Śith ȢittȢe more thƃn fiʤe
weeks to complete the game,
Howard spent unfathomably
long hours at his workstation.
E.T.’s map layout was
essentially laid out around
a cube – an ingenious idea,
but one that had a tendency
to confuse players.
28 / wfmag.cc
AdviceToolbox
What was the thinking behind the infamous E.T.?
Here’s the truth, straight from its creatorThe principles
of game design
The first choice is the genre. What kind
of game will fit the bill? There are a number
of basic game types combat, racing, action
pattern, pu]]le, and sports. &ombat, racing
and actionpattern games all share the same
liability tuning. They reTuire striking a delicate
balance of challenge and reward. This takes lots
of time, which I do not have. 3u]]le-solving takes
time to think up little tricks and nuances and
clue planting – time I do not have. And sports
games need artificial intelligence to make the
computer opponent worth playing, which sucks
up most of the development schedule. I need
something different.SHIFTING FOCUS
I shift my thinking, focusing on the basics. At its
essence, a game is simply a goal in a specific
environment with a set of rules, obstacles, and
a well-defined start. What makes a game good?
That’s easy, a game is good if it’s fun to play.
8nfortunately, fun is very diɝcult to define or
predict – I Must know it when I see it. There are,
however, some common themes that good
games share.
In my opinion, one significant factor in a
game’s entertainment value is the relationship
of game rules to game possibilities. The best
games, the classic games, have the magic
balance of few rules and a huge number of
possible outcomes. Take &hess for instance,
or Backgammon. And the Tuintessential model
for thousands of years, *o. 6imple rules,
vast hori]ons.
This formula is especially useful for good
video games, because game rules costAUTHOR
HOWARD SCOTT WARSHAW
Howard is a video game pioneer who authored
several of Atari’s most famous and infamous titles.
onceuponatari.com“
What were you thinking?ȋ
After nearly four decades
of talking with people
about the E.T. video game,
this Tuestion still rears its
ugly head. 8sually in close proximity to Ȋ2h my
*od, all those pitsȋ
What was I thinking? +mm. With your
permission, I’d like to settle this once and for
allȐ at least until the next time someone asks.
The big thing about E.T. was actually the little
thing the schedule. At a time when video games
typically took at least six months to develop,
I had five weeks to deliver a completed game for
a high-profile property.
I usually have time to play around and
experiment. Not on this occasion. I need a
strategy to get the most results with the least
risk. I get one shot and I’ve got to make it count
by allocating my resources wisely. It’s a good
thing I have a degree in economics.