Game Design Journal #5 -or- Categorizing Game Designers

When it comes to categorizing the "Experiencisticalism" that I've sort of coined, I absolutely cannot place it on a chart comparing it to other types of design.  Here's why:

It's too fluid to be categorized.  If a narratologist doesn't create "Holy shit" experiences their game is boring.  If a ludologist doesn't do it, their game is boring.  All game designers use this style whether they think they are or not.  I just tend to focus on it, and bounce between styles depending on what the game needs.  

The reason I drew a big circle encompasing the triangle because it's not on the same level as other styles.  Not ABOVE it by any means but not held to the same categorization as the others.  Making a game without considering moments that will entice the player to keep playing is a recipe for disaster.  Your game could have the tightest controls, the best story, the greatest purpose, the awesomemest graphics...but if there's not meat in that bun you're wasting time and money.  ExperienceasticHolyShitism is everywhere.

I feel that in trying to categorize and label myself through online tests and surveys I move away from what I really am as a designer.  Design itself is a fluid art, an ebb and flow of many ideas and types and designs.  If Hideo Kojima can make Metal Gear Solid, then turn around and make comedy with it, and about it, and make several successful spin offs, then what does that make him?  All the games play different, place different emphasis on story, some have virtually zero purpose...but every game has gamers coming back for more.

Design isn't solid, not for the true greats at least.  If it was, we'd all be making the same game over and over again, and never really excelling.  As we learn more about making games, and work with our friends and peers we will break down the boundaries of our design types rapidly.  People inspire people way too quickly for them to not be affected.  By labeling someone, you limit them in your eyes to what you expect of them, and you limit them in their own mind because they know everything they do will fall within that label.  But, when we realize that each and every person in the room has the potential to create their own form of design, and that they usually will, we can begin to explore design from many, and much more open minded standpoints.

The chart that holds my style (Experiencismalisticology), and other styles in it looks like this: A big round table, at which all styles are sharing a meal of discovery and innovation, inviting new members to sit with them all and enjoy the lovely day on planet GameDesign.  If it were anything other it just wouldn't make any sense to me.

I feel rebellious, of course, writing this in my game journal, as it criticizes the very class I'm taking...but if I can't do this at Columbia College Chicago then I feel I may have made some misconceptions about the school along the way.

Bangorang,

Joe Locastro