Game Design theory and Chris Crawford
I've been reading a few books on Game Design recently. One of the more interesting authors in this area is Chris Crawford. There is one annoying element of his stuff. He assumes you are a young programmer who wants to do Game Design (with capital letters). He tells his readers to read some books, and worry about more than programming.
I'm 37, have a history degree, and a post-grad thing in strategy. I've done the reading, including a lot of Braudel who he seems especially enamoured with. Being told over and over again to do what I have already done to unlock the mysteries is really annoying, especially as I suspect he has other puzzle pieces I feel I am missing which he assumes I have.
I'm also amused about his extreme rant against low-interactivity games, when his current project is a good example of just the kind of thing he says is doomed to failure. He has authority issues. I respect that.
I'm 37, have a history degree, and a post-grad thing in strategy. I've done the reading, including a lot of Braudel who he seems especially enamoured with. Being told over and over again to do what I have already done to unlock the mysteries is really annoying, especially as I suspect he has other puzzle pieces I feel I am missing which he assumes I have.
I'm also amused about his extreme rant against low-interactivity games, when his current project is a good example of just the kind of thing he says is doomed to failure. He has authority issues. I respect that.