Game Design and Computer Technology: something in common?

[jackvice]

I want to discuss with you folk (after someone's request) about those three different posts I wrote on Google+. Mind that they're all personal thoughts and I'd love you to comment them with your own ideas about it.
Hope you enjoy it ^^

Game Design and Computer Technology: something in common?

I'd love to discuss about two simple principles of computer design, used mostly for the architecture of processors:

make the common case fast

simplicity favors regularity

I see a great affinity between those guidelines and the game design.

In fact, when I read those things, I suddenly thought about A Penny for my Thoughts, but also Primetime Adventures, Trollbabe.... I can see in every indie/new Wave/call-it-whatever-you-wish game an extensive use of those two principles (low quantity of "special rules", "modular rules", easy step-by-step tables, repetitive uses of the same mechanics, etc).
Am I wrong? If not, are those two good guidelines for a game designer?
I'm not looking to build a set of rules for the "good game designer" (that would be stupid), just asking around if this set of principles can be a valid guideline (heartened by all the games we use to play), that's it ^^

EDIT: I'd like to say I'm not an expert neither in Computer Science (I'm a student of the 1st grade) nor strong in game design, even if I wrote some games).

Game Design and Computer Technology: something in common? part II

So I'm back, talking again about Games and IT, and what's common with them.
This Thursday I had my first afternoon lesson of Software Engineering. Actually, it was just an introduction to SE, still I think it was more interesting than I thought. The teacher said something like "when you write a program, the first time you run it, it won't surely work" and "SE is more an art than a sterile procedure". Both things to me looks similarly applicable to Game Design ("When you write a game, it surely won't work the first time you play it" -  that's playtest for!).. but this is what made me shiver:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - A. de Saint-Exupéry

Yeah, that's right. That's another thing I see in common between writing code and writing "new wave" RPGs. Most likely all the "traditional games" makes sure to reach "perfection" by adding manual, rules and compendiums to the already thick core rules. "Modern" games do the opposite: essentialness is the key of success. No game will ever reach perfection, but trying to is in human nature, right? And I think that now we're on the right way to.

Game Design and Computer Technology: something in common? part III

Talking about E/R during a Database lesson, I learned the existance of a group of rules, called the Zen of Python. Some of them do resemble what I think good rules in game design (like keeping the number of "special rules" low, do a simple set of rules, etc.)

"Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea."
                                                              - Tim Peters, the Zen of Python

What do you think about it?

[Patrick]

do you want us to discuss in english? ^^

[jackvice]

Yes please. I saw that those articles drew the attention of non-Italian writers like Robert Bohl and Jason Morningstar. I don't know if they're subscribed to GcG, but for the sake of foreign people, I'd like it to be in English, please ^^

[Patrick]

you could post this on Ron's forum

[jackvice]

Se c'è qualcuno di interessato posso tranquillamente e bellamente ignorare quello che ho detto prima e discuterne in italiano, forse in inglese è una barriera per molte persone, in effetti :/

[Mattia Bulgarelli]

Mi piacerebbe avere tempo di commentare e dissertare... per ora mi limito a dire "quanta ragione, quant'è vero". ^^

[Patrick]

Io la mia l'ho già detta. Questi "consigli", messi insieme, esprimono quello che per me è il concetto di "elegante": un programma è elegante quando funziona e riesce ad ottenere quello che deve con poche, semplici, chiare ed efficaci procedure.
Per i gdr è la stessa identica cosa.

[Niccolò]

le regole del design sono le stesse, non solo in rpg e processori, ma anche se progetti un cavatappi o una sedia. semplifica, elimina il superfluoi, bada all'ergonomia e all'usabilità.

[jackvice]

le regole del design sono le stesse, non solo in rpg e processori, ma anche se progetti un cavatappi o una sedia. semplifica, elimina il superfluoi, bada all'ergonomia e all'usabilità.

Ho scritto tutto questo perchè non mi sembra così ovvio (almeno non fino a qualche anno fa), altrimenti ci sarebbero arrivati ai tempi di Chainmail ^^

[Mattia Bulgarelli]

Michele (Gelli) mi consigliò, anni fa, questo libro, scritto semplice-semplice ed illuminante a proposito di questi discorsi:

http://www.ibs.it/code/9788809743564/norman-donald-a-/caffettiera-del-masochista.html
http://www.amazon.it/caffettiera-masochista-Psicopatologia-oggetti-quotidiani/dp/8809743563

[rgrassi]

http://www.ibs.it/code/9788809743564/norman-donald-a-/caffettiera-del-masochista.html

L'ho letto molti anni fa e lo sto rileggendo in questo periodo.
E' un "must have".
Rob

[jackvice]

Michele (Gelli) mi consigliò, anni fa, questo libro, scritto semplice-semplice ed illuminante a proposito di questi discorsi:

http://www.ibs.it/code/9788809743564/norman-donald-a-/caffettiera-del-masochista.html
http://www.amazon.it/caffettiera-masochista-Psicopatologia-oggetti-quotidiani/dp/8809743563

Interesting....