Logical Creativity and this article is honestly just a framework I have sub-consciously been using for as long as I can remember. Not many people talk about the way they think or the way they approach problems even though, to me, it might be the single most insightful thing I look for to become a better designer.
Sparks and Iteration: My Framework for Logical Creativity
All my life, I was told that I was a logical person and how creative things weren’t for me. Back then, creativity to me was defined by this image of a mad genius being obsessed with an idea that urged him to create something. A bizarre painting or some crazy invention that they could see only in their mind’s eye.
I never thought I’d be that person. I like problem solving and I’m a fairly logical person. In the sense that I like to have a reason, or at least, some vague rule that binds two seemingly random thoughts or ideas together. Like knowing that a monster truck could be classified as a complex, large bicycle in the programming world. There was always some logical explanation to why these decisions were made. So at the end of the day, I seemed to be the complete opposite to my definition of creativity.
The Main Lesson
After graduating with a Computer Science degree and completing an engineering internship at WB Games, I ended up as a Technical Designer intern at SMS. A job that required me to not only use my CS and logic background but also be a game designer. Something I’ve heard people say all the time is that logical thinking and creativity aren’t mutually exclusive. However, this idea was never something I had fully internalized until my job made me realize that they can be combined into logical creativity.
From Final Product to Ideation
I remember reviewing one of the prototypes of a Level Designer in my early intern days at SMS and remember feeling completely inadequate.
For the sake of this article, let’s say the prototype was the introduction of a character’s ability to run electricity through water. Pretty simple prototype, but also elegant in certain ways.
It had room to grow, it was fun and perfectly fit into the fantasy of the world. Interestingly enough at the time, it wasn’t solving a particular problem or wasn’t abiding by a pre-existing guideline or structure. It seemed to be the most random stroke of creativity I had seen. It was perfect. How did they know this would work? How did their mind even “come up” with something like that? Do people just “come up” with stuff like this?
I was tasked to assist them and flesh out the prototype so I resorted to what I knew best, logical thinking. To help them, I realized that I could at least break down what they did and almost reverse engineer their thought process, from final product to ideation. Instead of how they probably went about it, ideation to final product.
We built a small scenario in the engine with the mechanic. Using the same example, let’s reverse engineer the prototype’s main intent and core loop. The key here is to not look at the context of the mechanic (electricity and water) and look at player behavior and the final result of their actions. It basically boils down to these:
- Player behavior: The prototype made players look for a certain “lock” (water) to use their “key” (electricity) on.
- Loop: The player could easily fall into the “plan” and “execute” loop once they knew what the water does.
For us, it was also designer friendly. We would only have to maintain spaces where we would choose to use water. This gave designers more control and helped them make more intentional use cases for the mechanic.
This helped me see their main intent and use it as a North Star to tweak, iterate and polish.
What I didn’t realize at the time was that I was learning a skill I’d end up using all the time. I was learning to analyze how they reached their destination from a small Spark of an idea through a seemingly obvious connection (like realizing a designer probably thought to add a door knob [the destination] after they came up with [the spark] the door itself).
So What is Logical Creativity?
So all I had to do was learn to find a spark and be confident enough to find the next obvious thought. If I did this over and over again I would end up with something more complex than the spark.
The spark: This for me as a logical thinker is difficult, but realizing that a spark can be as vague as an emotion, or as detailed as a certain object from a movie makes all the difference. A spark mostly in my experience comes from other people. It gives you a solid starting point to grow.
Creative restrictions for logical connections: These come in various forms depending on the medium. The concept of design pillars in game design is a great example. It gives you something to check your work against and inform which direction you should nudge your decisions towards. Because, like I mentioned before, the destination usually isn’t very clear.
The “spark” here is obviously realizing that water can conduct electricity. Then we’d slowly start growing the spark into the next obvious destination.
- Iteration 1: What’s the point of using electricity in the first place?
Maybe we create a goal for the electricity like electrocuting an enemy.
Restriction: Lets say our design pillars define a kid friendly puzzle game. So instead of using electricity to kill enemies, we use electricity to power a light bulb. - Iteration 2: if it is a puzzle game maybe you have something that negates the mechanic your spark defines? Say, a red rock that absorbs electricity. Suddenly you’re trying to figure out how to light the bulb.
- Iteration 3: We need to provide a way for players to move water that exists in the world. Instead of using water we substitute it with a solid blue rock. This achieves what we want, gives designers more control and maybe even increases visibility of the mechanic for the player. So now you run electricity through blue rocks.
- What happens if you could throw blue rocks and connect them? Can one blue rock electrify another blue rock? Can you break blue rocks in two?
I hope you can see how this can land you in a destination that is wildly more complex from when you started.
This is essentially how I would define the process of iteration and the design process. This is also how I realized that my wild definition of creativity was incorrect. Creativity now to me is a series of nudges and course corrections to reach a destination that fits the intended goal, rather than having the destination in your mind from the start. This could be applied to anything from games to creative writing, or even to traditional art. It’s basically why things like writing prompts and inktober are structured the way they are. They provide the “spark”.
So, when the situation allows it, I think in terms of sparks, creative boundaries and logical connections. And although the existence of this framework tells me that I am still a logical-brained person, I’ve learned that that’s not going to stop me from being creative.
Special thanks to someone who is an inspiration and has been a dear friend and partner in crime since my early college days of creating: Conan K. Zhang
Comments are closed