Designing Au Contraire
Briefly, I was thinking today about being contrary as a design position. I am a fairly contrary person, particular when it comes to philosophy or ideology etc. If someone says something with conviction or takes something as a given, I always want to prod away at the assumption involved. To the point of being pretty irritating to those closest to me (those who I’m not so afraid of irritating, in short). Ask my dad, and if he ever stops rolling his eyes about it he’ll confirm.
Anyway I was doing Unity’s 2D Roguelike tutorial because I’m currently in the business of learning Unity so that I can entertain myself making highly limited 3D environments to see what that’s like. At one point they talk about implementing the Singleton Pattern for the Game Controller as being an important step (i.e. code to make sure there’s just one). The point being, they say, that obviously you don’t want multiple Game Controllers roaming around your game contradicting each other or implementing the same thing twice or whatever.
And I thought, “au contraire, mon frère…” Because it would be pretty interesting to play a game that had multiple, disparate game controller objects, each striving to be the one that determines how play should proceed, when events should trigger, what points should be assigned, and so forth. In some ways it would be a game being played by game controller objects in which you are the ball?
Anyway, who knows where that could go – my point is just that often going at top speed in the absolute opposite direction to an assumption, a heuristic, a conventional wisdom, can be fun and might even lead to a “good” “game” “design” “idea”?
Or au contraire?