The Art of Computer Game Design

by Chris Crawford

Discusses the elements of games, surveys the various types of computer games, and describes the steps in the process of computer game development

Genres: Game Design, Games, Nonfiction, Design, Gaming, Technology, History

Paperback

First published May 1, 1984

Reviews

[Lyndon Goodacre · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a formative book for me, and for an industry before that. A long time after reading it, I had the honor of interviewing the author, attending a lecture he gave, and participating in a conference he hosted at his ranch. He shared with me that he wrote much of this while developing "Excalibur"—almost as a diary of designing and building that ambitious game for the research branch of Atari. He was working closely with Alan Kay at the time, one of the key innovators at Xerox PARC who helped invent GUIs and object-oriented programming in the 1970s. Kay's insights on usability influenced this book. It can only be considered a landmark as, without any exaggeration, the first book on digital game design. (If there is any earlier book about game design of any kind, I can't find it now, though I do recall making a mental note about possibly a 19th century book on board game design.)

The landmark is no fluke. This is the same Crawford who founded the first academic journal of digital game design (The Journal of Computer Game Design). He started the now rather humongous and international GDC in his old living room in San Jose. As a designer, he created the very first ecological games and also the first with artificial societies. His approach to this art form is most neatly conveyed in the legendary "Dragon Speech" from the 1992 GDC. Take a look.

The one thing I remember better than anything else is a comment he makes about fairness. If you believe you have lost a game that is fair, you may well want to try again. You feel that you have something to learn. You take on the challenge. But if you feel that you lost the game through a fault of the game, you aren't likely to continue. A game above all needs to invoke a feeling of fairness, otherwise players won't stick with it. That's an aspect central to a game's "readability," if you will. This one idea is so big, actually, that it can't be confined to games at all. Yet games are a terrific place to look at it and experiment with it, if not perhaps the best place.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

READ MAR 2012

Nice overview of game design and development. Originally written in the early '80s, this edition has reflections from the author in 2011.

Best quotes: "What is important about the modes of interaction is not their mechanical quality but their emotional significance" (Kindle location: 277); "Without active response, there can be no interaction" (Kindle location: 286); "Unfortunately, history bears out the fears of cynics more often than the hopes of dreamers" (Kindle location: 1673); and how many technologies go through a common developmental process of "pioneer, conquest, transformation of society by the technology, and transformation of the technology by society" (Kindle location: 1758).

[Alper Yılmaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a short, sweet book full of insights from a thoughtful master of his craft. That said, having been written as early as it was along the life cycle of game design as a discipline, this book ends up somewhat diluting the insights in an enjoyable, yet lamentably distracting way by the fact of how much of a window it is into a bygone time in the medium's history. This novelty ranges from his using the abbreviation I/O as an umbrella term for what we today call UI/X and graphics, to his retrospectively disproven concerns about "transplanting" games, to his referring to current-day debates on vision/focus vs scope/content, and simulation vs emulation, with the funny yet effective shorthand of "colour vs dirt"—all in the same chapter. All that being said, Crawford was unusually, delightfully confident in his faith in the medium as one of artistic expression, and his passion rings out in every chapter of the book; in this way, he was more modern here than many working in the industry today.

[Luka Kawashima · Rating 2 out of 5]

Concerning design and the relationship between art and programming it's a solid book. Nearly all of what he said is just as true now since he identified many inherent principles. It's not without its questionable eccentricities - his section on 'nontransitive' and 'indirect' relationships gets too far into applying formulas where a more holistic application of design sense is required. However his grating comments that reveal more of his personality makes it hard to recommend (expanded on later).

Another quirk would be his 'game taxonomy' being organized by explicit characteristics (combat games vs. 'maze' games vs 'paddle' games, etc) rather than player motivations. He notes, "If there were some organizing agent, some underlying process that created the group of objects, then we could reasonably expect to be able to find a single correct taxonomy embodying the central organizing principle in its structure. For example, the wide array of living creatures on this earth did not arise by chance; this array is the product of natural selection." From this excerpt I think that composition by aspects of player appeal (cozy, technical aspects, an oppressive atmosphere, competitiveness are various gameplay and artistic reasons that someone might choose to play a game) is closer to the "central organizing principle" as he puts it. Ordering games by formal characteristics instead of player motivations will miss relations that would be evident otherwise, and I'm not sure much is gained in the former. He did say that he didn't claim that his organization would be the definitive one, however, although he did still use it in a post to his website some 30 years afterwards.

Anyhow it's largely all well and good until he starts talking about his lofty ideals which are presented in a manner both naive and condescending which is a grating combination. It's insinuated throughout the book in comments like, "Nor would I suggest that good shoot-’em-up games can only be done by shoot-’em-up personalities. The realities of the marketplace demand that such games be written, and it is better that they be written by mature professionals than by simpering fools." It's a common enough sentiment, but again the particulars of his presentation miss the mark in nuance which is just not a fun reading experience.

This is substantiated in accounts of him online - "...The two developers that worked on the assembler versions had a different opinion, calling it boring. Although they raised this point during development, it was said that Crawford would simply state that if they understood the concept they would know it would be fun. One of the developers quit the project due to this attitude."

And "In 2006 Chris Crawford stood up at the GDC rant-session and candidly informed a room full of people dedicating their professional lives to game creation that they were wasting their time, servicing a dead patient, and by implication a bunch of idiots. He didn’t say the last part so explicitly, but gauging from the crowd’s reaction, he might as well have."

[Romano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un texto escrito hace 35 años, y es infinitamente superior a la gran mayoría de textos, estudios y ensayos sobre teoría y diseño de video juegos.

Escrito por Christopher Crawford, pionero en el diseño de videojuegos en los años 1970s y 1980s. Crawford nos expone claramente las posibilidades artísticas de los video juegos; plantea la importancia de los temas y los tópicos en las narraciones y su relación con las mecánicas, y es brutalmente crítico frente a las inferencias del mercado, las limitaciones del medio, y el estancamiento de las ideas de los desarrolladores. Bien dicen que los artistas son los que indican la hora del arte, y es refrescante poder leer a alguien tan consciente de las posibilidades, debilidades y facultades de su medio.

Muchos apartados, especialmente los centrados en la tecnología, podrían sentirse añejos e incluso tediosos, pero la edición digital del 2011 cuenta con comentarios actualizados por parte de Christopher Crawford, en los cuales evalúa, reafirma, crítica y desmiente sus postulados, tanto técnicos y artísticos, de los años 1980s.

Considero que es una lectura indispensable para los desarrolladores, aspirantes a serlo, y todos aquellos que se interesan a nivel teórico por los video juegos.

[Robert Madsen · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential book for anybody interested in Game design

Although this book was originally written over 40 years ago, it contains essential information that is still relevant for designing video games. In fact, it is the most comprehensive book. I have read on the topic today. The author ends each chapter with an update that brings the topics of discussion more current and this makes the book even more useful.I recommend this book to anybody who is interested in game design

[Helfren · Rating 3 out of 5]

The very art of computer game design is a book on how a programmer can create a relatable games. Good games always offer a way to share their individual through the play. Mastering the motivation of gamers and garner their attention goes long way to attend to the player base.

[Matt Stine · Rating 5 out of 5]

This really is a classic and foundational text on how to think about computer game design not only as a first-class creative art but also as a methodical engineering discipline. I expect to refer back to it often as I begin my journey into indie game production.

[Rosa Carbó mascarell · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Art of Computer Game Design shouldn't be approached as a technical how-to of game design. The videogame industry and theory has advanced well beyond the speculations of Chris Crawford in 1982. However his words still hold great value when approached with a historical eye. What was the state of game design in its infancy? What values were important and how have they evolved? How can it be applied to budding entertainment technologies? The answers to these questions have been further made clear by Chris Crawford's 2011 commentary on the book, adding a new level of depth that only makes this text richer in it's historical influence.

[kayla reed · Rating 2 out of 5]

The writing quality isn't great and the pacing and scope of the book is pretty illogical. He may be a great game designer and offer some insightful commentary, but he definitely isn't the best writer.

Also given the context it was originally written in it is pretty outdated regarding some of the design perspectives. This seems like it'd be better looked at for a historical perspective rather than game design ideas ( although there are a few key ideas in here that are nice, sifting through it just for these is pretty fruitless ).

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prescient. Simultaneously a comfort read and a call to action. A work that bears repeated readings; a classic, in other words.

"It is of great advantage to the student of any subject to read the original memoirs on that subject, for science is always most completely assimilated when it is in the nascent state..." - James Clerk Maxwell

[Jarrad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great, short book written with a lot of vision. Games still struggle with what the author brings up in this book written in 1982. It's easier to understand his disappointment with the current state of games after having read this, even if I'm still excited by the potential.

[Sheri · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is as old as I am, so it's a bit dated. We're a bit past the point of needing to limit the number of colors used in a game to save RAM. I suspect a lot of the general advice for how to go about designing a game is still relevant.

[Hillwins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Classic...but some ideas are outdated in today standard, still a great read for game designers wannabe

[Paulo Muppet · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book, specially when you think it was written more than 30 years ago. Highly recommended.

[Roman Savelyev · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just a few sparks of good logical thoughts. Largely outdated today both industry- and technology-wise. A lot of egoistical rhetorics. Costed me some patience to carve through the chapters I needed

[Nikola · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting book, but only when you want to know how looked like research into games in 80s. Classification of the games is very interesting there - it shows the way how games were perceived then.

[Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I personally enjoyed this book, it gives outdated information but for general knowledge it's very interesting also he gives some tips that ,in my opinion , are valid even now .