I tend to do this one a lot. In my quest for solutions that tie a game together, I naturally lean toward adding completely new mechanics that are completely arbitrary and contrived for the sake of adding meaning and balance. Part of this tendency in me is to put a visible stamp on my work. It's easy to point to an entire system that ties everything together and think "I did that". Whereas pointing to a piece of a piece of a bunch of systems that work well together is much more difficult to have personal pride in. Admittedly, this is a huge fault of mine, and as one of 7 kids, I should be better at sharing. Games, especially now, are the product of hundreds of people. So why should I favor my own ideas with so much nepotism?
In any case, despite my own tendencies to do this, I see a problem with additive design. We talk about iteration a lot, but I think often we mistake addition for iteration. Additive design lends itself to convoluted mechanics, and eventually confused players. Where the goal of iterative design is focused, intuitive, and deep.
Comments