When searching for new ideas within our company we either do not have the time for waiting on people to set their own goals or to guide them in this process. What we can and will do next is return to the first idea of PlayDays - have two days to create an idea/prototype - and create more focus and boundaries to stimulate the creative process. Things like a definite goal, peer presure in the form of friendly rivalry, and clear boundaries are added and the actual goal of these PlayDays will extend beyond its traditional scope.

I have good hopes that the new PlayDays will give us the results were after and otherwise we’ll just have to keep on searching for other ways to unlock the creative potential of my colleagues.

English translation of Dutch comment:

It is good that you have a critical look at this experiment to boost creativity.
I think you are right that it takes more preparartion time to get something like this from the ground. The human psyche tends to stick to patterns and to feel safe with them. Getting people out of their regular work and creativity patterns is a difficult job. It means getting people out of their safe environment and is comparable to re-locating. Confusion and uncertainty are the first reactions, not really the best starting points to develop ideas.
But still I think the idea has a solid basis.
You learn someone swimming in a pool and not in the ocean. When people say: ‘what was the goal of this?’, you have to be three steps ahead and know: I expected that question, people are uncertain and are looking to hold on to soemthing. Answer: the goal is to find your own goal.
Much time should be invested in trying to cut the chains of existing paterns. I hope you continue with this, because the core is good and of absolute value for the development of new ideas. Don’t all new ideas come from the land ‘beyond the horizon’, or shouldn’t we all see things that aren’t to be seen?
Good luck!
Theije

… but leave the graphics to the REAL artists! ;)
G

Thanks for joining the discussion. You raise a good point.

In my opinion, a game designer should at least have a funtional understanding of graphic design. The ‘readability’ of a game has a lot to do with the enjoyment of a game. Do the graphics indicate what is expected from the player? Does the player know who is the bad guy by just looking at the game? Does the player know whether to go left or right when looking down a corridor? These questions should be important to a game designer.

Should a game designer have an aesthetic eye? It can help and certainly if style and gameplay compliment each other, like ‘de Blob’ and ‘Loco Roco’ do.

Personally, I always try to visualize the game that I’m designing, just to make it easier for me to think about it, to ‘rapid prototype’ it in my head as it were.

Hope this answers your question.

G

Teacher’s focus should be on how to make a fun game in the first place and how to apply that fun in another context should come second. I’m not really sure if the focus on applied games is deliberate, but it’s a growing research field within the total gaming landscape.

Last week I also learned that the term applied games is already five years old and is invented by Jeroen van Mastrigt, head of research at the HKU. He thinks that it may not catch on as the term applied has a bit of a negative feel to it in the States. I guess we can only hope Jereon is wrong.

To get back to your comment, I believe it is difficult to create a fun experience and it’s probably even more difficult to make it fun when also selling a product that has nothing to with games. Teachers should prepare students for the highest goal imaginable, and for those who barely graduate, they should study some more I guess…