Value of a Thing
by Joe Maruschak · 09/03/2006 (9:47 am) · 29 comments
Sorry for the few months of no blog posting. I was away on vacation in July for 3 weeks enjoying some much needed R and R. After I got back, demos for TGB, TSE and GameFest took over my life.
This is the 'value' blog that I promised I was going to write in one of my previous blogs. I wanted to get this one out of the way first, and it was very hard to write. I hate addressing issues that are amorphous, that I cannot fully wrap my head around. The 'value' of a thing, and in particular, games, is a tough nut to crack. Most of the time the idea of the 'value' of a game is an educated guess. I suppose that this is why it is important for me to write this, as all too often I see people starting off making their game with no thought as to the end value of the project to the consumer, or even clarifying in their heads the 'guess' they are making. This blog may read like a stream of conciouness ramble, so apologies in advance if it lacks coherence.
I am going to warn everyone reading this that I will ask a lot of questions, and not give many answers. The goal of this blog is to get everyone thinking more deeply about the value of anything they consume, hopefully become a little more introspective about their own value system, understand what you will pay for, and apply this knowledge to the production of your own games.
So, first off, I am going to talk about the perceived value of things we purchase and consume everyday. I am going to lay it on the table and say that the perceived value of some 'thing' has no relation to the actual value or the item in question, and has a lot to do with the social conditioning of what we expect to pay for items.
For a movie in a theater, you can expect to pay $8 for a ticket ($16+ if you bring a date and buy popcorn). Most movies run about 90-100 minutes, so you are paying at least $5/hr for the entertainment. For DVDs, renting one is about $3 a pop (and given the noraml viewing habits of most families, this is about the cost of NetFlix).. a little better, but still about $2/hr.
Broadway plays and rock concerts can be even more expensive, often running as much as $25/hr for the cost of the experience. People can attach a high dollar amount (value) to these one time, non repeatable life experiences.
People will pay for things of high quality. What sort of quality attaches to a 'thing' is hard to ascertain. Again, social conditioning has a part to play. We pay high prices for electronic components (TVs, Computers) and things that are large (appliances like refrigerators and dryers). We expect that a better car will be of a higher price. We have associated brands with quality of and item, and become loyal to brands that have, in the past, provided good value at a good price to us.
The way people pay for things and understand how to 'acquire' that which they like is changing. iTunes now enables the end user to pay $1 for an individual song. No longer do you have to shell out $17 for a full CD and gamble that the rest of the songs are as good as the one you heard on the radio (usually they are not). The idea of paying for only exactly what you want is catching on.
The iPod is also a pretty godo example to look at. mp3 players had been around for a while before the iPod came out. What apple did with the iPod and iTunes was to streamline the experience. Purchase, plugin, and play music in less than 15 minutes. The 'no hassle' experience of buying an iPod is what set it apart from other players and gained it market share (and in fact made it synonymous with mp3 player). The quality of the item is not related to the item itself, it is the whole system, and what it provides for me, which is hassle free setup and operation.
In one of the books I read on business, FedEx was used as an example of how people attach value to something. FedEx realized at one point, that they were not selling shipping services. They realized they were selling an idea of security. You use FedEx when it 'absolutely, positiviely needs to be there overnight'. They recongnized something that people attach high value to, delivered it for them (at a pretty high premium), and caputalized on it.
Netflix allows you to get DVDs without ever heading to the video store. Why is netflix so successful? I am sure that everyone reading this has been to the video store to get the latest DVD release they have been dying to see, only to get there to see that the DVD in question is all rented out, and that the mountain of 'other' possible stuff to rent is hard to parse and search. I know I head home dejected, often with no movie in hand, when the one thing I went to the store for is not available, and after having spent an extra half an hour looking for 'something else' to fill the evening I had planned to spend watching a movie. Netflix saves me time. I can search online. I don't have to go to 'them'.. the movie comes to 'me'. I am not placed in indentured servitude to the video store to drive the damn disc back. Netflix gives me power over my life and my time. It puts me in the driver seat.
XBox Live Arcade enables users to purchase games for about $10, without ever heading to the store. It allows me to try games before I buy them, and not experience the dejection of paying $60 for something that I was SO excited about for months (buying into the hype) and then come home to realize that it is not the experience I wanted. Again, this puts me in the driver seat of buying what I want, and only what I want, and not parting with my money unless I have decided the value of the item is high enough for me to pay for it.
In Dan MacDonalds blog, he wrote:
customers don't care how much time and energy you put into coding the game, they are only interested in two things. The games design and it's production values. This is what customers will be willing to pay money for,
When I see a lot of new developers come here and talk about their games, I sometimes cringe that their design docs measure quality by the pound. 40 races with 20 unique classes, 80 levels, 25 game types.. my opinon is that this often happens because of the assumption that people measure things numerically. More is better, right? Well, yes and no. All things being equal, an item with 'more' for the same price is probably going to be more desireable. But 80 levels of something that sucks does not necessarily make it something that inspires people to purchase it.
So, does more matter? yes.. but only if the thing that people want 'more' of is of sufficiently high quality.
Determining value of a game by the poundage is not a very sophisticated way to think about the problem, and while more is ususally better, it is more likley that you will sell a small great game then a very large mediocre one. Designing by the pound is a dangerous road to travel for development as well. If you proceed with blinders on to the quality of the game, and march on creating 80 levles of crap-tasticness, you will sink a lot of time into something that will not pay off and few will ever see.
How much should one add and how big should it be? the answer is 'just enough'. Too little means that the end user will not place value on it, and 'too much' means you spent too much time and too much resource on the game.
As a testement to the sell-a-bility of the small, ThinkTanks has 3 vehicles, 12 levles, and 2 game types. It still keeps on selling. More is not always better.
So, how does all this apply to how one goes about creating games?
That part is up to you. The value of a thing is based on the perception of quality. Is the game high quality? does it provide an experience that is worth the money and time that one is willing to pay? That question is hard to answer, but there are a few things that can be done.
The first thing is the production quality. All things being equal, your product must be of the highest quality that you can muster (as in, the highest quality you can afford to spend given the expected return on the investment). Production quality is a subjective issue, and good screenshots and demo videos can go a long way toward creating a perception of quality. It can also be the downfall of the product. Poor presentation will lose a lot of customers before they even download.
I would suggest to everyone that they look inside themselves, to think of screenshots, movie trailers, game trailers, and ads that got them hyped. Ask yourself, what about this got me hyped? What buttons did it push in me? Why am I responding to this so strongly and so positively?
Look to ways to positviely present your project as high in production quality, and attempt to do so in as low cost a way as is possible.
The second thing one must do is provide a compelling experience. The game must be really good to get people to purchase it.
Much of what you might pay for can be gotten online, often for free on the gaming portals. If an hour of an experience is enough for you, for any one game, you can go from demo, to demo, to demo without ever buying it. You have to provide something that the person wants, and is willing to pay for.
And what are people willing to pay for?
With ThinkTanks, we did some things that we think helped. First, in the demo, we appended [demo] to your name. This lets you, and everyone else know that you are a demo player. We also did not allow saving of your name in demo mode. In the demo version, you are a nobody, and everyone, yourself included, knows it. We leveraged this even further by kicking the demo players from MP matches after five minutes. Kicking them out of the game effectively zeros out your score, so the demo players can never win (well, they can, but they have to be good). This reinforces the notion that you are a nobody and you cannot win. Lastly, we made the meduim tank (the default one, and the only one you can access in the demo version) less desirable looking and less desirable in performance than the light and heavy tanks. You crave what you cannot have. You are a nobody, you cannot win, and you cannot get the coolest tanks.
We made the gameplay fun, which was the first step, but then we set it up so that the player would be presented with a choice that gave them value. If they purchased, they could win, they could have a name, and they could get the cool vehicles. We provided value with the game, but we set up a system in the game that had players perceiving additional value to the purchased version.
This seems like a no brainer, but a lot of good games I have played did little or nothing to let me know what I was missing out on when the demo expired. I left the game thinking.. well, that was satisfying, next.
And this is the million dollar questions. What value does a game need to provide? first and foremost, it has to be fun. If it is not fun, if it does not compel the player to play it, then you will not get any sales. After that, it is a guess. What else can you do to convince the player that your game is worth paying for? what do they get for their $$$?
the simplistic answer is.. a game. The more complex answer is best demonstrated by the FedEx example above. What people pay for (shipping in this case) is not always what they are buying (the reassurance that the 'stuff' will be there tomorrow). This is something to ponder as you work on your game, as it can make the difference between a great game and a great game that sells.
so, not many answers, lots of questions. Questions you should be asking yourself constantly, thinking about, and answering for yourself as you make the decisions that decide the course of your development. When I am working on a game, I am constantly asking myself, would I pay $20 for this? If I cannot answer yes, then I know I have more work to do.
whew.. hopefully after this one, the rest of my planned blogs will be easy, and I can get back onto my planned blogging schedule.
About the author
#2
At the time, it was obvious that games were getting bigger and bigger, but missing this fact entirely. But it is true of even smaller games. Most players want the core experience to have value. Adding value in "more" is a bad way to go unless "more" is what drives the players, for example a discovery game might work by providing "more".
09/03/2006 (10:04 am)
Joe, just to reiterate the "more isnt always better" thing. I read in Edge magazine about 2 years ago, that one interesting researcher had done some research on players gaming habits. One of the conclusions he came out with, was that most gamers only ever see 20% of the games they play.At the time, it was obvious that games were getting bigger and bigger, but missing this fact entirely. But it is true of even smaller games. Most players want the core experience to have value. Adding value in "more" is a bad way to go unless "more" is what drives the players, for example a discovery game might work by providing "more".
#3
Indeed, and if things like youtube and iTunes have anything to say about it, this sort of thinking has gone the way of the dinosaur. The mind of the consumer is changing about how they 'consume' entertainment. The music industry got caught with their pants down doing 'business' as usual.
Small, nimble indie companies are the ones best positioned to provide the sort of interactive entertainment the 'new consumer' is craving. Best to be on the leading edge of that wave, rather then follow the footsteps of the 'big' industry, which is still trying to convince us that games will need to cost 20 million in order to gain the attention of the audience.
09/03/2006 (10:07 am)
Quote:It is also nice to see a positive article that reinforces the fact that we, as indie developers, do not need to follow suit with the AAA Brinkmanship that is going on where you need to trump the last game in the genre that just came out by doing what they did, plus 10% more.
Indeed, and if things like youtube and iTunes have anything to say about it, this sort of thinking has gone the way of the dinosaur. The mind of the consumer is changing about how they 'consume' entertainment. The music industry got caught with their pants down doing 'business' as usual.
Small, nimble indie companies are the ones best positioned to provide the sort of interactive entertainment the 'new consumer' is craving. Best to be on the leading edge of that wave, rather then follow the footsteps of the 'big' industry, which is still trying to convince us that games will need to cost 20 million in order to gain the attention of the audience.
#4
You had said that you tried to use the idea of designing your games really small and simple, get the rough game going and then playing the crap out of it to see what was and wasn't fun about it. From there you add, tweak or take away features or items and see if it makes the game more fun and enjoyable. This way you could tell very early if the game was or wasn't going to pan out, because if the core foundation of the game wasn't fun, no feature that you add in later is magically going to make the game fun all of a sudden.
To me these comments you made long ago shifted my paradigm of thinking towards how to better make games, especially indie games, because one has to pick the battles that they can win in order to succeed.
09/03/2006 (10:30 am)
I remember one thing you told me once a long time ago about the "Small, Nimble Companies" Joe was a comment you made about using this mentality towards making games. You had said that you tried to use the idea of designing your games really small and simple, get the rough game going and then playing the crap out of it to see what was and wasn't fun about it. From there you add, tweak or take away features or items and see if it makes the game more fun and enjoyable. This way you could tell very early if the game was or wasn't going to pan out, because if the core foundation of the game wasn't fun, no feature that you add in later is magically going to make the game fun all of a sudden.
To me these comments you made long ago shifted my paradigm of thinking towards how to better make games, especially indie games, because one has to pick the battles that they can win in order to succeed.
#5
09/03/2006 (10:53 am)
Logan - I couldn't agree more. That same advice of Joe's has shaped my opinion, more than once even. I keep coming back to it. I also agree this sort of blog has high high value for the indie community, especially the newcomers who will learn these lessons at some point, one way or another; hopefully the "easy" way by listening closely to advice like this.
#6
I'm not sure I'm there yet, but I agree in principle and try to approach things this way, but it is definitely easy to get diverted by other sides of development (i.e. thinking "all I have to do is add technology X and my game will be fun, the reason why it isnt fun is because I dont have that technology yet!"). For example, listening people talk about features of TSE or whatever, you would think there is a fundamental reason technology is holding them back.
I would suggest that if technology is an issue, then maybe you should redesign or simply divert to another game. Waiting for technology, or even working on technology is kind of a big distraction in many ways. But its kind of inevitable for us programmer types to try and engineer ourselves out of a design issue. Having said that, without technology, we have nothing, so clearly its a balance.
09/03/2006 (11:06 am)
I guess the challenge is in eating our own words isnt it. Everyone can agree, but its even more important, can they practice this aspect of development and design?I'm not sure I'm there yet, but I agree in principle and try to approach things this way, but it is definitely easy to get diverted by other sides of development (i.e. thinking "all I have to do is add technology X and my game will be fun, the reason why it isnt fun is because I dont have that technology yet!"). For example, listening people talk about features of TSE or whatever, you would think there is a fundamental reason technology is holding them back.
I would suggest that if technology is an issue, then maybe you should redesign or simply divert to another game. Waiting for technology, or even working on technology is kind of a big distraction in many ways. But its kind of inevitable for us programmer types to try and engineer ourselves out of a design issue. Having said that, without technology, we have nothing, so clearly its a balance.
#7
In the end, though, convincing someone that a $5-$10 game is worth the money *should* be pretty easy. Relative to a lot of other things, that's a lot of fun for less money. That would be an interesting marketing campaign: "More fun and longer than a movie - for less!"
09/03/2006 (11:21 am)
Really interesting blog, Joe (can't wait to meet you Tuesday!). This topic always reminds me of Jamie Griesemer's (design lead on Halo 1) quote that Halo 1 nailed the "30 seconds of fun" and then they repeated it over and over. If the basic mechanics of shooting something and throwing a grenade aren't inherently fun, very few people will struggle through to find the rest of the game. I really like the playtest from the start model - so that the fun can be polished before any of the things that programmers and artists spend the most time on.In the end, though, convincing someone that a $5-$10 game is worth the money *should* be pretty easy. Relative to a lot of other things, that's a lot of fun for less money. That would be an interesting marketing campaign: "More fun and longer than a movie - for less!"
#8
I wrote up some of my thoughts on the topic, but eh... whatevs... decided it wasn't going to be effective or relevant to anyone. :)
09/03/2006 (11:33 am)
Joe, good read. I always appreciate your insights and experience.I wrote up some of my thoughts on the topic, but eh... whatevs... decided it wasn't going to be effective or relevant to anyone. :)
#9
I would not say that technology is not an issue in some games, but I don't think it is a first order concern. I don't think I would have given Shadows of the Colossus a second look if the lighting and animation were not so fantastic. The 'look' got me in, the gameplay mesmerized, and a lot of that was in part to the interaction with the world, the really cool animations, and the art giving a sense of scale.
This is where the building of a game gets hard. Once the game is fun (first order of business), then you have to think about what else needs to be added to make it compelling. I will use Tomb Raider as an example. Without Lara, it would be just another shooter/adventure game. With Lara, it had something special. Whether it be the big boobs (the normal analysis), or the interesting juxtapostion of playing a female doing things that are normally a 'man' thing, it added some extra interest, an extra twist that made it more compelling, and pushed it from being just another well crafted game into something that became a phenomenon.
There are other things that make a game compelling beyond it just being 'fun', but what these things are is not something that can be measured in number of levels and weapons. These 'intangible' things are things that we as designers need to endevour to make more tangilbe, so that we can get them on task list, assign priorities to, and assess the success or failure of.
My favorite personal example is the 'head-pop' in ThinkTanks. We spent some time getting this right, the sound, the animation, the smoke particle effect. It was pleasing and 'right', and this made the game a little more compelling. To me, the mandate was 'make dying as fun as you can'. We put some effort into this to make this part more compelling. This is a small thing, and we did a bunch of other small things that all added together, worked to make the game more compelling.
as I stated before, these were second order concerns. The game was fun to play, and the process (for me) was to identify the least fun and most confusing parts of the game and improve them. Everytime I was confronted by an issue, I tried to come up with the most interesting solution as I could think of.
I also think that it is near impossible to idenitfy before hand all the little things that need to be addressed to make the game more compelling, and that one needs to add time in to test and to re-assess the priorities at every step.
so, technology is not something of zero concern, but it is a tool that should be used with laser sharp precision, to solve design issues and to increase the production quality in areas where it needs it most.
From a 'getting caught up in the tech' perspective, I like using games to define the tech, as then the question of what sort of tool or technology you need is gated by the desired (and very focused) results you want.
09/03/2006 (11:55 am)
@Phil,I would not say that technology is not an issue in some games, but I don't think it is a first order concern. I don't think I would have given Shadows of the Colossus a second look if the lighting and animation were not so fantastic. The 'look' got me in, the gameplay mesmerized, and a lot of that was in part to the interaction with the world, the really cool animations, and the art giving a sense of scale.
This is where the building of a game gets hard. Once the game is fun (first order of business), then you have to think about what else needs to be added to make it compelling. I will use Tomb Raider as an example. Without Lara, it would be just another shooter/adventure game. With Lara, it had something special. Whether it be the big boobs (the normal analysis), or the interesting juxtapostion of playing a female doing things that are normally a 'man' thing, it added some extra interest, an extra twist that made it more compelling, and pushed it from being just another well crafted game into something that became a phenomenon.
There are other things that make a game compelling beyond it just being 'fun', but what these things are is not something that can be measured in number of levels and weapons. These 'intangible' things are things that we as designers need to endevour to make more tangilbe, so that we can get them on task list, assign priorities to, and assess the success or failure of.
My favorite personal example is the 'head-pop' in ThinkTanks. We spent some time getting this right, the sound, the animation, the smoke particle effect. It was pleasing and 'right', and this made the game a little more compelling. To me, the mandate was 'make dying as fun as you can'. We put some effort into this to make this part more compelling. This is a small thing, and we did a bunch of other small things that all added together, worked to make the game more compelling.
as I stated before, these were second order concerns. The game was fun to play, and the process (for me) was to identify the least fun and most confusing parts of the game and improve them. Everytime I was confronted by an issue, I tried to come up with the most interesting solution as I could think of.
I also think that it is near impossible to idenitfy before hand all the little things that need to be addressed to make the game more compelling, and that one needs to add time in to test and to re-assess the priorities at every step.
so, technology is not something of zero concern, but it is a tool that should be used with laser sharp precision, to solve design issues and to increase the production quality in areas where it needs it most.
From a 'getting caught up in the tech' perspective, I like using games to define the tech, as then the question of what sort of tool or technology you need is gated by the desired (and very focused) results you want.
#10
Atleast, for me, I was recently studying indie games, their value, and you've just made a summary of my research in quite distinctive way...
So, the answer to the Value of a Thing would be:
;)
09/03/2006 (12:08 pm)
Joe, actually, you did GIVE only answers ;)Atleast, for me, I was recently studying indie games, their value, and you've just made a summary of my research in quite distinctive way...
So, the answer to the Value of a Thing would be:
Quote:More is better, right? Well, yes and no. All things being equal, an item with 'more' for the same price is probably going to be more desireable. But 80 levels of something that sucks does not necessarily make it something that inspires people to purchase it.
;)
#11
I suppose I may have answered some things, but this particular issue is not cut and dried. I think that some things do better smaller. I know that I look for games that put the money on the screen in the places that matter to me.
as an example of that, I will use the golf game, Hot Shots. It is almost the perfect game for me. The number of characters and levels my wife and I have unlocked allows us to pick up and play one of a few courses with one of the ten characters we have unlocked. We always play head to head, and if the game actually had delivered less of an experience on the levels we did unlock (in career mode), or cost twice as much for twice as much content, they would not have me as a customer.
The idea here is to drive to get the right amount of fun and compellingness to appeal to your target audience in such a way that they desire not only to try the game, but to buy the game. What the 'compellingness' of a product is to a person requires one to think more outside of the box of 'more' or 'less' or 'more shaders'.
The value of hotshots to me, is that I can play it in a social setting, mostly with my wife and friends. It is easy enough to pick up and enjoy for a first timer, and is not so challenging as to frustrate people. I value the company of friends and enjoy playing games with them, so this game offers something to me that I find to be of great value. In fact, I would buy it if all it had was one course and a generic character.
In this way, I play it like I would monolpoly or scrabble. Just the thing to pull out for a gathering.
The Value of a Thing can be unique to every individual.. and sometimes what we think of as valuable to a player is not what we think it is.
when we pay $20 for a night at the movies, we pay for 2 hours of an entertaining experience. The experience is often in a group setting, and is often followed by a trip to a food establishment to get beer and talk about the movie. What we pay for is the whole experience, and this is why we are willing to pay so much for such a short experience. It is intense, and usually fully engaging.
As for compelling, bigger is not always better. I think the best 'thing' I have played in the last few months in terms of pure compellingness was the flash game 'flow'. Wonderful experience, great sound and graphics, a tight little game (and it was free). The sound and graphics really worked together to make a very unique experience that had me fully wrapped up in for an hour.
There was another puzzle game that I played online a while back. Can't remember the name of it.. it was a free flash game as well. It had these turning balls that connected and formed a chain reaction that would spread over the whole playfield. Wonderfully additictive little thing that engrossed me because of the combination of sound and visuals that got me sucked in. The 'popping' sound of the reaction happening would rise to a bubbling boil as it went nuts.. you could tell you were doing well when the sound went crazy, and you could tell when it died down when the sound would start to trail off.. it was a very interesting design. Not something I would pay for, but something that I played for hours.
so, maybe I did answer too much, but I would rather not have people listen to what I say, I would rather they start asking themselves these questions.. so that they have a clearer understanding of what they spend their money on, and WHY they spend their money where they do.
09/03/2006 (12:37 pm)
@Alexander, I suppose I may have answered some things, but this particular issue is not cut and dried. I think that some things do better smaller. I know that I look for games that put the money on the screen in the places that matter to me.
as an example of that, I will use the golf game, Hot Shots. It is almost the perfect game for me. The number of characters and levels my wife and I have unlocked allows us to pick up and play one of a few courses with one of the ten characters we have unlocked. We always play head to head, and if the game actually had delivered less of an experience on the levels we did unlock (in career mode), or cost twice as much for twice as much content, they would not have me as a customer.
The idea here is to drive to get the right amount of fun and compellingness to appeal to your target audience in such a way that they desire not only to try the game, but to buy the game. What the 'compellingness' of a product is to a person requires one to think more outside of the box of 'more' or 'less' or 'more shaders'.
The value of hotshots to me, is that I can play it in a social setting, mostly with my wife and friends. It is easy enough to pick up and enjoy for a first timer, and is not so challenging as to frustrate people. I value the company of friends and enjoy playing games with them, so this game offers something to me that I find to be of great value. In fact, I would buy it if all it had was one course and a generic character.
In this way, I play it like I would monolpoly or scrabble. Just the thing to pull out for a gathering.
The Value of a Thing can be unique to every individual.. and sometimes what we think of as valuable to a player is not what we think it is.
when we pay $20 for a night at the movies, we pay for 2 hours of an entertaining experience. The experience is often in a group setting, and is often followed by a trip to a food establishment to get beer and talk about the movie. What we pay for is the whole experience, and this is why we are willing to pay so much for such a short experience. It is intense, and usually fully engaging.
As for compelling, bigger is not always better. I think the best 'thing' I have played in the last few months in terms of pure compellingness was the flash game 'flow'. Wonderful experience, great sound and graphics, a tight little game (and it was free). The sound and graphics really worked together to make a very unique experience that had me fully wrapped up in for an hour.
There was another puzzle game that I played online a while back. Can't remember the name of it.. it was a free flash game as well. It had these turning balls that connected and formed a chain reaction that would spread over the whole playfield. Wonderfully additictive little thing that engrossed me because of the combination of sound and visuals that got me sucked in. The 'popping' sound of the reaction happening would rise to a bubbling boil as it went nuts.. you could tell you were doing well when the sound went crazy, and you could tell when it died down when the sound would start to trail off.. it was a very interesting design. Not something I would pay for, but something that I played for hours.
so, maybe I did answer too much, but I would rather not have people listen to what I say, I would rather they start asking themselves these questions.. so that they have a clearer understanding of what they spend their money on, and WHY they spend their money where they do.
#12
I think I've learnt the hard way that technology is a bad thing to chase before you actually deliver your game in a playable state. In Air Ace it took us a short time to get something that "looked like it would be fun", but it took a looooot longer to get something that actually worked as it should (i.e. the difference between fudged plane physics and "realistic"). This time distance should have given us pause for thought and told us that in fact, this wasnt the right game to make.
Of course, at that point I was so billigerant and PO'd of not completing a project, that I was just firmly stuck on making and FINSHING this game, no matter what. But in hindsight, it wasnt the best decision to make.
I'm not saying that technology shouldnt take part in a game, but what I'm saying is that if you are constrained by a technology when it comes to the fundamentals of a game, you have to evaluate the effort and reward of that technology and if it is critical path to the game, be prepared to just let the game go and move onto something that is more within your grasp.
09/03/2006 (12:48 pm)
Joe: Well, the issue becomes, how much effort is it worthwhile putting into a game, as an indie developer, before it becomes wiser to actually just make a different game?I think I've learnt the hard way that technology is a bad thing to chase before you actually deliver your game in a playable state. In Air Ace it took us a short time to get something that "looked like it would be fun", but it took a looooot longer to get something that actually worked as it should (i.e. the difference between fudged plane physics and "realistic"). This time distance should have given us pause for thought and told us that in fact, this wasnt the right game to make.
Of course, at that point I was so billigerant and PO'd of not completing a project, that I was just firmly stuck on making and FINSHING this game, no matter what. But in hindsight, it wasnt the best decision to make.
I'm not saying that technology shouldnt take part in a game, but what I'm saying is that if you are constrained by a technology when it comes to the fundamentals of a game, you have to evaluate the effort and reward of that technology and if it is critical path to the game, be prepared to just let the game go and move onto something that is more within your grasp.
#13
In regards to Air Ace, I think you've just admitted a problem most people find hard to face.
Whether you know it or not, it's a welcome relief to find other people in the same boat.
- Eric
09/03/2006 (2:31 pm)
@Phil:In regards to Air Ace, I think you've just admitted a problem most people find hard to face.
Whether you know it or not, it's a welcome relief to find other people in the same boat.
- Eric
#14
09/03/2006 (3:11 pm)
Hey I think the game is cool...I played it for about 20 minutes,enjoyed myself,and walked away feeling good about the time I spent 1st thing in the morning(for me its morning).So I think you have a good product on your hands.I didnt at this time have mental awarness to read everthing in your blog cause my eyes really take hours to be able to read the computer screeeen with out giving my self a headache.I look forward to some more levels.I coulndt really find any bugs so to speak...but when you switch to D3D from OGL you get garbled peices of the level all over the place..I imagine though like most games today youll put in a "must restart for changes to take affect" code...Good luck.
#15
Oh MAN!! This is what the Dark Messiah of Might and Magic demo did! In the demo you could use level up points on some things, but right there in the level up menu you saw the REALLY cool stuff that you wanted. And at the end of the demo, you get to the boss fight with the cyclops and then bam! the demo is over just when you are scared shitless but still ready to rumble with the bad ass cyclops!
Of course, I was going to buy this game after seeing the videos of it, but man, when I played this demo... my desire to buy this game became fever pitched and it went from desire to buy it to counting down to buy it!
The Multiplayer Demo for it on the other hand sucked ass and rather than make me excited to play, made me just think 'well, I probably won't ever touch the multiplayer part of this game again'. And if they had released that first?! Wow... it would have been tough to get me to even try out the single player demo.
BUT MAN I can't wait to play the single player part of this game!!
Thanks for the great blog Joe.
09/03/2006 (5:02 pm)
Quote:You are a nobody, you cannot win, and you cannot get the coolest tanks.
Oh MAN!! This is what the Dark Messiah of Might and Magic demo did! In the demo you could use level up points on some things, but right there in the level up menu you saw the REALLY cool stuff that you wanted. And at the end of the demo, you get to the boss fight with the cyclops and then bam! the demo is over just when you are scared shitless but still ready to rumble with the bad ass cyclops!
Of course, I was going to buy this game after seeing the videos of it, but man, when I played this demo... my desire to buy this game became fever pitched and it went from desire to buy it to counting down to buy it!
The Multiplayer Demo for it on the other hand sucked ass and rather than make me excited to play, made me just think 'well, I probably won't ever touch the multiplayer part of this game again'. And if they had released that first?! Wow... it would have been tough to get me to even try out the single player demo.
BUT MAN I can't wait to play the single player part of this game!!
Thanks for the great blog Joe.
#16
I always like to think of game design as risk management. I always look for the unknowns and solve those issues first. If the physics are not done, and they are central to the play of the game, it is a super high risk issue that I would tackle first. If this does not pan out, or, in the process of examining the issue, it becomes apparent that it is a very large problem that was larger in scope than anticipated, then I would question the choice of the game you chose to make. I like to do this all the time.. looking at the next set of risks, and deciding what to tackle next.
I am going to save the long version of my 'theory of prototyping' for a long blog, but your comment is right on point. How much effort, where to apply it, and when. The hope is that one does not get trapped in the escalation dilemma of throwing good money after bad (or in the case of indie teams, good time after bad).
I am digging working on TGB demos lately, as it is much easier on my brain, as the iteration cycle on a game is WAY shorter and the technology needed is not rocket science. Take the idea in the image above. It is a top down capital ship RTS prototype concept. Tons of the design and interface issues to address, but no significant technological hurdles. The problem becomes one of managing the complexity and order of execution of tasks more so than solving problems that have not been solved. Removing the technology barrier really allows one to focus on the design of the game and not have to factor in (and often frontload development work on) issues of base technology.
09/03/2006 (6:36 pm)
@Phil,I always like to think of game design as risk management. I always look for the unknowns and solve those issues first. If the physics are not done, and they are central to the play of the game, it is a super high risk issue that I would tackle first. If this does not pan out, or, in the process of examining the issue, it becomes apparent that it is a very large problem that was larger in scope than anticipated, then I would question the choice of the game you chose to make. I like to do this all the time.. looking at the next set of risks, and deciding what to tackle next.
I am going to save the long version of my 'theory of prototyping' for a long blog, but your comment is right on point. How much effort, where to apply it, and when. The hope is that one does not get trapped in the escalation dilemma of throwing good money after bad (or in the case of indie teams, good time after bad).
I am digging working on TGB demos lately, as it is much easier on my brain, as the iteration cycle on a game is WAY shorter and the technology needed is not rocket science. Take the idea in the image above. It is a top down capital ship RTS prototype concept. Tons of the design and interface issues to address, but no significant technological hurdles. The problem becomes one of managing the complexity and order of execution of tasks more so than solving problems that have not been solved. Removing the technology barrier really allows one to focus on the design of the game and not have to factor in (and often frontload development work on) issues of base technology.
#17
The problem you articulate is that most developers seem to think that their game will be purchased by customers based on its "Intrinsic Value" when nothing is further then the truth. Customers buy games based on the subjective value of the experience that game provides them, an experience that is largely contained within the design and production of the game, not it's technology.
Good thoughts, good discussion.
09/03/2006 (6:40 pm)
Good post, I think you are trying to articulate something that is important. Those who study Economics describe the differences as theories of value. The two theories at work here are "Intrinsic Value" and "Subjective Value". The theory of intrinsic value states that items have an "inherent" value that is approximately the cost of producing that item. The theory of subjective values states that the value of an object is determined by how much someone is willing to exchange for it. Subjective value is a little more tricky (what you stated as "The Value of a Thing can be unique to every individual.") is subjective value. If I make $12 an hour and this game offers me some experience, but it will cost $24 dollars will I buy it? Maybe, if it's a really good game. But if I make $60 an hour the value proposition is better because $24 is only 30min of my time. I may be willing to exchange 30 minutes of work, but not 2 hours.The problem you articulate is that most developers seem to think that their game will be purchased by customers based on its "Intrinsic Value" when nothing is further then the truth. Customers buy games based on the subjective value of the experience that game provides them, an experience that is largely contained within the design and production of the game, not it's technology.
Good thoughts, good discussion.
#18
09/03/2006 (6:58 pm)
Very informative and easy to read, I enjoyed the examples as well that placed 'real world' concepts into the 'value' concept, something everyone's familiar with (where as they may not be that familiar with the 'value of a game').
#19
09/03/2006 (9:13 pm)
Great read. Very informative and something very improtant to think about.
#20
EDIT: summarised my opinion
09/03/2006 (11:27 pm)
Entertaining games sell... or games that advertisments have convinced the public are entertaining sell(for a while).EDIT: summarised my opinion
Associate Logan Foster
perPixel Studios
It is also nice to see a positive article that reinforces the fact that we, as indie developers, do not need to follow suit with the AAA Brinkmanship that is going on where you need to trump the last game in the genre that just came out by doing what they did, plus 10% more. This has lead to horribly bloated and unfun games that are too involved for one to simply sit down and just enjoy the game.
Thanks once again Joe!