GDC 2013: Mark of the Ninja Creators Discuss Design Challenges

ometimes, within the process of putting everything together, video game developers battle against waves of insanity. However, some developers and publishers have ways of maintaining product quality without sacrificing everything else in the process.

Jeff Agala and Jamie Cheng, two chief developers behind Klei Entertainment’s Mark of the Ninja, both outlined some of their strategies for fellow independent game developers at their first GDC panel on Monday. The panel, which revolved around “Making Mark of the Ninja, and how we did it without totally losing our minds,” described general tips and tricks for keeping game makers on task while also creating quality products at the same time.

When Cheng started describing processes and routines both developers often faced, he also mentioned how essential it is to balance out home life and work life whenever possible. Unfortunately, it can’t always happen.

“Everybody’s priorities are going to change,” said Cheng when describing his family life.

Most of these processes involved cutting out waste-of-time procedures in the development process, and not over planning anything. For instance, both believe strongly in cutting out mechanical prerequisites based on general assumptions alone. It’s commonly believed that video games require plenty of future documents on level design and other pre-planned materials. The reality, however, is that each game and dev team may require more unique options as opposed to usual one-size-fits-all approaches.

“If you know what you’re going to do, you can do a lot of it very quickly,” said Agala. “But if you’re doing that based on bad assumptions, you’re going to be quickly doing the wrong thing.”

Agala described how players wanted some processes in games to be clearer than others. Sometimes AI mechanics seem too tedious and take away from the overall experience, while other instances may require harder puzzles to make players gather more rewards from their actions.

As Cheng descried, this is why experimentation with gaming theories remains fundamental in the world of game design, and especially at an independent level.

“Theories are flexible,” Cheng said. “If you have a formula, that’s inflexible. You plug stuff in and that’s it. A theory is when you understand what’s going on better.”

The most common model of developmental experimentation proposed by Agala and Cheng seems simple enough: Assume less and discover what works through a process of trial and error. If certain mechanics don’t work for an experience, don’t force anything; it simply wasn’t meant to be.

And though solid by nature, one issue presents itself in Agala and Cheng’s process of throwing out theories and processes: Why not archive certain strategies and potentially save them for future titles? To simply say “this won’t work, so let’s never consider it for anything” may work perfectly for “Generic Game Reference X,” but to say it wouldn’t work with “Average Action Shooter Y” falls under the same generalized assumptions these developers claim one should avoid.

So basically, try planning for anything instead of the usual bouts of “planning ahead.” Keep ideas open and experiment as opposed to relying on assumptions and popular AAA mechanical influences to craft the so-called “perfect” gaming experiences. Audiences needs constantly shift over time, and quality games demand great attention to detail in these areas.

“While shipping mediocre games is a quick way to sink a company, having an unsustainable dev style is a long way to suffocate one,” said Agala.