rudimentary (from an art and/or programming perspective)

consider me a person who thinks:
pure game designers (Ken Levine, David Cage...) probably get a too much credit when a game is loved (considering they are surrounded by brilliant artists, composers, writers, and programmers)
...and also take too much blame (Dennis Dyack, Brendan McNamara) when a game misses it's mark.

Incidentally I love how indie games (where the "game designers" are the programmers, artists, level designers) have shown brilliance and a purity to a vision since the ones "in the trenches" are also the ones making the tough decisions. (rather than this mythical "game designer who exists "on high" in the clouds.)

(and why I expect most innovation to come from indies in the next decade.)

Others have been humbled by the sight of Earth seen from space.

As this nears 100 comments, I suppose I'll drop in here. I woke up this morning and saw this article, and thought, "Wow, that's a pretty bold headline there." I read the article, read the PC Gamer original, and thought, "Hey, actually this is all interesting and noteworthy commentary." And it was from one of the industry's preeminent game designers. I saw Richard's response in our admin, and I considered toning our headline down, but didn't. It was just a snippet of what he said, but it accurately conveyed his sentiment better than any other option I could think of.

Obviously Richard had an opinion. Perhaps when he said it, it was off-the-cuff and unfiltered. That's way better than a canned statement, not because Gamasutra is _all about hot, hot ad hits_ (in the grand scheme of things an article like this does not move the needle or bring us more advertisers -- if only it were that easy), but because Richard was being honest about the way he felt.

I can respect someone who says something controversial or unpopular. I respect them more when they embrace what they believe, instead of backing down out of fear of upsetting a few people.

Hey everyone knows there is some truth in this. Nothing Dilbert doesn't talk about except replace managers with designers.

This is why I made AVEYOND. Huge world with a history, dozens of side quests that require you to use your brain, not your sword, an actual story, and the ability to make relationships between unusual characters with funny outcomes. Okay, to be truthful, this is the game I wanted to play, so I made the darn thing.

I think Richard is a cool guy personally. Great story teller, however, didn't actually "get" or really care about MMOs which is what irks me; he gets credit for creating Ultima Online and by extension credit for creating the modern MMO genre when he frankly had little to do with the creation of Ultima Online and the creation of the mainstream MMO other than taking credit for "inventing them". It's like Wells Fargo claiming credit for architecting and building my house because they were my mortgage lender. I find it insulting to those of us who are actually passionate and devoted ourselves to building and advancing the state of the MMO genre to have Richard be the public MMO icon.

Elucidation: a game "designer" should have a taste of at least one other specialty involved in the production of a game. Without knowledge of the requirements of a specialty other than building spreadsheets and coming up with ideas, the game "designer" may make unreasonable and unrealistic demands of his staff or inundate them with a list of items that would be impossible to implement within the time limit. Conversely, they will make simplified specifications that do not challenge their staff in the slightest, that may be only incrementally different than the last product; resulting in a product that does not innovate, inspire, or in the worst case, entertain.

The guy who "comes up with the ideas" should have the least amount of job security, since practically everyone else on the staff is just as much or more of a game enthusiast and have more developed and mission-critical skill-sets.

Game design is not "taught" in schools. Design is taught by "designing" things and seeing other people's designs, perhaps even critically examining them. That same knowledge could be gathered outside of a classroom, and would be best pursued during a student's free time.

The first couple paragraphs of the article display Mr. Garriott's long history and experience in making games. Certainly, he has amassed some idea of best practices and functioning concepts for games. But what of the other game "designers" he lauds?

On Peter Molyneux: did a case of feature-gloat sink the Fable games, or was over-promising and under-delivering caused by something else?

On Will Wright: why did SimCity and The Sims succeed while the majority of the other SimGames (not including those Mr. Wright had no direct influence on) fail?

On Chris Roberts: did the realization that money did not grow on trees come too late, or was it an early case of the ills of games with feature film budgets (or vice versa)?

In life, we learn not only from our own mistakes but also the mistakes of others. And there are enough errors abound to ensure that learning is a life-long process. Success should be applauded, but so should failure if it prevents someone else from making the same mistakes.

Addendum: sensationalist journalism is sometimes the price paid for publicity, and may be cheaper and more effective than other forms of advertising. Even muckrakers need food on their tables. As long as something is gained by both parties in the transaction, there is no harm and no foul. Besides, the fans thrive on this stuff, some appreciate the artificial spectacle; just as tabloids keep celebrities relevant past their prime. Without relevance, only a small fan community might pay attention or contribute to a Kickstarter campaign.

Edit: link to Michael Fitch's Pitfalls of the Working Game Designer: Believing the Hype
http://www.micrysweb.com/office/pitfallhype.html
Seems relevant.

I can't dance, but I'm tryin'!

I'm rubbish at making games too. It's taken me about 30 years to realise this.

well.. he may have a point when he says that most Game designer suck (I would say some game designer suck... I don't know about most).
But in the end this will destroy the figure of game designer, and that's something the industry definitively doesn't need.
Especially when he says that "he believes most artists and programmers are, in fact, just as good at designing games as the dedicated designers are"
I think we have already too much non designers that thinks everybody can be a game designer.
The truth is we may have a lack of good game designers in the industry, but that means we need better game designers, not that anybody can design a game.
Also, we should see how many design suck as a result for poor game design work and how many suck for unreasonable or sub-par requests made to game designers.
We all talk about the great game designers but all of them are respected enough to do basically what they want without much restraint.
It's not like that for everyone.
You can have all the creativity and the gaming knowledge to make great games but when you are told "we don't want to take risks, just copy some successful games and stick with it" there is little you can do even if you are the brightest mind of game design.

Yo momma.

Interesting read,

Reading through the comments it seems like there is only one I have much beef with. The idea that a game designer should have to make a full game to work with other people. If they can do that why would they want to work with someone who is constantly questioning them, may as well set up on their own.

Respect each other's disciplines, having been a 3d artist, level designer and now game designer it's tough wherever you go.

If there is one reason for crap design, it's that creativity is selectively bred out of everyone in every creative discipline in games.

Who even gets to make new IP? Anyone outside of indie? Please, people just learn to keep their heads down and not take the flack. Ever tried getting an idea into production that wasn't a well trodden rut?

I have seen far more crap orders from "on high" than crap game designers.

One reason some designers are not so great at their job, is that it takes talent, and talent is hard to come by. Talent in any field is hard to come by. A passion for games isn't enough and education (if any) only takes you so far. Without talent, you'll never really stand out.

Richard Garriot should man-up and apologise (not simply 'clarify') for the rather ill-thought comments. We get what he was trying to say - yes, design is hard, there's little formal training or methodology available, it used to attract poor candidates for the role. But you don't need to disparage the many professional and hard working designers out there to make that point.

Lord British has been too long secluded in his Tower of Ivory. Do not belittle the poor knight because he owes fealty to fickle lords - not all men can be kings, but that does not make them lesser men.

It's a small dream. But I hope to one day troll big, offend, and confuse millions of people. You have inspired me Garriott!

After this public badgering, Oprah will be calling him soon...