The shape of things to come
by Joe Maruschak · 06/18/2006 (12:14 pm) · 27 comments
I have a long list of blogs that I have started writing. I am not 100% done with any of them, and I am still deciding on the order and presentation of each. What I am going to do here is talk about the different blogs I am working on and ask for feedback from the community as to which would be most interesting, which I should finish first, and solicit feedback about which points I might need to elaborate on a bit. So, take a look at the proposed topics and give me some suggestions and ask questions, as they will help me to focus these in a manner that will give you what you need to become better game developers.
Bootstrapping:
not sure where to put this in the mix. I wanted to talk about starting up with next to nothing, and how this approach actually helps a great deal when learning how to be a productive and efficient developer. The processes used when developing games can really be streamlined by developing good habits that are taught by learning how to do a lot with very little. This is a lot of theory and opinion, and it touches all the other topics.. not sure where to stick it into the mix.
Scoping an idea:
this is another tough topic to fit into the mix. I want to suggest ways to determine whether an idea is in scope for the team. The biggest problem with most startup teams is attempting something beyond the scope of what they can do. I want to give my thoughts on why this is, and give some thoughts on how to avoid the common pitfalls that plauge development.
The value proposition:
this one relates to the scoping issue a great deal. One of the reasons people think 'big' is because they think that to provide value it needs to be in a big package. I will provide perspective by presenting information about my purchasing habits, and about what compels me to go from screenshot to download, and what it takes to get me to bust out my credit card. Hopefully this will kick off for some good discussion on the subject and give people some insight so that they might be able to latch onto an idea that does not require a huge team or 100 man years to complete.
Prototyping:
this post will go over how I approach game making. Iterative Prototyping is the key for me. This one will be equal parts software development methodology and opinion on what I think is important in designing a game. I will talk about the approach I like to use which results in very quick iteration cycles and an all inclusive plan of attack for each iteration.
Art Prototyping:
I plan for this one to be filled with images of how I approach creating art for a game. This will have some very practical techniques I use all the time (both on large and small projects) and will tie into the 'scoping' and 'value propostion' blogs. This one will cover some basic design principles of color theory and developing control of the value range in your game so that you can control the presentation of the game design.
Small Design:
this one is another practical presentation that will talk about how to come up with cool supporting ideas for improving game mechanics, increase usability, add entertainment value to the project, and solve the hundreds of design issues that one will confront while working on a game. I also hope to touch on the attitude of having some faith in yourself that you will find solutions to problems you will encounter that you don't yet know exist.
Tool use:
I will use this blog to talk about how I use tools, and what I think is the best approach to learning tools and being creative. This will probably feel like a 'one off' as it won't really relate to the other blogs as well, but may give insight to aspiring artists who want to 'level up' their craft. This one was prompted by the repeated questions I get regarding what sort of tools I use to get the models I make looking good.
Good Graphics:
this will be half rant and half eduacation, as I will speak my thougths on 'good graphics', dispell the myth that greater realism equals greater immersion, touch on the 'uncanny valley', and educate those who are not artists what we were taught in art school about the application of visual design to communicate and reinforce messages.
that is the list of the ones I have already started writing. They range from 20% to 90% complete, and I have a few more ideas I want to add into the mix. If any of these sound particularly appealing to you, please let me know. Also, read my past blog posts, and if there is anything on any of them that you want me to address in more detail, let me know and I will try my best to work it into the mix.
About the author
#22
06/20/2006 (12:52 pm)
um, yeah sorry for blogging your blog joe, the text looked way smaller when it was in the textarea box being typed :( hopefully it's fodder for your future "value" blog though
#23
Excellent followup.. I really love these sorts of discussions, where the community gets in there and analyzes what they are working on.
Some comments on Shelled. First, I think you did a bunch right. The 'Shelled' turtle with the whole connotation of the tutrle shells being like armor (as in 'army' armor) is great. It is good IP. You look at it, it is engaging, and you 'get' that part of it. I would work a bit on coming up with some good cover art that really shows the turtle 'shell' and the 'shelling' of artillery in one image. This is the first step in providing value.. you are communicating to the potential end user. If they can 'get' the concept, they are invested. It says to the end user, OK, I get the inference of turtle shells being like helmets and the shelling is like an artillery shelling.. this game is about shooting artillery shells.
The first part of providing value is giving the player something that they can relate to and pick out of a stack when looking at a ton of games. Shelled has the potential to do that. It has what we call the 'duh' factor. You look at the name, see the imagery, and you go, duh, of course.. it is about firing artillery shells.
Where I think it misses is the aiming. People come into expecting A) Scorched Earth, OR B) First Person shooting aiming. We did OK with thinktanks having the arc aiming reticle that clearly showed the path. We did end up making the aiming straighter in an update as many player still tended to aim straight and not with arc.
in this case, I think Shelled misses the next step because you get the player 'in' well, but the expectation of what they 'think' it is going to be is not met. Does that make sense?
when you see the art and look at the name, you provide value for the end user by bringing them 'in' to the game. They get the idea, and the very fact they 'get' the idea from a conceptual standpoint just reading the name and looking at a shot means they perceive that the creator of the game shares some sort of common outlook on the universe. They think it is clever, and this gives them something to latch onto.. in a sea of 'stuff'.. this little but of cleverness, and how it can make you stand out is the first step in creating value. It stands out and the end user places value on that. The clever pun is enough.. it entertains because it is clever and makes sense, and if you can entertain me, even if it is just a pun in the name, then you have given me something of value, and that makes me more likley to give the game a try. The end user ideally will say, 'hey, the name was clever, maybe the rest of the game is as clever and humorous.
back to expectations.. the game itself is a little hard and a little hard core for the average user. It is like scroched earth on steroids with extras. The pun in the name, the immediate 'hey, scorched earth!' realization works for you. . I'd imagine most would pick it up and think, easy, slow, turn based game with good art and a sense of humor. I don't think the expectations that people have are what they get, which is why many might seem confused at the game. They have already set up in their mind that it is one thing, when in fact it ends up being something else. Not a bad thing if they 'get it' and buy in.. sounds like quite a few people are not getting it and buying in quickly enough.
so, what does it need? I have no answers, just observations. I felt that when I played shelled, it was not what I thought it was going to be. It did not feel, or play, like scorched earth. I did not get the same feeling from playing it. Scorched Earth is relaxing, mental, and cerberal.. and non invasive.. it is a total side view, I feel distanced from my 'dude'. Shelled is not this way.. it is actually quite intense. You are in the thick of it, it is difficult at first, lots of things that do not bring back the feel of scorched earth as I remember it. This, I think, works against you.
On the graphics.. well, the graphics are not necessary to sell games. The graphics are necessary for people to give it a chance. all things being equal.. if I am looking at two games, the one that looks better, well, it probably had better sound, and since it looks professional, it is probably better as a game.. of course, there is no truth in this.. I have played good games that looked like hell, and pretty games that played like crap.. it is just how the mind of the consumer works.
I know that when I am playing a pretty game that plays like crap..I give it an extra five minutes thinking to myself, damn, this looks so polished, but it is not playing well, maybe I am just not getting it... as opposed to the alternative.. play a game with poor graphics and poor gameplay, and you just go.. yeah, guys about as good a designer as he is an artist as you reach for the quit button..
and this is the danger.. no amount of additional content will convince them there is value there for them. Subtle balancing act. if the game is heavy on the bling, it can buy you another 5-10 minutes of someones attention. If they cannot 'get' the game before this extra 5-10 is gone.. then you have lost them.
if they love the game, the the 'weight' just tips them over to the edge to buy it (along with other things).. they are thinking, damn, this is cool, I want to buy now! what, 3 more worlds and 4 more game types? where is my Credit Card.
ok, enough rambling, hope this helps..
and no problem about hi-jacking this blog. I actually like it when discussions get this good, and one of the reasons I blog is that I want to give and share what I know, and I prefer it be a two way conversation, and not me preaching from a soapbox. My only claim to fame is that I have been doing this longer and been through the wringer a few times. The stuff you posted is great.. feel free to post as much as you want here.
06/20/2006 (4:12 pm)
@JoshuaExcellent followup.. I really love these sorts of discussions, where the community gets in there and analyzes what they are working on.
Some comments on Shelled. First, I think you did a bunch right. The 'Shelled' turtle with the whole connotation of the tutrle shells being like armor (as in 'army' armor) is great. It is good IP. You look at it, it is engaging, and you 'get' that part of it. I would work a bit on coming up with some good cover art that really shows the turtle 'shell' and the 'shelling' of artillery in one image. This is the first step in providing value.. you are communicating to the potential end user. If they can 'get' the concept, they are invested. It says to the end user, OK, I get the inference of turtle shells being like helmets and the shelling is like an artillery shelling.. this game is about shooting artillery shells.
The first part of providing value is giving the player something that they can relate to and pick out of a stack when looking at a ton of games. Shelled has the potential to do that. It has what we call the 'duh' factor. You look at the name, see the imagery, and you go, duh, of course.. it is about firing artillery shells.
Where I think it misses is the aiming. People come into expecting A) Scorched Earth, OR B) First Person shooting aiming. We did OK with thinktanks having the arc aiming reticle that clearly showed the path. We did end up making the aiming straighter in an update as many player still tended to aim straight and not with arc.
in this case, I think Shelled misses the next step because you get the player 'in' well, but the expectation of what they 'think' it is going to be is not met. Does that make sense?
when you see the art and look at the name, you provide value for the end user by bringing them 'in' to the game. They get the idea, and the very fact they 'get' the idea from a conceptual standpoint just reading the name and looking at a shot means they perceive that the creator of the game shares some sort of common outlook on the universe. They think it is clever, and this gives them something to latch onto.. in a sea of 'stuff'.. this little but of cleverness, and how it can make you stand out is the first step in creating value. It stands out and the end user places value on that. The clever pun is enough.. it entertains because it is clever and makes sense, and if you can entertain me, even if it is just a pun in the name, then you have given me something of value, and that makes me more likley to give the game a try. The end user ideally will say, 'hey, the name was clever, maybe the rest of the game is as clever and humorous.
back to expectations.. the game itself is a little hard and a little hard core for the average user. It is like scroched earth on steroids with extras. The pun in the name, the immediate 'hey, scorched earth!' realization works for you. . I'd imagine most would pick it up and think, easy, slow, turn based game with good art and a sense of humor. I don't think the expectations that people have are what they get, which is why many might seem confused at the game. They have already set up in their mind that it is one thing, when in fact it ends up being something else. Not a bad thing if they 'get it' and buy in.. sounds like quite a few people are not getting it and buying in quickly enough.
so, what does it need? I have no answers, just observations. I felt that when I played shelled, it was not what I thought it was going to be. It did not feel, or play, like scorched earth. I did not get the same feeling from playing it. Scorched Earth is relaxing, mental, and cerberal.. and non invasive.. it is a total side view, I feel distanced from my 'dude'. Shelled is not this way.. it is actually quite intense. You are in the thick of it, it is difficult at first, lots of things that do not bring back the feel of scorched earth as I remember it. This, I think, works against you.
On the graphics.. well, the graphics are not necessary to sell games. The graphics are necessary for people to give it a chance. all things being equal.. if I am looking at two games, the one that looks better, well, it probably had better sound, and since it looks professional, it is probably better as a game.. of course, there is no truth in this.. I have played good games that looked like hell, and pretty games that played like crap.. it is just how the mind of the consumer works.
I know that when I am playing a pretty game that plays like crap..I give it an extra five minutes thinking to myself, damn, this looks so polished, but it is not playing well, maybe I am just not getting it... as opposed to the alternative.. play a game with poor graphics and poor gameplay, and you just go.. yeah, guys about as good a designer as he is an artist as you reach for the quit button..
and this is the danger.. no amount of additional content will convince them there is value there for them. Subtle balancing act. if the game is heavy on the bling, it can buy you another 5-10 minutes of someones attention. If they cannot 'get' the game before this extra 5-10 is gone.. then you have lost them.
if they love the game, the the 'weight' just tips them over to the edge to buy it (along with other things).. they are thinking, damn, this is cool, I want to buy now! what, 3 more worlds and 4 more game types? where is my Credit Card.
ok, enough rambling, hope this helps..
and no problem about hi-jacking this blog. I actually like it when discussions get this good, and one of the reasons I blog is that I want to give and share what I know, and I prefer it be a two way conversation, and not me preaching from a soapbox. My only claim to fame is that I have been doing this longer and been through the wringer a few times. The stuff you posted is great.. feel free to post as much as you want here.
#24
the way you describe this, quite intense, in the thick of it, difficult starting, that is fine for hardcore players, even engaging, and that's so far who's been enjoying the game. but as the concept's seed, that was NEVER my intention. I wanted to make something relaxing, simple, fun, orbz with artillery and the ability to re-shoot. now I feel like for the second time I got off track. and that's not crushing like it was the first time back at IGC... because making games is a process.
no seriously though, great stuff. I've got to think about changing directions once again as a direct result of our discussion here in this blog. that and the nwgamefest nosedive. it's tough, because when you've got something that's already getting some good to great feedback - but in a minority/niche of people - you risk losing that with going for something that has broader playability and appeal, which might not be as good as what you had originally had. also my risk is in making something so generic in gameplay that it's a near clone instead of something that I feel is comparitively original in design (the current iteration), but that's where I have to ask myself what my goals are, original design or sales? and sales doesn't have to mean in the cynical sense of the word, it can mean just reaching the most people, giving pleasure to the most people. but still... tough call. but that's my job.
thanks again for the discussion.
06/22/2006 (2:16 pm)
Quote:Where I think it misses is the aiming.this is a pun or it is irony, funny either way :)
Quote:People come into expecting A) Scorched Earth, OR B) First Person shooting aiming.dang. wow. yeah, that nails it. that is exactly what is happening. on the head.
Quote:in this case, I think Shelled misses the next step because you get the player 'in' well, but the expectation of what they 'think' it is going to be is not met. Does that make sense?perfect sense. even in the community here, people were pretty excited about the idea of the game long before it was playable, then as it got playable the excitement actually died down. they were sold in the idea of the game, but then the game wasn't what they were expecting - as you said, more scorchy, or more fpsy.
Quote:the game itself is a little hard and a little hard core for the average user. It is like scroched earth on steroids with extras.just to support what you're saying, additional things that make it harder than scorch: (1) 3D, in and of itself a big one, (2) motor control required for aiming (fine mouse movement vs blunt keyboard keypresses to change angle etc), (3) timing required for shooting (stop the power meter vs dialing in the power #), (4) tank jet flying (a biggie), and finally, (5) the sum of these components in creating difficulty which is greater than any individual component. this is all ADDITIONAL difficulty on top of the existing scorch difficulty of matching angle & power to create a successful trajectory. wow. scorch on steroids indeed. this after 8 months of "simplifying" and harsh cuts since the IGC version!!! :)
Quote:I'd imagine most would pick it up and think, easy, slow, turn based game with good art and a sense of humor. I don't think the expectations that people have are what they get, which is why many might seem confused at the game.yup, exactly, even down the the remark about humor (which there isn't enough of in the game as per expectations).
Quote:Not a bad thing if they 'get it' and buy in.. sounds like quite a few people are not getting it and buying in quickly enough."quite a few" would be an understatement. :) er I mean :(
Quote:it is actually quite intense. You are in the thick of it, it is difficult at first... This, I think, works against you.making games is such a process. anyone who goes from point A to point B is not making a game. they are manufacturing one. (that's why I don't like design docs btw). it's interesting because shelled started out seeking the coveted casual players, then as it got complex I wanted it both ways casual and hardcore players (and it was a mess), then I refocused on casual players, and ended up with something that ironically appealed greatest to hardcore players.
the way you describe this, quite intense, in the thick of it, difficult starting, that is fine for hardcore players, even engaging, and that's so far who's been enjoying the game. but as the concept's seed, that was NEVER my intention. I wanted to make something relaxing, simple, fun, orbz with artillery and the ability to re-shoot. now I feel like for the second time I got off track. and that's not crushing like it was the first time back at IGC... because making games is a process.
Quote:The graphics are necessary for people to give it a chance... if the game is heavy on the bling, it can buy you another 5-10 minutes of someones attention.this makes perfect sense. great piece of knowledge to share, described perfectly.
Quote:and no problem about hi-jacking this blogI think with the additional of this current comment I have officially hi-jacked this blog. surrender yer booty!!
no seriously though, great stuff. I've got to think about changing directions once again as a direct result of our discussion here in this blog. that and the nwgamefest nosedive. it's tough, because when you've got something that's already getting some good to great feedback - but in a minority/niche of people - you risk losing that with going for something that has broader playability and appeal, which might not be as good as what you had originally had. also my risk is in making something so generic in gameplay that it's a near clone instead of something that I feel is comparitively original in design (the current iteration), but that's where I have to ask myself what my goals are, original design or sales? and sales doesn't have to mean in the cynical sense of the word, it can mean just reaching the most people, giving pleasure to the most people. but still... tough call. but that's my job.
thanks again for the discussion.
#25
06/25/2006 (9:43 am)
Oh, and I just wanted to note that my comment about blog hijacking was tongue-in-cheek because I would also have liked to see it show up in a blog of its own. Otherwise I wouldn't have commented on my impressions of Shelled. I didn't mean to come across as a blog purist.
#26
08/19/2006 (8:51 am)
When you talk about prototyping Joe
#27
Thanks Joe keep up the good work.
08/19/2006 (8:53 am)
When you talk about prototyping The prototype is there, but it does not feel 'right'.. so, the developer starts to add more stuff to make it right. Still not right - Your right I do keep adding more stuff hoping it will enhance the game play and make it less like a simulation. I will strip things back to the core game play and go from there. Thanks Joe keep up the good work.
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake
It seems that you're blogging in Joe's blog. ;-)
I think that the Mario shells and "first-person aiming" are tied to the same concept of semi-linear point-and-shoot mentality. I had difficulty with the alpha in figureing out my trajectory, distance, and aiming because it felt like I was just supposed to aim and fire like in a traditional 3D game (the first incarnations of the 3D worms titles had this same transitional feeling as well). Once I "got it" (and I already knew the concept, was excited for it, and yet had difficulty picking it up and "getting it" right off the bat), I didn't have many troubles other than being horrible at judging distance and trajectory (it is my deficiency, not the alpha's).
You've been working to clean up and rework things since, and I can't wait to see the fruits of your labor (though I doubt my aim will improve).