The venn diagram of people who want NFTs in games and people who make games is two separate circles.

But I sorta wanna talk about why. One of the more common questions I see is "isn't this just a new technology/business model, like subscription games, F2P, or GaaS?" Let's look at the previous market disruptions.

Players and devs were wary of them, but in most cases because of:

* Bad executions being the example (cash-grab, low-quality F2Ps)
* Slippery Slopes

But there was something positive they all have in common: player value.

I say this as someone who doesn't engage with League IP (after working on it too long) outside of TFT, this rating is 100% worth it. I can't believe how well-written it is. I'll share why it's good in the thread, without spoilers:

https://twitter.com/IGN/status/1462179211607744520

All of the characters, from main to side, fan favorites to new additions, have motivations, arcs and emotions that fucking make sense.

This is a big deal in a world of surface-motivated heroes and villains. No one is mustache twirling, no one sparkles, everyone is *human*.

I had an interesting conversation this week about the concept of "taste" in design. Specifically, the idea that designers should have good taste to be good designers.

I disagree with this, but maybe not for the obvious reasons. Let's discuss taste. The problem with "good taste" is that it doesn't mean anything on its own. My belief is that good taste is simply a weak definition for the combination of things we *do* want .

So I'm gonna try to break down the elements of good taste and demystify it a bit.

Let's talk today about the word and concept "fun" in terms of development.

I have a pretty sharp opinion on this: It's a word and concept you shouldn't use as a designer.

Of course we want players to *find* a game fun, but as devs, it's too vague and subjective to use To go further, I don't think it's merely useless, it's *dangerous* as a term in design.

Seems silly, maybe; especially when design does have a measure of subjectivity inherent to the craft. But fun, and arguments around it, at best bury real issues.

More often, it's a weapon

Constraints are a constant in design, and while they can sound like a bad thing, I'd suggest that I think they're not just inevitable, but beneficial to a strong, focused game design.

We don't talk about this a lot, so let's dive in a bit. To clarify, constraints are factors that put pressure, requirements or challenges on the design that aren't just the design itself.

Each game has its own, unique constraints. While we can't prepare for everything until we hit it, let's categorize a few places they come from:

I wanted to talk about a unique part of game dev: access to developers, and the expectation therein.

Fandoms, and particularly game, have an insane relationship to this - something not really in other industries.

Some tips, also, from someone who's been in the public eye a lot. This might be a tempting topic to oversimplify, but as with nearly everything in game dev, it's nuanced.

Often I think the problems with this subject come from extreme takes on some very understandable issues, so hopefully this will color a more complete picture.

Let's discuss game design education and post-graduate programs. I have a bit of a dour take, but I hope it can be useful - and maybe we can even find the silver linings.

It's something I've spent potentially too much time thinking about. While I have not experienced these classes first hand, I have been a hiring manager for about 10 years. I've had the opportunity to review a *lot* of candidates, resumes, and conduct a lot of interviews.

My experience is from an "I want to find good junior designers" POV

Today, let's talk about design "subclasses" - that is, what sort of type of skills outside of game design responsibilities do you want to pursue?

A lot of designers have a subclass or two, making the shape of an individual designer sort of unique! It's another reason design is harder to "grok" what it exactly is - there's so much variance. That's not a bad thing, though!

It speaks to what roles are more or less attractive, and what unique skills you can offer your team.

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.

Let's do something more upbeat tonight; I want to talk about passion in game design a bit.

I tend to spend a lot of time with more buzzkill-style topics (in a bit of an effort to take the glamor out of design), but passion does matter and play a role! I've mentioned before that your engagement in a title doesn't equate to skill and ability, and that a healthy distance from that can help you have a clearer head. This is true, but (as most things) it's nuanced.

Just as job functions have different roles, so do types of passion.

Let's talk about a subject near and dear to my heart; the *emotional skills* of game design.

We talk a lot about psychology, and the nuts and bolts of "engagement" - but we don't often talk about how emotional awareness and skills are critical to being a great designer. (Also tbh the design process from execution forward is interesting in practice, but I kept writing boring things that didn't feel super useful beyond what we've discussed already.

If there's a huge demand, I'll come back to breaking those down.)

OK, on to it.

Today’s post is a break from the individual steps, and defining the process I see in design.

1. Set goals
2. Form solutions
3. Execute
4. Evaluate outcome
5. Iterate

We’ve covered steps 1 and 2 in our earlier posts. Let’s talk about the overall process a bit more. The process is there is similar to a lot of creative efforts, like writing, performance or art.

My goal with these posts is to demystify design. All creative efforts seem like dark magic externally, but design is a learnable, teachable craft all its own.

Following up from yesterday’s goal post, let’s discuss the next step - forming a solution.

Problem solving is the root of design craft. While our goals guide us, how we achieve those goals often determines success or failure. This has a few steps you’ll want to cover;

* Brainstorm possibilities
* Narrow options
* Select one

How you do this is not rigid, but that you do it is critical.

Tonight, let’s discuss goal-oriented design.

A misconception of design I see pretty often is that it’s this ultra-creative field where ideas, inspirations, or taste are what makes a designer create great things.

This is in there, but it’s nothing without goals. Goals are the primary North Star of a design. Whether it’s as something as big as the entire game or something as focused as a balance item on a patch, goals help us determine if our design is on the right track.

It helps us use something other than taste and preference.

Let's talk a bit about decision-based design. That is, a design that prioritizes the explicit decisions players make.

While design is never as cut-and-dry as "it's this one thing", something has to be your first priority. I've spent a lot of time doing this one. This type of design tends to be good to use when designing:

* Games that rely on deep replay value, whether single or multiplayer
* Titles where the decision-making itself is the core promise
* Games where the decisions are transparent or exposed (see board games)

Today's thread is for both players and new devs, and is a bit adjacent to design.

Let's talk a bit about player feedback. For aspiring devs and players, how to make yours more likely to be impactful and engage well.

For everyone, how to make it better. My background is honestly a bit specific here, working on live-service, competitive titles at a place like Riot that has a unique player feedback relationship.

But in today's DLC/expac/patches world, this should all apply a bit for most games.

While there tends to be a lot of general interest in Game Design as a career, I think there's a gap between interest and liking the actual job.

I'll demystify it a bit and bust a few myths. This should help understand if it's a good idea for you, or just a cool idea. Let's start with the hard pill to swallow.

If you want to get into game design because you want to be the "ideas person" or "if people just did it like I know I want it'd be good," you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

That brings us the top myth:

A question I get a lot is "I want to be a game designer! How do I get started?"

So, let's talk about that. It can be hard to get started, especially in a field with as much ambiguity as Game Design.

We'll start with a disclaimer, and then my 3 tips. Entry-level (as in you've never worked on a game professionally before) are rare. There are 1000s (!) of applicants for a lot of them. Most...pretty bad.

This advice is a mix of how to stand out and compete, as well as to make sure you don't wait for the "magic position."

Read this thread. I do a lot of hiring, and will weigh in on why this is definitely A Good Thing to have. Buckle up.

https://twitter.com/chhopsky/status/1035945025417297921

Internet culture creates a lot of false dichotomies, one of them being seen here; that the choice is “hire women that are not qualified” or “interview like you do now, change nothing.” These are both hogwash approaches that don’t look at what’s happening rationally.

A few things I’ve learned over a decade I want to share about game design. A lot of this is basic, but hopefully useful for anyone starting out or feeling stuck. Big thread inc 1) The best skill to learn and focus on is how to be good at being wrong. This is hard as it requires some hard and important components: self-awareness, humility and graciousness. Being a better PERSON is one of the best ROIs for improving at design.