GG Game Publishing, Partnerships, and Design

I wanted to check in and talk about the state of the GarageGames Game Store and publishing in general.

First of all, 2006 was a great year. With the help of our fabulous marketing department (and some fabulous dwarves), we published more great indie-made games than ever before. Most games were Torque and TGB, but as we've said before and as has always been the case, Torque-made is not a requirement for publishing. Be sure to vote for the 2006 Game Store Game of the Year in the image of the day thread -- there's only one day left to vote!

We continue to get game submissions, and I continue to hunt for the best indie games out there. Sometimes we find them in a calculated manner, other times we find them almost by accident. The GreatGamesExperiment is definitely a breeding ground for finding great games. If you have something you're working on, put it up there and promote it.

When a game comes in, there's 4 things that can happen:

• polite decline or no reply (due to volume of submissions we cannot guarauntee personal replies)
  
  
• decline with suggestions for improvement and request to re-submit once/if changes are made
  
  
• publishing offer with few or no changes
  
  
• offer to work with us as an Affiliated Developer to co-produce and publish your game
  

I'd like to draw your attention the the last item on this list. This is a reminder to the community about our Affiliated Developer program. This is not a change or a new initiative, this is only a reminder. We are not just game publishers, we are game developers. This is so important I will say it again. We are not just game publishers, we are game developers!

A lot of developers want to wait until their game is finished or nearly finished before they show it to us. Don't make this mistake. If we were only a publisher, that would be a fine strategy. Publishers are not developers, they cannot appreciate as greatly a gem in the rough. Developers however can see the potential in a good idea, and help that good idea grow. Independent does not mean you have to go it alone.

Over the months, I've come across a handful of games that have had potential but needed some specific design help. Unfortunately by the time these games got to me (as a perceived publisher), the game was too far along for the developer to be willing to go "back to the drawing board" with changing some core things about the game, or changing a dozen smaller things about the game. So the game ends up not fulfilling the potential it had, and not getting published. 90% of the work was done, but that extra 10% with help from us would have doubled the game's value.

Now, success stories. The first affiliated developer I worked with (Tapout Games for the soon to be released Oddictive) had few expectations for his game, so he was willing and able to make substantial changes to get it published. Art wasn't locked in, he hadn't already submitted to other publishers, things were very flexible and we were able to make a kick-ass game. The core game was all his brilliance and his design, but through the help of our direction, we were able to make more of that core game come out. I think some developers are afraid that if they get design help, the game will be somehow less "theirs" in vision, and bringing vision to life is a big reason people make games. That's not the case. We don't take over the design, we supplement the designer's work and work collaboratively to make it communicated in the best way possible.

We now have another new affiliated developer for a similar casual-like game. This game unfortunately was further along and definitely looked and played the part of a complete game as far as features and art, however it was not fun. There was core fun there, but it wasn't being exposed. Fortunately, despite the finished feel and final art, the developer was hugely willing and eager to work with us and go "back to the drawing board" of doing re-design work to expose that core fun, and kudos to him for being that open. In two days the game went from frustrating and nearly unplayable, to so fun I can't stop playing it -- and it's still only at the "prototype" stage, without any of the "game" stuff added back in yet, let alone final art. Both Oddictive and this game will be successes; to what degree I cannot say, but if only by way of superceding their original versions, and of course getting published.

The point of all this is this: don't wait so long to send us your game. I don't want to see just finished games get submitted, I want to see games at every stage in development, including gameplay prototypes. We don't have the bandwidth to help with every game, and we are selective about the affiliated developers we co-produce games with, but both of the above games are "regular guy" indie developers, and there's no reason that can't be you getting published, too.

Finally, a quick list of the most common problems I find in games I review for publishing consideration. These are pitfalls that we all fall into, no one is immune to them, but be aware of them and make sure your game doesn't have these problems.

• Final art too early!!! Don't finalize your art until you are absolutely sure the game is ready. You don't make the call of when your game is ready -- your players do by telling you they can't put the game down.
  
  
• Don't complicate the game objective. If you have an objective and it's not fun, throwing in a bunch more "stuff" won't make it better. It's just distractions and only serves to water your game down.
  
  
• Don't complicate the controls! By god, please don't. You need to play lots of games out there and see what controls work and what don't. If the player needs an F1 key or keylisting sheet to see all the controls, you've got too many and it's too complex. If you insist and force this on the player, then realize you will lose a lot of people that would otherwise play your game. Your audience will be smaller. You know the keystrokes because you designed the game and you've been playing it for months or years. Your players have neither of these benefits and will move on to a simplier game when they get frustrated.
  
  
• Introduce game elements slowly. If you have lots of stuff in your game, that's great, but don't show it all in the first level, even if they seem like "core" game elements. Make early levels a "dumbed down" version of the game.
  
  
• Make easy levels easy, and ramp up difficultly slowly. As a developer, you play your game a LOT. You get very good at it fast and lose perspective of what "easy" and "difficult" really are. Make your easy first levels so simple that they are accessible to everyone, even an 8 year old. As the game gets more complex and more difficult, it should draw the player in, not push them out.
  
  
• Support what's fun about your game. Play your game and ask yourself what's really fun about it. Is it shooting? Flying? Matching blocks? Or just rotating the blocks? Sometimes what's actually fun and what we designed to be fun are different. If there's emergent fun, take it! Whatever that fun is about your game, make sure the other game elements support that fun.
  
  
• Remove what doesn't support what's fun about your game. You can only have so many elements in a game, so many ingredients in a stew. If an element doesn't support your core fun, you're creating breadth, not depth. Some breadth is good, even needed, but many games end up long and shallow instead of deep and satisfying. You could add bombs to Tetris, but if what's fun is placing blocks strategically, how does that help any? It doesn't. Cut it.
  

Finally, it's worth mentioning (since I hadn't before) that I'm full time at the Garage now and excited to be doing what I love with so many epic individuals. If you want to break into the field, there's no better way than through our stellar internship program, and we are actively looking for new recruits.

Cheers everyone, keep sending your games, but please, don't be shy about sending them earlier.

Josh