Thread by @MorelloNMST

Let's talk about being "well-played" in design. That is, having a rich background of gameplay experiences.

This is a critical qualification of all Game Designers, in my mind, but there are(as usual!) a lot of misconceptions around what it is, what it means, and why it matters.

First, let's define what it is (to me):

Being well-played is about having not just a lot of experience in playing games, but looking at those games analytically, too.

Now, a lot of people meet this qualification, which leads me to the first misconception.

* Well-played is required, but it is not sufficient.

This misconception comes from a lot of armchair designers, and usually ones who are, uhm, let's say not always generously-minded.

It's important to have a wealth of experience, but it doesn't make you a designer.

If that were true, it'd literally not be a job - there'd be no demand because so many people meet this requirement!

This and "I have good ideas" sit side-by-side on the Loveseat of "things people think makes someone qualified to be a designer, but absolutely does not."

* The games you like will be enough

This is also not true. Many, many great lessons are taken from games you would not want to play, and actively dislike.

The truth about design is you gotta choke some vegetables down in your play, sometimes.

You also need to be curious about games in general. Playing titles you'd never try is important. This is because the lessons in games are usually abstract, not specific.

In fact, you're less likely to understand the games you don't like, you haven't spent any time with them.

Don't like sports games? You're missing out on incredible lessons in simulation transference (what parts of sports do we take and don't to make it "feel like football") and their meta game systems run the gamut of oppressive to loved.

A lot of hardcore folks snub at this.

Games that aren't just different versions of ones you like ("Well I play League AND DotA!") are extra valuable. They let you think more about the audiences, and work on that empathic lens we discussed last time.

Even as someone who has worked on pretty hardcore titles, my experience in other genres has been invaluable.

Tekken let me mentally model mix-up gameplay in Valorant. Turn-based enthusiasm exposes the decision tree in a shooter in the raw.

Lessons *are everywhere*.

If you're serious about being a designer, you should understand why games that are ultra popular are - without snottiness or judgment.

I need to do this with Roblox/Minecraft still. It's a blindspot I still have (partially due to my age, I think)

I was going to make this a new point, but it applies here; depth is not a substitution for breadth.

Playing 10,000 of a game or genre does help, but it won't make up for having no idea why WoW works a decade-and-a-half later, or why Fortnite is so compelling.

* You don't have to play "bad games"

I have all sorts of opinions about all sorts of games. But, and you can check the receipts here, I don't consider games "good" or "bad."

They all have good and bad things about them, and how much you like it might not relate to that at all.

It's good to look at, instead what *is working* and *isn't working* in a game. This requires practice.

A good way to try this is to look at things you hate, and write down what's good about it, and why. What can you learn (and not "that it sucks lol")

Becoming an evaluator will help you be more thoughtful as a designer, and your experience will help more.

You don't have to finish games you're hating, or pour a ton of time in, but enough to have some lessons and takeaways.

Also pro tip: don't disparage an audience for their taste. It's shitty and small-minded, and says you're not ready to be a designer.

Hard stance here.

* It worked in this one game, so we should do that because that game is good

ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmggggggggggggggggggggggggg

The dramatic response is based how many times I've heard this, from either maybe even well-intentioned players, or worse, higher-ups in a company that have no idea what they're talking about.

Mechanics can inspire, but aren't portable without a lot of context.

Aping mechanics is fine, and good, in the right contexts. But the contexts lead, not the mechanics.

We made this mistake with Dominion - we didn't consider how CP gameplay would port to LoL well enough, and half-baked it. (Sorry @violentlycar!)

* As a designer, I don't have time to play games

This can be a rough one for busy professionals with families. But it can't be skipped, sorry folks.

We need your insights and examples so you're not out of tough with a rapidly-changing audience, or we have to reinvent the wheel

There are periods for a designer where this can be true - life happens - but overall, making sure you're at least doing your homework is important.

Some studios will crunch the will out of you, which I do not have good advice for sadly outside of "finding a new job" :<

If you're really up the creek time wise and can't prioritize it, but want to stay current, keeping up with content around games that's insightful or informative is a good stopgap.

If you're aspiring designer, make sure you're well-played! You'll need those examples to help, especially when you're new and still figuring things out.

Search out the things you wouldn't. Play, but also do "research play" and you'll be the wiser for it.