Substance and Style in Game Design
In the Gamasutra article, Style and Substance in Game Design, Tynan Slyvester explores the differences between aesthetic and function in interactive systems. Not that there’s much to discuss. Except, perhaps, his definition of substance:
…substance is defined by semi-unpredictable interaction and dynamic generation of decision points…
All opinions aside, the article — apparently an excerpt from a book, though I’m not quite sure which — doesn’t provide much else than to state the patently obvious differences between style and substance. I’ll sum it up for you: Substance makes the game, style makes it real. Why he’d go on for two lengthy pages about this, I’m not sure.
He does offer, however, some good advice:
A great method to search for holes in a gameplay system is to mentally strip it of style. If you’re making a shooter, imagine your characters as cylinders and gunfire as line traces. When you can do that, examine the gameplay system, determine where it is not generating good decisions, and fix the problem. This is a good method of analysis because it leaves the gameplay naked and deprives it of any crutch that our feelings towards the style might bring.
Even though substance is more important, most games are designed style-first. The style act not just as a wrapper for the final product, but as a wrapper for the designer’s thought process. Inspiration comes not in terms of abstract game elements, but of new story elements, new real-life things to place into the simulation, for which a substance system is then built.
Nothing new to me. However, considering the largely homogenized game design that so plagues the industry today, the article may not be a bad read. If you think underwater themes are the new “it,” then I strongly suggest you read the article. Please.