“Reactive” vs. “Clean-slate” game designers…
Warren Spector talks about the difference between reactive and clean slate designers and creativity.
A reactive game designer takes an existing idea and twists / improves on it. Many commercial games are reactive games, steadily improving on a known formula:
- Halo
- Half Life
- Burnout
- Flatout
- Doom
- Ratchet & Clank
- Guitar Hero
Clean slate games are entirely new things that people have not seen before:
- Pong
- SimCity
- Bridge Builder
- Spore
- Parappa The Rapper
- Electroplankton
- Katamari Damacy
- Paper Mario
- Asheron’s Call / Everquest
- Command and Conquer
I’m mostly a reactive game designer with a few clean slate ideas thrown in. This also follows my novel writing path(80-20). About 20% of my game ideas and novels/stories are bizarre and completely non-commercial, but implementable. And majority of my reactive game ideas stem from tech demos or novel ways of using technology – i.e wouldn’t it be cool to be able to reverse time? Or use a dance pad? Or gestural input?
Which is better? Neither to Mr. Spector. He says:
“Clean slate? Reaction?… Who cares? In the same way complex behaviors can emerge in a game or simulation from the interaction of simple rules, it doesn’t take too many new ideas mixed in with the old ones to result in something new, unexpected and wonderful.”
I think indies who want commercial success need to be a little more on the reactive side. The experimentalists (like me) need to stick with clean slate concepts and hope the public understands.
Add comment September 16th, 2007
