by date
Plan for David Myers
Plan for David Myers
| Name: | Dave Myers |  |
|---|---|---|
| Date Posted: | Feb 23, 2005 | |
| Rating: |  Not Rated | |
| Public: | YES | |
| Comments: | YES | |
| RSS Feed: |  or Subscribe with  . | |
| Profile Page: | View profile page for Dave Myers |
Blog post
Prototype until it hurts?
<aside>This is mirrored on my blog if that's the sorta thing yer into: www.lumpygames.com/madrantz</aside>
I had an interesting discussion with fellow game dev Paul Dana yesterday that I think I'm going to expand into a full-blown article. It concerned what I would say is a bullet-point list of concerns about the direction of my studio. Of course, a lot of the answers to those questions are entirely dependent on your particular situation, but I think it might still be interesting to interview a few other people out there who already have studios and/or make and sell games and put together a summary. But that's later.
One thing that Paul mentioned that I feel I have to keep foremost in my mind is the concept of prototyping before deciding on what game to make next. In the past I had attacked that decision by putting down a list of ideas on paper and then having everyone pick out one that really seemed like a possible winner. And then just making the game. Which seems terribly questionable, even if you attack the game design in an iterative fashion.
It makes more sense to me to prototype multiple ideas before deciding on which to focus on for a full-blown game. In fact, Paul mentioned prototyping practically until it hurt. For me, I take this to mean don't be afraid to invest time prototyping a good handful of your best ideas before settling. Don't worry about getting everything just right in terms of game mechanics, and certainly don't mess with anything other than programmer art. The key is to get to the heart of the fun as quickly as possible, as purely as possible.
If it is taking too long to prototype and find the fun, take a hard look at what you are trying to do. Maybe it just isn't fun, or maybe it will take a good while to find the fun. As an indie who only has a few hours per week to work on my products, I don't believe I can waste too much time on a game design that doesn't almost immediately reveal its fun.
I also think that just because the very first idea you tried seems like a lot of fun does not necessarily mean you just stop there and go into full-scale production. Who's to say that the third prototype won't be more fun and lend itself much better to marketing and better sales? There is a limit to the prototyping phase, of course - the definition of "where it hurts" will be different for each studio. But taking one idea and settling on it as an indie strikes me as just too little and a tad short-sighted. You are possibly betting a little bit too much on good luck, which might be fine for some but not for me.
One last thing. Once you've decided on a game and are firing away on all cylinders don't be afraid to evaluate the game again, and if it for some reason is not turning out as well as expected, don't rule out the possibility of shelving it. It's your time and resources that you would be "wasting", so that's a painful decision to make, but don't get into the mindset that you absolutely positively MUST finish the game. Because it's possible that it will kill your morale and dedication and passion, and no game is worth that. Beware of not finishing anything, however. That would be almost as bad.
When you finish a game, you should have a host of game ideas not only on paper lying around, but also in some stages of prototype that you can then use for a starting point on the next planning phase. That seems terribly appealing.
I had an interesting discussion with fellow game dev Paul Dana yesterday that I think I'm going to expand into a full-blown article. It concerned what I would say is a bullet-point list of concerns about the direction of my studio. Of course, a lot of the answers to those questions are entirely dependent on your particular situation, but I think it might still be interesting to interview a few other people out there who already have studios and/or make and sell games and put together a summary. But that's later.
One thing that Paul mentioned that I feel I have to keep foremost in my mind is the concept of prototyping before deciding on what game to make next. In the past I had attacked that decision by putting down a list of ideas on paper and then having everyone pick out one that really seemed like a possible winner. And then just making the game. Which seems terribly questionable, even if you attack the game design in an iterative fashion.
It makes more sense to me to prototype multiple ideas before deciding on which to focus on for a full-blown game. In fact, Paul mentioned prototyping practically until it hurt. For me, I take this to mean don't be afraid to invest time prototyping a good handful of your best ideas before settling. Don't worry about getting everything just right in terms of game mechanics, and certainly don't mess with anything other than programmer art. The key is to get to the heart of the fun as quickly as possible, as purely as possible.
If it is taking too long to prototype and find the fun, take a hard look at what you are trying to do. Maybe it just isn't fun, or maybe it will take a good while to find the fun. As an indie who only has a few hours per week to work on my products, I don't believe I can waste too much time on a game design that doesn't almost immediately reveal its fun.
I also think that just because the very first idea you tried seems like a lot of fun does not necessarily mean you just stop there and go into full-scale production. Who's to say that the third prototype won't be more fun and lend itself much better to marketing and better sales? There is a limit to the prototyping phase, of course - the definition of "where it hurts" will be different for each studio. But taking one idea and settling on it as an indie strikes me as just too little and a tad short-sighted. You are possibly betting a little bit too much on good luck, which might be fine for some but not for me.
One last thing. Once you've decided on a game and are firing away on all cylinders don't be afraid to evaluate the game again, and if it for some reason is not turning out as well as expected, don't rule out the possibility of shelving it. It's your time and resources that you would be "wasting", so that's a painful decision to make, but don't get into the mindset that you absolutely positively MUST finish the game. Because it's possible that it will kill your morale and dedication and passion, and no game is worth that. Beware of not finishing anything, however. That would be almost as bad.
When you finish a game, you should have a host of game ideas not only on paper lying around, but also in some stages of prototype that you can then use for a starting point on the next planning phase. That seems terribly appealing.
Recent Blog Posts
| List: | 02/26/06 - (Board) Game Day 02/21/06 - GarageGames has arrived 02/19/06 - I 06/09/05 - Plan for Dave Myers 03/22/05 - Plan for Dave Myers 03/14/05 - Plan for Dave Myers 03/09/05 - Plan for David Myers 03/02/05 - Plan for David Myers |
|---|
Submit your own resources!| Joshua Dallman (Feb 24, 2005 at 01:53 GMT) |
| Dave Myers (Feb 24, 2005 at 03:41 GMT) |
Quote:
The roots of Wik began with what we at Reflexive call a "one-day-quick" prototype, where we regularly invest time in exploring new game ideas and mechanics by building a working, playable prototype.
and later
Quote:
Out of the six or so quick prototypes we short-listed at the time, "BugEater" was chosen for full development.
They realized halfway through that the basic game mechanic needed help, and they adjusted accordingly, but first and foremost they chose the best prototype of the bunch they had instead of just starting with a single prototype. The root game mechanic was actually already in the prototype, it just needed help. And the guys at Reflexive are not part-time indies, which means they likely have more time to make mistakes and correct them.
But of course to each his own if you wish to just jump in and go. I shipped games that way too. I just don't think I will again.
| Logan Foster (Feb 24, 2005 at 04:35 GMT) |
Edit: I just wanted to add a comment about bodgering your game or game design till its good. This is a horrible way to make games and is IMHO a bad habit for people to pick up. If somethings not working find another solution or drop it until you can solve it, don't attack the problem until it fits. Square pegs go in the square holes, round pegs go in the round ones. Work smarter not harder :)
Edited on Feb 24, 2005 04:37 GMT
| Joe Maruschak (Feb 24, 2005 at 05:06 GMT) |
This is not to say that one cannot (or should not) do whatever they want when it comes to making their game, but for those reading this, the two approaches should not be considered to be equally effective approaches.
as a gereral rule, prototyping is very effective, and as a rule, forging straight ahead is not particulary effective (especially in terms of conservation of resources).
| Peter Dwyer (Feb 24, 2005 at 11:32 GMT) |
It's all too true that without a prototype you end up creating stuff that may end up being a dud 6 months down the line (not guaranteed even with a prototype but, you reduce the risk of failure significantly).
Also once you have the prototype down and decide to do the project, you should also remember that you need to keep a design document. So few people do this and this is another reason for failure. If you don't have a design you can stick to or use as a guide then 9 times out of 10 the project with zig zag out of control.
| Paul Dana (Feb 25, 2005 at 00:44 GMT) |
Agreed - though sometimes a "design document" can mean nothing more than a *deatiled* TO-DO list...what you INTEND to do.
There is nothing magical about writing it down...it's just yet another visual aid. It let's you more effecively asses the scope of what you are going to do. Nothing more.
You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.
