Introduction: A Few Succinct Definitions and Caveats
Any human action (or inaction) must contend with entropy. While some might contest this factuality of our predetermined eventual state, their contentions seem (to me) to suggest even sadder realities. Besides, considering the actuality of perceived
and measured reality seems out of the scope of a 400-500 word etude discussing design. We all choose specific facts to believe, and I’ll hedge my bets on the reproducibility of science… and science suggests we are merely an intermediate
state between clouds of cosmic dust. All of humanity's achievements and failures are fundamentally meaningless to the broader universe. I suppose this isn’t much of a philosophy, but then again it is nihilism.
Consequently, any value one can assign is inherently constructed. This isn’t to assume that happiness and suffering aren’t real, they very much are. Personally, I value happiness over suffering; both my own and others; this value informs
my decisions. However, this is a value that I have assigned. Thus, nearly 200 words into this 400-500 word etude (keeping in mind that the subject, design, has only been mentioned twice) let us declare a few additional values for the duration
of the essay
I (the author), want others (you, perhaps) to be able to understand the way I experience the world.
I want others to be able to spend the time doing the things they want to do
I also want to spend my time doing what I want
Note that these values have been chosen only because I felt they were important enough to write them down in a notebook on Wednesday evening (09/22/2021). They are reproduced here (with permission) with only minimal editing for “clarity”.
Finally let me define three random words, for no particular reason. “Work” is what one does to survive. “Art” is what one does for oneself. “Design” is what one does for others. All three words are fictitious and
any resemblance to real words, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Part 1: Two games and one quote
Three hours, thirteen minutes, and thirty four seconds into his review of DOOM (1993), Tim Rogers declares:
We hold these truths to be self evident,
That video games were created awesome.
That I was born stupid. However, I will not die hungry.
Video games forever. Action Button.
This statement comprises only twelve seconds, of the total runtime of the video (three hours, thirty minutes, twenty one seconds) and contains no apparent commentary on the video game, DOOM (1993). It is isolated from the rest of the video,
between “THE BOTTOM LINE” and “epilogue;” this combined with forcefulness of presentation serves to immediately draw the viewer to the words. The font and coloration choices would likely further draw a viewer if
not for Rogers’ frame confrontationally obscuring the text.
The statement references another statement made by Rogers, a tweet made some eight years prior.
@romero i'll write a doom story which is all facts. first sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that DOOM is created awesome"
Perhaps Rogers hoped that this statement would be a confirmation of the promise made to Romero in the original tweet? Is ACTION BUTTON REVIEWS DOOM the factual story he wanted to tell? Or perhaps the resemblance is merely aesthetic
or even coincidental?
Regardless, this statement clearly reflects an ideological framework. As with much internet media, separating irony from authentically held opinions is (likely) a fruitless task. The first sentence immediately sets an overly grandiose or satirical
tone, yet the performance remains remarkably genuine.
Finally, I ask that the reader reconsider Rogers’ statement for themselves for some time before continuing, and keep it in mind as they consider the further analysis.
Of the games that I have played, Hollow Knight (2017) is easily identifiable as the most carefully crafted. Nearly every single element in the game has both purpose and aesthetic values. It is easily the closest to a “perfect”
video game that I have played. The game is challenging while remaining satisfying.
Hollow Knight presents a world that demands investigation. Every element of the game oozes purpose from its very design. A corpse of a bug is often both a view to a civilization long dead and an opportunity to upgrade player character. Later
in the game, corpses become part of an important mechanic and must be revisited. Yet more are hints towards secrets which the player may or may not have discovered. A cracked wall sometimes signifies a decaying structure and sometimes
signifies a breakable element hiding a reward. Many times it is both and can only be determined through experimentation by the player. The game very quickly teaches you that specific objects, sound effects, and even music are important
warnings. All this is performed while remaining within a single gothic aesthetic motif.
The depth of purpose bestowed upon each aspect of the world encourages careful and methodical gameplay, full of back-tracking and repetition. The resultant tedium reveals the deep thought put into the basic game mechanics. Take the jump mechanic
for example. As a platformer, Hollow Knight consistently uses height to gate the player from parts of the world. The game slowly metes out upgrades that modify jumping ability, allowing access to different areas of the game.
The emergent pattern is one of hunger and satisfaction. The game lays out so many possible tasks and imposes desire upon the user through its sense of mystery. Regardless of ability, place in the game, or experience, there is always some well-designed
task to accomplish to satisfy that hunger. Hollow Knight is a game that bypasses any notion of player stupidity through careful construction, laying out a near-eternity of opportunities for player satisfaction.
The design of Team Fortress 2 (2007) in 2021 is muddled at best. The current game is a clash of art styles, play styles, ideas, and groups. Whether the game really had any narrative at all is still a point of contention in the community. The
UI and tutorials are outdated and borderline useless. The game that players paid for in 2007 is arguably gone, replaced with something similar but uncanny. Many parts of the game are at once functionless and functional depending on perspective.
Despite this, the game continues strongly as other similar games have come and gone. Clearly some aspect of TF2's design has retained player interest…
The game is simple: Teams, Maps, Classes, Loadouts, Trading. However, the number of TF2 player archetypes is innumerable. Thus, I want to focus on a single aspect of the game, specifically its most competitive format “sixes.” In
the format, the community attempts to distill TF2 down into its best parts, banning specific items and placing limits on classes to encourage intense competitive teamplay. The community has almost entirely replaced the original maps of
the game with custom made maps that are more balanced to discourage stalemates. The format itself has a long history, early sixes competitions were held just months after the game’s release. The best part: its fun. Its so fucking
fun. The balance between teamwork, personal skill, communication, and strategy is unlike any other game (or sport) that I’ve played. At a high level, it is nonstop, dynamic, but interpertable to a viewer. Or anyways, that's my experience
at least.
The playstyle seeks to eschew nearly all aesthetic aspects of the game, replacing high quality textures with low for framerate or creating UI’s that remove much of the game’s personality. However, by removing these aesthetic elements,
it refocuses aesthetic sensibilities on other parts. Many espouse the “beauty” of football, both regular and American, and part of that is the aesthetics of the jerseys, the field. However, many would point towards the game
itself as beautiful. The interactions between players create stories, narratives, with an aesthetic sensibility stronger than any visual design choice can create. While the idea of aesthetics having a function is important, it is often
forgotten that purely functional parts of a whole can combine to create a unique and memorable aesthetic sensibility.
However, note the choice of “community” over “game developers.” Valve, the developers of Team Fortress 2 have made it clear on many occasions that they view sixes as an incorrect way to play the game. Unlike
Dota 2 or CS:GO, TF2 competitive has received no support from Valve. There are no TF2 majors, no TF2 6’s competitive matchmaking, all things which are expected of modern games. The developers seem to hate the idea
of focusing on the sixes community views as the core components of what make the design of the game good. To me this conflict stems from the different functions that the game holds to designers and players. What happens when for one group,
a game is a means-to-an-end and to another the game is an end-in-itself?
Part 2: [BEGIN RESPONSE]
So much of the perspective offered so far only understands the idea of a single designer in control of a creation. Why pretend that the designer is the sole mediator of the relationship between object and audience. Don’t forget, “I
was born stupid. However, I will not die hungry.” These are not the words of a designer, they are the words of a player, of an audience member, of someone subject to the creation, not someone in control of it. I cannot conceive that
it is ever possible for one to design in anticipation of all hunger and all stupidity.
To me, this demands a broader interpretation of the nature of design and the futility thereof.
When I was first thinking about this problem, I drew the following triangle of effect:
From it I want to emphasize several things. First, any object exists as part of the world as a whole. The designer may view or change the object according to their ability and desire, instantiating a change in the world. Any viewer may similarly
also view or change that object according to their ability and desire. Seemingly, what design seeks to do is mediate this relationship between the viewer and the world. The triangle shows that this is not fully realizable, as this is the
one area of the triangle where the designer has no control. The designer may only indirectly affect this by changing the object or interacting with the viewer. Thus, I interpret design as less of an objective process and more of a game
played between the designer and the viewer (conscious or not), with the world as an intermediary. Both the designer and the viewer can play both roles.
Now, this diatribe may seem largely unimportant and honestly may be fully consistent with artful design. To me it represents an important perspective shift.
In Artful Design, Ge Weng offers the following principles of design:
1.5 Design is Means vs. Ends
1.6 Design is an interplay between function and form
Within the framework of the triangle, presumably “ends” is how the relationship between the viewer and object or world changes and the “means” is simply how the designer changes the world. But how does this correspond
to the means and the ends for the viewer? Artful Design seems to focus largely on this means and the ends for the viewer, but to me it seems clear that this will be different for each viewer and largely impossible to determine
for the designer, especially as the individual complexity of any designed object grows. The means and the ends for the viewer will be defined by the viewer, never the designer. The consideration of the dichotomy of form and function is
similar. I would identify hunger and stupidity as driving forces, over any notions of design. These will inevitably distort any kind of means, ends, function, or form identified by a designer. Perhaps the purpose of design is to attempt
to anticipate these.
[END RESPONSE]
total word count: 498 ... technically
Returning to Team Fortress 2 (2007), this illustrates the fundamental problem of critique of that game under some of the principles of artful design. The game is, in fact, the design of everyone who played it. In turn, every designer
is also a viewer, affected by the design of the game itself. The conflict between Valve and the sixes community stems not from a problem with the design of the game but in fact because everyone is a designer of the game, each
trying to affect change on the design according to their desires and ability. The problem stems from the imposed gates on ability and improperly motivated desires.
So, where do we go from here? The greatness of TF2’s design seems a self-evident so how can we learn from this to make better designs in the future? What does this 14 pound bag of mellons mean for gamers?
Recall that a set of values was identified for no particular reason in the introduction.
I (the author), want others (you, perhaps) to be able to understand the way I experience the world.
I want others to be able to spend the time doing the things they want to do
I also want to spend my time doing what I want
Well, instead of focusing on form, function, means, ends, or anything else like that perhaps a designer should focus on understanding. TF2’s design succeeds in this excellently, by giving players tools to customize and show others the
things they enjoy through the process of individual design and creation. Naturally, Valve has a specific notion of how they understand and enjoy the game. Problems seem to arise when Valve makes changes that enforce a specific playstyle
on the game, preventing others from doing what they want to do. This is a problem of design, in conflict with #3. Design should be a medium of communication rather than a medium of enforcement. The arrogance is assuming that we are understood.
Finally, I want to return to the three words that were also defined in the introduction.
Design can simplify another’s work while still being art to the designer. Let us seek to make design a gift that we give both to ourselves and to the world.
Afterword
At this moment, I want to share the work of Jacob Geller, who I believe wholly embodies the ideal of artful design, as I understand them.
Despite personal hope otherwise, I remain unconvinced that any "original" thought of mine on the subject of design is not a direct product of his work. His work unequivocally speaks for itself
I had hoped that this essay/webpage/work would be my piece of guerilla design for this week, and I've definitely worked at it, though I'm unsure my level of success. I'm happy with the writing for the most part, though I think it still demands
a great deal of editing and condensing. I'm most concerned as the aesthetics arguably detracts from the function of fulfilling the assigned work. However, I've definitely focused on the art or aesthetic aspect. Despite the stress,
I've greatly enjoyed making this and have tried to trust those feelings, guiding me to a (hopefully) interesting composition. I'm disappointed that I didn't have the time that I wanted to complete all of the elements that I wanted. This
has served as a reminder to me that both web design and artful design take a great deal of time. Interfacing with technology is complex, and cannot be left to the last minute. Regardless, I think that what I have presented and what remains
in my mind are still different enough to demand further work beyond the due date. I will continue however I can to merge those into a single product that I am happy with. Overall, I'm very happy that I was able to write an essay for me
and not for the class. How well it fulfills the requirements is not for me to judge. I hope (especially if you are a grader of this document) that I have not been too presumptive with you time.
Introduction: A Few Succinct Definitions and Caveats
Any human action (or inaction) must contend with entropy. While some might contest this factuality of our predetermined eventual state, their contentions seem (to me) to suggest even sadder realities. Besides, considering the actuality of perceived and measured reality seems out of the scope of a 400-500 word etude discussing design. We all choose specific facts to believe, and I’ll hedge my bets on the reproducibility of science… and science suggests we are merely an intermediate state between clouds of cosmic dust. All of humanity's achievements and failures are fundamentally meaningless to the broader universe. I suppose this isn’t much of a philosophy, but then again it is nihilism.
Consequently, any value one can assign is inherently constructed. This isn’t to assume that happiness and suffering aren’t real, they very much are. Personally, I value happiness over suffering; both my own and others; this value informs my decisions. However, this is a value that I have assigned. Thus, nearly 200 words into this 400-500 word etude (keeping in mind that the subject, design, has only been mentioned twice) let us declare a few additional values for the duration of the essay
Note that these values have been chosen only because I felt they were important enough to write them down in a notebook on Wednesday evening (09/22/2021). They are reproduced here (with permission) with only minimal editing for “clarity”.
Finally let me define three random words, for no particular reason. “Work” is what one does to survive. “Art” is what one does for oneself. “Design” is what one does for others. All three words are fictitious and any resemblance to real words, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Part 1: Two games and one quote
Three hours, thirteen minutes, and thirty four seconds into his review of DOOM (1993), Tim Rogers declares:
We hold these truths to be self evident,
That video games were created awesome.
That I was born stupid. However, I will not die hungry.
Video games forever. Action Button.
This statement comprises only twelve seconds, of the total runtime of the video (three hours, thirty minutes, twenty one seconds) and contains no apparent commentary on the video game, DOOM (1993). It is isolated from the rest of the video, between “THE BOTTOM LINE” and “epilogue;” this combined with forcefulness of presentation serves to immediately draw the viewer to the words. The font and coloration choices would likely further draw a viewer if not for Rogers’ frame confrontationally obscuring the text.
The statement references another statement made by Rogers, a tweet made some eight years prior.
Perhaps Rogers hoped that this statement would be a confirmation of the promise made to Romero in the original tweet? Is ACTION BUTTON REVIEWS DOOM the factual story he wanted to tell? Or perhaps the resemblance is merely aesthetic or even coincidental?
Regardless, this statement clearly reflects an ideological framework. As with much internet media, separating irony from authentically held opinions is (likely) a fruitless task. The first sentence immediately sets an overly grandiose or satirical tone, yet the performance remains remarkably genuine.
Finally, I ask that the reader reconsider Rogers’ statement for themselves for some time before continuing, and keep it in mind as they consider the further analysis.
Of the games that I have played, Hollow Knight (2017) is easily identifiable as the most carefully crafted. Nearly every single element in the game has both purpose and aesthetic values. It is easily the closest to a “perfect” video game that I have played. The game is challenging while remaining satisfying.
Hollow Knight presents a world that demands investigation. Every element of the game oozes purpose from its very design. A corpse of a bug is often both a view to a civilization long dead and an opportunity to upgrade player character. Later in the game, corpses become part of an important mechanic and must be revisited. Yet more are hints towards secrets which the player may or may not have discovered. A cracked wall sometimes signifies a decaying structure and sometimes signifies a breakable element hiding a reward. Many times it is both and can only be determined through experimentation by the player. The game very quickly teaches you that specific objects, sound effects, and even music are important warnings. All this is performed while remaining within a single gothic aesthetic motif.
The depth of purpose bestowed upon each aspect of the world encourages careful and methodical gameplay, full of back-tracking and repetition. The resultant tedium reveals the deep thought put into the basic game mechanics. Take the jump mechanic for example. As a platformer, Hollow Knight consistently uses height to gate the player from parts of the world. The game slowly metes out upgrades that modify jumping ability, allowing access to different areas of the game.
The emergent pattern is one of hunger and satisfaction. The game lays out so many possible tasks and imposes desire upon the user through its sense of mystery. Regardless of ability, place in the game, or experience, there is always some well-designed task to accomplish to satisfy that hunger. Hollow Knight is a game that bypasses any notion of player stupidity through careful construction, laying out a near-eternity of opportunities for player satisfaction.
The design of Team Fortress 2 (2007) in 2021 is muddled at best. The current game is a clash of art styles, play styles, ideas, and groups. Whether the game really had any narrative at all is still a point of contention in the community. The UI and tutorials are outdated and borderline useless. The game that players paid for in 2007 is arguably gone, replaced with something similar but uncanny. Many parts of the game are at once functionless and functional depending on perspective. Despite this, the game continues strongly as other similar games have come and gone. Clearly some aspect of TF2's design has retained player interest…
The game is simple: Teams, Maps, Classes, Loadouts, Trading. However, the number of TF2 player archetypes is innumerable. Thus, I want to focus on a single aspect of the game, specifically its most competitive format “sixes.” In the format, the community attempts to distill TF2 down into its best parts, banning specific items and placing limits on classes to encourage intense competitive teamplay. The community has almost entirely replaced the original maps of the game with custom made maps that are more balanced to discourage stalemates. The format itself has a long history, early sixes competitions were held just months after the game’s release. The best part: its fun. Its so fucking fun. The balance between teamwork, personal skill, communication, and strategy is unlike any other game (or sport) that I’ve played. At a high level, it is nonstop, dynamic, but interpertable to a viewer. Or anyways, that's my experience at least.
The playstyle seeks to eschew nearly all aesthetic aspects of the game, replacing high quality textures with low for framerate or creating UI’s that remove much of the game’s personality. However, by removing these aesthetic elements, it refocuses aesthetic sensibilities on other parts. Many espouse the “beauty” of football, both regular and American, and part of that is the aesthetics of the jerseys, the field. However, many would point towards the game itself as beautiful. The interactions between players create stories, narratives, with an aesthetic sensibility stronger than any visual design choice can create. While the idea of aesthetics having a function is important, it is often forgotten that purely functional parts of a whole can combine to create a unique and memorable aesthetic sensibility.
However, note the choice of “community” over “game developers.” Valve, the developers of Team Fortress 2 have made it clear on many occasions that they view sixes as an incorrect way to play the game. Unlike Dota 2 or CS:GO, TF2 competitive has received no support from Valve. There are no TF2 majors, no TF2 6’s competitive matchmaking, all things which are expected of modern games. The developers seem to hate the idea of focusing on the sixes community views as the core components of what make the design of the game good. To me this conflict stems from the different functions that the game holds to designers and players. What happens when for one group, a game is a means-to-an-end and to another the game is an end-in-itself?
Part 2: [BEGIN RESPONSE]
So much of the perspective offered so far only understands the idea of a single designer in control of a creation. Why pretend that the designer is the sole mediator of the relationship between object and audience. Don’t forget, “I was born stupid. However, I will not die hungry.” These are not the words of a designer, they are the words of a player, of an audience member, of someone subject to the creation, not someone in control of it. I cannot conceive that it is ever possible for one to design in anticipation of all hunger and all stupidity.
To me, this demands a broader interpretation of the nature of design and the futility thereof.
When I was first thinking about this problem, I drew the following triangle of effect:
From it I want to emphasize several things. First, any object exists as part of the world as a whole. The designer may view or change the object according to their ability and desire, instantiating a change in the world. Any viewer may similarly also view or change that object according to their ability and desire. Seemingly, what design seeks to do is mediate this relationship between the viewer and the world. The triangle shows that this is not fully realizable, as this is the one area of the triangle where the designer has no control. The designer may only indirectly affect this by changing the object or interacting with the viewer. Thus, I interpret design as less of an objective process and more of a game played between the designer and the viewer (conscious or not), with the world as an intermediary. Both the designer and the viewer can play both roles.
Now, this diatribe may seem largely unimportant and honestly may be fully consistent with artful design. To me it represents an important perspective shift.
In Artful Design, Ge Weng offers the following principles of design:
1.5 Design is Means vs. Ends
1.6 Design is an interplay between function and form
Within the framework of the triangle, presumably “ends” is how the relationship between the viewer and object or world changes and the “means” is simply how the designer changes the world. But how does this correspond to the means and the ends for the viewer? Artful Design seems to focus largely on this means and the ends for the viewer, but to me it seems clear that this will be different for each viewer and largely impossible to determine for the designer, especially as the individual complexity of any designed object grows. The means and the ends for the viewer will be defined by the viewer, never the designer. The consideration of the dichotomy of form and function is similar. I would identify hunger and stupidity as driving forces, over any notions of design. These will inevitably distort any kind of means, ends, function, or form identified by a designer. Perhaps the purpose of design is to attempt to anticipate these.
[END RESPONSE]
total word count: 498 ...
technically
Returning to Team Fortress 2 (2007), this illustrates the fundamental problem of critique of that game under some of the principles of artful design. The game is, in fact, the design of everyone who played it. In turn, every designer is also a viewer, affected by the design of the game itself. The conflict between Valve and the sixes community stems not from a problem with the design of the game but in fact because everyone is a designer of the game, each trying to affect change on the design according to their desires and ability. The problem stems from the imposed gates on ability and improperly motivated desires.
So, where do we go from here? The greatness of TF2’s design seems a self-evident so how can we learn from this to make better designs in the future? What does this 14 pound bag of mellons mean for gamers?
Recall that a set of values was identified for no particular reason in the introduction.
Well, instead of focusing on form, function, means, ends, or anything else like that perhaps a designer should focus on understanding. TF2’s design succeeds in this excellently, by giving players tools to customize and show others the things they enjoy through the process of individual design and creation. Naturally, Valve has a specific notion of how they understand and enjoy the game. Problems seem to arise when Valve makes changes that enforce a specific playstyle on the game, preventing others from doing what they want to do. This is a problem of design, in conflict with #3. Design should be a medium of communication rather than a medium of enforcement. The arrogance is assuming that we are understood.
Finally, I want to return to the three words that were also defined in the introduction.
Design can simplify another’s work while still being art to the designer. Let us seek to make design a gift that we give both to ourselves and to the world.
Afterword
At this moment, I want to share the work of Jacob Geller, who I believe wholly embodies the ideal of artful design, as I understand them.
Despite personal hope otherwise, I remain unconvinced that any "original" thought of mine on the subject of design is not a direct product of his work. His work unequivocally speaks for itself
I had hoped that this essay/webpage/work would be my piece of guerilla design for this week, and I've definitely worked at it, though I'm unsure my level of success. I'm happy with the writing for the most part, though I think it still demands a great deal of editing and condensing. I'm most concerned as the aesthetics arguably detracts from the function of fulfilling the assigned work. However, I've definitely focused on the art or aesthetic aspect. Despite the stress, I've greatly enjoyed making this and have tried to trust those feelings, guiding me to a (hopefully) interesting composition. I'm disappointed that I didn't have the time that I wanted to complete all of the elements that I wanted. This has served as a reminder to me that both web design and artful design take a great deal of time. Interfacing with technology is complex, and cannot be left to the last minute. Regardless, I think that what I have presented and what remains in my mind are still different enough to demand further work beyond the due date. I will continue however I can to merge those into a single product that I am happy with. Overall, I'm very happy that I was able to write an essay for me and not for the class. How well it fulfills the requirements is not for me to judge. I hope (especially if you are a grader of this document) that I have not been too presumptive with you time.
chuck script