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
#2
Awesome ideas. These are the kinds of things that a great number of community members would really benefit from hearing. We spoke a bit about this while I was still at GG, but I also think a blog that explains why the tech is the way it is would also be super helpful (max2dts comes to mind).
@ Everyone else who reads this blog.
Do yourself a massive favor and make sure you don't miss any of these. Joe is one of those rare people that is genuinely no bullshit and practices what he preaches. I can say from the experience of working with him he knows a wealth of information on the topics he's listed above, so I urge you not to miss them.
06/18/2006 (12:32 pm)
@ JoeAwesome ideas. These are the kinds of things that a great number of community members would really benefit from hearing. We spoke a bit about this while I was still at GG, but I also think a blog that explains why the tech is the way it is would also be super helpful (max2dts comes to mind).
@ Everyone else who reads this blog.
Do yourself a massive favor and make sure you don't miss any of these. Joe is one of those rare people that is genuinely no bullshit and practices what he preaches. I can say from the experience of working with him he knows a wealth of information on the topics he's listed above, so I urge you not to miss them.
#3
i most look forward to the scoping, prototyping, and small design blogs.
'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.'
i cannot wait to get my hands on this.
heh, 'plague'
thanks again, joe!
06/18/2006 (12:49 pm)
i was lucky enough to talk to joe for about an hour and a half at last year's igc, these are exactly the types of insights i was hoping for. he delivered then, and he is delivering again :). adam could not be more correct. i most look forward to the scoping, prototyping, and small design blogs.
'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.'
i cannot wait to get my hands on this.
heh, 'plague'
thanks again, joe!
#4
06/18/2006 (1:00 pm)
I'd definitely like to hear what you have to say (in written form) about "BootStrapping" and Prototyping.. that'd rock! 
#5
06/18/2006 (1:43 pm)
Great topics, Joe. I would be very interested in the scoping and value proposition topics. 
#6
Definitely looking forward to these!
06/18/2006 (2:23 pm)
I think that Bootstrapping would be a good opening to them, then following up with scoping, Small Design, and value. Then group the prototyping and Tool Use together. I would also like to read the Good Graphics one, though.Definitely looking forward to these!
#7
also just in general, the more you can relate big ideas to actual implementations (ie thinktanks, mighty fist) the better. BUT, it would be cool to see some references beyond the usual ones ie when talking about "good graphics" include other games on the gg channel (orbz, gish... mb too is a little overused as an example too). for that matter don't be afraid to dive in and dissect some community games, little gods, basic bob, whatever, as long as its constructive and with good intent I see no foul with that, and it maybe would make the info relate to "us" a little better (as opposed to professional game devs).
thanks for doing these - you're a one-man igc breakout session extravaganza!
06/18/2006 (2:52 pm)
"value proposition" sounds the most intriguing to me, though perhaps you already nailed it with "people think that to provide value it needs to be in a big package." it's still something I ask though, how do I create value in my game other than to make it a "good game" but that doesn't seem to fit quite right as an answer. I think this is the issue allessi has when he says it feels "random" if a game succeeds or not. clearly it's not random - some games offer more value to greater people than others - but why?also just in general, the more you can relate big ideas to actual implementations (ie thinktanks, mighty fist) the better. BUT, it would be cool to see some references beyond the usual ones ie when talking about "good graphics" include other games on the gg channel (orbz, gish... mb too is a little overused as an example too). for that matter don't be afraid to dive in and dissect some community games, little gods, basic bob, whatever, as long as its constructive and with good intent I see no foul with that, and it maybe would make the info relate to "us" a little better (as opposed to professional game devs).
thanks for doing these - you're a one-man igc breakout session extravaganza!
#8
What if we replaced 'random' with 'genetic' or 'luck'. Is there really a difference between the three?
Miyamoto probably couldn't make a bad game if he tried. Kinda like how Rebecca Romijn can't not look gorgeus ...
06/18/2006 (4:29 pm)
Joe, this is some great stuff and I can't wait to read more. Everything you say just sounds so ... sound if you know what I mean.Quote:
I think this is the issue allessi has when he says it feels "random" if a game succeeds or not. clearly it's not random - some games offer more value to greater people than others - but why?
What if we replaced 'random' with 'genetic' or 'luck'. Is there really a difference between the three?
Miyamoto probably couldn't make a bad game if he tried. Kinda like how Rebecca Romijn can't not look gorgeus ...
#9
If you would ask me what would be important to me, and order them by importance:
The value proposition
Small Design
Prototyping
Bootstrapping
Scoping an idea
Art Prototyping
Tool use
Good Graphics
That's my 2 cents :)
06/18/2006 (5:40 pm)
Joe, I would be really interested to read all of those blogs: I recognize some of the problems with my development cycle...If you would ask me what would be important to me, and order them by importance:
The value proposition
Small Design
Prototyping
Bootstrapping
Scoping an idea
Art Prototyping
Tool use
Good Graphics
That's my 2 cents :)
#10
In the simplest sense, when thinking about value, I think about what I would pay for. I ask myself what I shell out money for on a daily/monthly basis. The topic of value actually touches all the subjects, including the presentation of the graphics and marketing text (perception of value by the end user) to the actual demo (things that can be done to engage the end user and offer them something of value).
Being true to my normal 'un-normal' way of thinking, I don't just think about games, I think about everything I interact with in the world as a possible template for something I can use and apply to game design.
As one of many examples, there is a great analogy that was taken from a business book (I can't recall from which one). Fedex changed is message (...when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight) and it's approach to marketing and service when they realized that they were not selling shipping services, they were selling peace of mind. They realized that the 'value' that they provided to people had little to do with the service of moving a package and everything to do with the fact that it would get there when the end user expected it to get there, and that end users were willing to pay a premium for this peace of mind.
much of the 'value' blog will be questions that you can ask of yourself to help you explore what is of value to you, and how you can tap into something inside yourself to help ask the right questions to find a barometer of what is sellable, and what is buyable. Looking at your own buying habits will probably demonstrate to you just how irrational a purchasing decisions is.
I throw this bit out there now, as anyone can get started on exploring the question of value by starting to track where they spend their money (write it ALL down for a few weeks) and keeping what I call a 'diary of desire'. My diary of desire is actually a text file where I jot down 'things I want'. I got into this habit when I was very poor, to keep me from being an impulse buyer. When something showed up on the list after a month, it was something I truely wanted to have. It worked for keeping me from over-extending my bank account, but it actually did something more valuable for me. I started questioning what was showing up on my list.. why I put it on the list. Why did I desire these 'things'.. what was it about these items I wanted that I wanted to trade money for them. What happened in my head that made me 'desire' something.
this self analysis was pretty surprising in terms of getting to the bottom of why people value things. try it for a few weeks and see if there is anything interesting you learn about yourself.
06/18/2006 (6:05 pm)
interesting. there seems to be a bit of interest in the 'value' one.. I would not have thought that, and had it farther down the list of importance. I will work on that one a bit more (that is one of the closer to started than finished one).. right now, the question of value is more a bunch of questions than any answers.. In the simplest sense, when thinking about value, I think about what I would pay for. I ask myself what I shell out money for on a daily/monthly basis. The topic of value actually touches all the subjects, including the presentation of the graphics and marketing text (perception of value by the end user) to the actual demo (things that can be done to engage the end user and offer them something of value).
Being true to my normal 'un-normal' way of thinking, I don't just think about games, I think about everything I interact with in the world as a possible template for something I can use and apply to game design.
As one of many examples, there is a great analogy that was taken from a business book (I can't recall from which one). Fedex changed is message (...when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight) and it's approach to marketing and service when they realized that they were not selling shipping services, they were selling peace of mind. They realized that the 'value' that they provided to people had little to do with the service of moving a package and everything to do with the fact that it would get there when the end user expected it to get there, and that end users were willing to pay a premium for this peace of mind.
much of the 'value' blog will be questions that you can ask of yourself to help you explore what is of value to you, and how you can tap into something inside yourself to help ask the right questions to find a barometer of what is sellable, and what is buyable. Looking at your own buying habits will probably demonstrate to you just how irrational a purchasing decisions is.
I throw this bit out there now, as anyone can get started on exploring the question of value by starting to track where they spend their money (write it ALL down for a few weeks) and keeping what I call a 'diary of desire'. My diary of desire is actually a text file where I jot down 'things I want'. I got into this habit when I was very poor, to keep me from being an impulse buyer. When something showed up on the list after a month, it was something I truely wanted to have. It worked for keeping me from over-extending my bank account, but it actually did something more valuable for me. I started questioning what was showing up on my list.. why I put it on the list. Why did I desire these 'things'.. what was it about these items I wanted that I wanted to trade money for them. What happened in my head that made me 'desire' something.
this self analysis was pretty surprising in terms of getting to the bottom of why people value things. try it for a few weeks and see if there is anything interesting you learn about yourself.
#12
the billion dollar question it is. This is the question that the person with the 'correct' answer could tell me why King Kong did not entertain as much as the XMen series of films.. and why the Movie 'Armageddon' sucked even though it had everything in it (effects, actors, etc) that would make one think it would be good.
It is not random by a long shot, but nor is it science. I like to think that it is when the collection of several things ends up producing something that it more than the sum of it's parts. It is when something very special is teased out of the interaction and combination of several elements. Sometimes something is 'sticky' and sometimes it falls flat. How to make it happen?
a little bit of the magic?
sometimes I think about the value of games and I wonder if most developers are like Costco shoppers and those buying games on the portals are looking for the New York resturaunt experience. When you go to Costco, you look for value in volume. When you are looking for a good place to eat in a strange town.. you look for something that looks expensive and crowded. If it looks good, smells good, and tons of other people are there, it is probably good.
When I look at the games that sell well in the causal market, I see a lot of the end users buying what amounts to a small snack in a pretty wrapper. It looks great, sounds great, and is fun to play. It may only engage for a few hours, or be mindlessly repetative, but if it gives the senses pleasure, and it appears to be of high quality, then it must be worth it.
The hardcore gamers looks for value in volume. How much gameplay do I get? In indiedom, sometimes you find the gems with questionable graphics and sound, but with great gameplay. Turning them into things that sell is harder than it looks.. everything from the name of the game, to the screenshots, to the first few minutes of experience.. all have to flow and be seamless in order to get people to part with their cash in order to get more of it.
I know that I will pay $15-$20 for a nice and well presented interactive experience that I can play again, and again, for about 30 minutes to an hour a play session once every two weeks. Make a golf game like Hot Shots and you will have my money. Make a racing game that has the feel of a sim racer, but just give me 3-4tracks and 4-5 cars and dispense with the 'garage' and 'upgrade' bullshit and I will give you $20-$30 for it.
What it comes down to for me is that the experience has to be really good, and if it is good, a very small amount of it will suffice. If the experience is just OK, or is 'almost' special.. well, having 500 levels of medicority is not going to get me to open my wallet.
On the other hand, some things are just too small to me to provide the value for a high price. One experience (say, a one level top down spy hunter driving game) is not going to get me to pay $20.. if it had a few levels, I might pay a few bucks for it.. but even then, it has got to be good.
so, not random.. but not formula. Best formula I can come up with is.
Make it something the end user can relate to. If the end user can 'get it' from the first glance, then it works. Take the Beach Ball Break. Great name, easy for me to 'get'. Have not played it, but I would expect the ball to move like a beach ball. If it did, I would almost be sold. My understanding of how a beach ball moves in the real world will make me feel really clever if it does indeed move like a beach ball. If I can use what I can relate to to make myself successful in game, then I will be hooked. If I can see it, and the presentation engages me, I am on the way to downloading.. if the experience engages me and I feel good about it, I then ask myself if there is enough there for me to buy it. Then I ask, is it worth $20? is this experience or feeling something that I want to spend a whole week trying to master? sometimes yes, sometimes no.. that really depends on the individual, and how to get them to really 'attach' to something an have a lot to do with presentation and character design and theme.
Most PIXAR films get it 'right'.. I usually latch onto some character. Most of the Blue Sky (Ice Age) and PDI/Dreamworks films don't get it right.. one dimensional characatures of characters.. well done, but not enough to really engage me.. (good enough graphics for me to spend the $8 to see them though)
and, make it the best you can produce. Like it or not, you will be judged on presentation. The gameplay might be great, but if people can't get past bad or ill designed art or interface, then it is not going to get the traction or traffic it needs. By good graphics, I don't mean shaders or realism, it just has to be pleasant, of suffiently high quality to not look like it was done by a coder (no offense to the coders here), and work to help get the player to 'get' the concept.
ok, enough babbling for the evening, I should start working on the actual blog post.
06/18/2006 (8:25 pm)
Quote:. I think this is the issue allessi has when he says it feels "random" if a game succeeds or not. clearly it's not random - some games offer more value to greater people than others - but why?
the billion dollar question it is. This is the question that the person with the 'correct' answer could tell me why King Kong did not entertain as much as the XMen series of films.. and why the Movie 'Armageddon' sucked even though it had everything in it (effects, actors, etc) that would make one think it would be good.
It is not random by a long shot, but nor is it science. I like to think that it is when the collection of several things ends up producing something that it more than the sum of it's parts. It is when something very special is teased out of the interaction and combination of several elements. Sometimes something is 'sticky' and sometimes it falls flat. How to make it happen?
a little bit of the magic?
sometimes I think about the value of games and I wonder if most developers are like Costco shoppers and those buying games on the portals are looking for the New York resturaunt experience. When you go to Costco, you look for value in volume. When you are looking for a good place to eat in a strange town.. you look for something that looks expensive and crowded. If it looks good, smells good, and tons of other people are there, it is probably good.
When I look at the games that sell well in the causal market, I see a lot of the end users buying what amounts to a small snack in a pretty wrapper. It looks great, sounds great, and is fun to play. It may only engage for a few hours, or be mindlessly repetative, but if it gives the senses pleasure, and it appears to be of high quality, then it must be worth it.
The hardcore gamers looks for value in volume. How much gameplay do I get? In indiedom, sometimes you find the gems with questionable graphics and sound, but with great gameplay. Turning them into things that sell is harder than it looks.. everything from the name of the game, to the screenshots, to the first few minutes of experience.. all have to flow and be seamless in order to get people to part with their cash in order to get more of it.
I know that I will pay $15-$20 for a nice and well presented interactive experience that I can play again, and again, for about 30 minutes to an hour a play session once every two weeks. Make a golf game like Hot Shots and you will have my money. Make a racing game that has the feel of a sim racer, but just give me 3-4tracks and 4-5 cars and dispense with the 'garage' and 'upgrade' bullshit and I will give you $20-$30 for it.
What it comes down to for me is that the experience has to be really good, and if it is good, a very small amount of it will suffice. If the experience is just OK, or is 'almost' special.. well, having 500 levels of medicority is not going to get me to open my wallet.
On the other hand, some things are just too small to me to provide the value for a high price. One experience (say, a one level top down spy hunter driving game) is not going to get me to pay $20.. if it had a few levels, I might pay a few bucks for it.. but even then, it has got to be good.
so, not random.. but not formula. Best formula I can come up with is.
Make it something the end user can relate to. If the end user can 'get it' from the first glance, then it works. Take the Beach Ball Break. Great name, easy for me to 'get'. Have not played it, but I would expect the ball to move like a beach ball. If it did, I would almost be sold. My understanding of how a beach ball moves in the real world will make me feel really clever if it does indeed move like a beach ball. If I can use what I can relate to to make myself successful in game, then I will be hooked. If I can see it, and the presentation engages me, I am on the way to downloading.. if the experience engages me and I feel good about it, I then ask myself if there is enough there for me to buy it. Then I ask, is it worth $20? is this experience or feeling something that I want to spend a whole week trying to master? sometimes yes, sometimes no.. that really depends on the individual, and how to get them to really 'attach' to something an have a lot to do with presentation and character design and theme.
Most PIXAR films get it 'right'.. I usually latch onto some character. Most of the Blue Sky (Ice Age) and PDI/Dreamworks films don't get it right.. one dimensional characatures of characters.. well done, but not enough to really engage me.. (good enough graphics for me to spend the $8 to see them though)
and, make it the best you can produce. Like it or not, you will be judged on presentation. The gameplay might be great, but if people can't get past bad or ill designed art or interface, then it is not going to get the traction or traffic it needs. By good graphics, I don't mean shaders or realism, it just has to be pleasant, of suffiently high quality to not look like it was done by a coder (no offense to the coders here), and work to help get the player to 'get' the concept.
ok, enough babbling for the evening, I should start working on the actual blog post.
#13
Oh, also the Pixar/Dreamworks comparo was a good one. These analogies are good examples of what works and what doesn't but still it doesn't allow us to make it happen any eaiser :( More or less it still comes down to right people, right place, right time. I suppose though that since the brain is essentially a prediction machine that with enough time and understanding invested in this it becomes easier to predict where you should be with your friends at 3PM Saturday in order to have a great weekend ;)
06/18/2006 (10:29 pm)
Man this is really good stuff. Joe hit it on the head with just the King Kong, X-Men, Armegeddon comparison. That was about the perfect way to put it. Sometimes you put together a nice combiniation of parts but they don't produce something worth more than their sum. Reading this is making me think about everything I've done with my games and the next thing I put together I'm sure will be better because of it.Oh, also the Pixar/Dreamworks comparo was a good one. These analogies are good examples of what works and what doesn't but still it doesn't allow us to make it happen any eaiser :( More or less it still comes down to right people, right place, right time. I suppose though that since the brain is essentially a prediction machine that with enough time and understanding invested in this it becomes easier to predict where you should be with your friends at 3PM Saturday in order to have a great weekend ;)
#14
Joe's comment here I think nails the point:
I like to think that it is when the collection of several things ends up producing something that it more than the sum of it's parts. It is when something very special is teased out of the interaction and combination of several elements.
Good info Joe thanks! Cant wait for your blogs...
06/18/2006 (11:05 pm)
True - Great ideas, great graphics, great sound, and great programming by themselves don't make up a great game. It's the combination of all these assets, the execution of the development, and the presentation of the final product that will ultimately determine whether it fails or succeeds. You can have the best art, sound, ideas, or whatever- but you have to be able to put it all together and execute on the integration of those things.Joe's comment here I think nails the point:
I like to think that it is when the collection of several things ends up producing something that it more than the sum of it's parts. It is when something very special is teased out of the interaction and combination of several elements.
Good info Joe thanks! Cant wait for your blogs...
#15
Thanks again for sharing your experiences and thoughts. This really is very interesting. I'd be interested in reading all of your announced blogs, but for me, the order in which I'd like to read your blogs (if dependencies allow this):
- The value proposition
- Small Design
- Scoping an idea
- Prototyping
- Bootstrapping
- Art Prototyping
- Tool use
- Good Graphics
Maybe this is out of scope, but with regard to the prototyping topic, maybe you can also point out a few similarities and differences from your game development iterative development cycle and other development methods used in software engineering (DSDM, RUP).
Another question I have been walking around with is more of a legal question. What exactly do you agree upon when hiring contract workers to do work on your game? What does the contract need to contain? There are a few things I can think of off the top of my head, including questions that pop right after them:
- IP and asset ownership
Does the studio get complete ownership of IP and assets, even for use in future projects? Or only a license for use in this particular game?
What happens when the project is killed? Does the studio get to keep the IP? Or is it returned to the creator?
- Payment
Per hour, per job, profit share?
- NDA
Who decides who can say what, and when to the press / audience?
- Contract
Are there any templates available?
- Deadlines
Are there any penalties on failure to meet deadlines / failure to deliver?
These are some questions that I can think of off the top of my head in the 'legal department' of putting together a team. I'm sure there are a lot more questions to be answered when it comes to this. I feel this subject is often overlooked and at the same time looks so overly important to me. Maybe you can also shed some light on this one? I'm not looking for "one size fits all" answers, since I can't imagine they exist. But if you could focus on what is common practice in the world of professional indie game developers, that would be highly appreciated.
Thanks for all the effort!
06/19/2006 (3:24 am)
Hi Joe,Thanks again for sharing your experiences and thoughts. This really is very interesting. I'd be interested in reading all of your announced blogs, but for me, the order in which I'd like to read your blogs (if dependencies allow this):
- The value proposition
- Small Design
- Scoping an idea
- Prototyping
- Bootstrapping
- Art Prototyping
- Tool use
- Good Graphics
Maybe this is out of scope, but with regard to the prototyping topic, maybe you can also point out a few similarities and differences from your game development iterative development cycle and other development methods used in software engineering (DSDM, RUP).
Another question I have been walking around with is more of a legal question. What exactly do you agree upon when hiring contract workers to do work on your game? What does the contract need to contain? There are a few things I can think of off the top of my head, including questions that pop right after them:
- IP and asset ownership
Does the studio get complete ownership of IP and assets, even for use in future projects? Or only a license for use in this particular game?
What happens when the project is killed? Does the studio get to keep the IP? Or is it returned to the creator?
- Payment
Per hour, per job, profit share?
- NDA
Who decides who can say what, and when to the press / audience?
- Contract
Are there any templates available?
- Deadlines
Are there any penalties on failure to meet deadlines / failure to deliver?
These are some questions that I can think of off the top of my head in the 'legal department' of putting together a team. I'm sure there are a lot more questions to be answered when it comes to this. I feel this subject is often overlooked and at the same time looks so overly important to me. Maybe you can also shed some light on this one? I'm not looking for "one size fits all" answers, since I can't imagine they exist. But if you could focus on what is common practice in the world of professional indie game developers, that would be highly appreciated.
Thanks for all the effort!
#16
yes and no. The biggest problem I see with most games are that the game is started, and 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. So more stuff gets added.. pretty soon, there is so much in the game that teasing out the things that are not working is near impossible. My approach is to take the core gameplay, and get it right. Once that is right, you just listen to what the game is telling you (by testing) and add more things that are 'right' for the game.
That is the best explanation I can come up with. It is both easy and hard.. the hardest part is holding back and not forging ahead when something is not ready to move ahead. If the core is incomplete, it will be hard to tell what it needs (and what it doesn't).
@ Thijs,
DSDM and RUP are some of the flavors of Agile development. I won't be comparing the flavors of Agile methods, I will be suggesting agile methods over the more traditional methods. All the agile methods work so long as they are feature flexible and allow for shifting requirements. I am not a super huge fan of rigid processes.. I am a fan of processes that work. Different things can be taken from each of the flavors of the Agile methods to work with your style and inside a framework that one feels comfortable with.
06/19/2006 (7:26 am)
Quote:These analogies are good examples of what works and what doesn't but still it doesn't allow us to make it happen any eaiser
yes and no. The biggest problem I see with most games are that the game is started, and 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. So more stuff gets added.. pretty soon, there is so much in the game that teasing out the things that are not working is near impossible. My approach is to take the core gameplay, and get it right. Once that is right, you just listen to what the game is telling you (by testing) and add more things that are 'right' for the game.
That is the best explanation I can come up with. It is both easy and hard.. the hardest part is holding back and not forging ahead when something is not ready to move ahead. If the core is incomplete, it will be hard to tell what it needs (and what it doesn't).
@ Thijs,
DSDM and RUP are some of the flavors of Agile development. I won't be comparing the flavors of Agile methods, I will be suggesting agile methods over the more traditional methods. All the agile methods work so long as they are feature flexible and allow for shifting requirements. I am not a super huge fan of rigid processes.. I am a fan of processes that work. Different things can be taken from each of the flavors of the Agile methods to work with your style and inside a framework that one feels comfortable with.
#17
I think this could be an interesting topic and one I've thought about a good deal this year as I've had to get a bunch of gameplay together with minimal art and try to get the feel just right. I think this is an undercovered topic around here. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
06/19/2006 (3:32 pm)
lets hear it for Art Prototyping: Hear! Hear!I think this could be an interesting topic and one I've thought about a good deal this year as I've had to get a bunch of gameplay together with minimal art and try to get the feel just right. I think this is an undercovered topic around here. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
#19
I think the hard part with a team of guys doing a game in their spare time is that we can't seem to get everyone progressing together & keeping the same scope.
06/19/2006 (8:21 pm)
Bootstrapping & value proposition.I think the hard part with a team of guys doing a game in their spare time is that we can't seem to get everyone progressing together & keeping the same scope.
#20
the online social experience is my best answer. a feeling of achievement when you successfully make a tough shot is another answer (cuz I still get excited when it happens, I'll be like "BOOM SUCKA!" and my roommates will wonder what the heck I'm doing in my room cuz shelled doesn't really have sound yet).
and maybe there's not one answer, or doesn't have to be one answer. but thinking in these terms shifts my thinking from "how do I make the tanks / bombs / terrain deforms better" to "how to I make the social aspect of the game more compelling... how do I make the tough shot reward feedback more compelling...". whatever way you make your game, you only have so much resources to allocate. so instead of polishing tank physics that much more, adding detection of "LONG SHOT - GREAT JOB!" or even "DOUBLE TANK KILL!!" type "reward" messages is better allocation... per the actual value of the game and not the thin surface value of bad marketing bullet-points ("realistic newtonian physics!!!").
have you ever eaten at chipolte? or in'n'out burger? both resteraunts have FOUR menu items. FOUR!! (burrito, taco, burrito bowl, salad / burger, cheeseburger, fries, milkshake respectively). you look at other resteraunts that have dozens of items and add new ones every month and you say how could these resteraunts do so well (they're HUGE chains with thousands of daily customers) with such a limited menu. well simple, because what they do isn't just good, it's the best. when I want a burger, I go to in'n'out. not because I want FOOD... because I want the best BURGER there is, and by god they have it.
so again back to shelled... I was reading over the first post-igc-changelist and it was cut, cut, cut! feature uncreep as you once called it. and every day since then people have suggested all kinds of "kewl" ways to complicate the game again... and it's been hard to resist that siren call. what if you could ADD dirt? what if you played levels in a box with bouncing walls? what about putting team play back in? CTF? etc. etc. at one point I was determined to have no water and only one level type (green grass blue sky) but we can't all be strong and eventually water and more level textures found their way in. but the point is I was determined to make a game where you only do ONE THING - SHOOT PROJECTILES THAT FALL WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO RE-SHOOT IF YOU FAIL - but keep at it until that ONE THING was fun. it's a little disspiriting to realize just how much polish that takes - it feels like a ton of polish has been put in and it still needs more - but still without that focus I'd still be off wandering in no-man's land making a game that nobody wants to play, rather than something that at least christophe canon & a handfull of beta testers think is fun and addicting purely for its core game mechanic (a success by some modest measure).
why I say it worries me though, two reasons. my "wrapper" is or is going to be pretty, but not over-the-top-I-have-100k-to-spend-on-a-match-3-game pretty. the UI isn't "an experience" in and of itself. and there's not that many features in shelled, no map editor/skin uploading/team play, "value in volume" features. uh-oh.
second though, I finally figured out who my game is for (yes, 4/5ths the way into development!) and that is for so called ex-hardcore casual players. so I ask you - what the heck do THEY expect? less polish OK for them than "general audience" portal players? but less features volume ok too? or what? I honestly don't know.
BUT -- if they've never played scorch or a game like it, then *THERE'S NOTHING TO RELATE TO* and this whole trajectory shooting thing is like, huh? WTF, why can't I just shoot straight? my tank's cannon bent or somethin? what, they can make rocket jets but not lightweight shells that don't fall so fast that I can't shoot straight??? UH JUST WUNNA SHOOT DA PURDY TOY-TALS!
worse, the turtle theme complicates things slightly because a lot of people relate this to the mario series, which I had hoped for... BUT here's the thing, in mario shooting turtle shells (especially in mariokart) is a constant theme and the shells go sliding straight. sure, shelled has a slider shell you can use, but that one shell isn't the whole game, and it still goes in a trajectory first. so they play and they expect to shoot turtle shells from the front of the tank and watch them go shooting forward towards an enemy like mariokart... instead they're presented with this whole trajectory thing and it's like, huh? why can't I just shoot shells from the front of my tank w/o picking the angle and all that? and that might be a great game - and it might even sell a lot more copies than the current one - but IT'S NOT MY GAME!!! I don't mean this in the subborn designer married to his ideas kind of way, I mean this in the it's a completely different game and guts what makes shelled shelled kind of way. I'm open to change, but not to change that takes away the heart of my game. a trajectory game without trajectories is not a step in the right direction.
so did I fudge up here in making a game that only hardcore players with a reference to scorched earth are really going to get into and potentially purchase? or does it just mean that my market is even more specific (and smaller) than I had originally thought and intended? or what? (so confused, so confused...)
for yet even further discussion, here's the umpteenth revision of the marketing copy for shelled and the logic behind it. I always limit myself to four sentences for these:
Shelled! is an artillery combat game in full 3D that allows up to 8 online players to blow each other to bits! Fire a variety of earth-moving explosive turtle shells including nukes, spreads, and more! Pilot your jet-powered turtle tank through colorful land, sea, and air. Features realtime action and first person aiming for arcade style fun reminicent of Scorched Earth.
"artillery combat game" is a keyword phrase I'm hoping my ex-hardcore demographic will be able to relate to even if they haven't specifically played scorch... artillery = flying through air
"in full 3D" is an important distinction in conveying the quality of the game and hinting at its gameplay, especially since a lot of scorch clones are 2D
"8 players online" focuses on social/online/multiplayer aspect of the game, which has always been the game's focus (so much so that I briefly flirted with renaming the game to "Shelled: Arena"). note that nowhere in the paragraph does it mention the single player mode and its AI and 20 levels.
"to blow each other to bits!" relates the actual experience of the game - as you said before with the fedex example - blowing tanks or better "each other" to "bits" is the REAL "fun" in the game, the real "value"; this verbage was actually taken directly from the scorch file_id.diz file
"earth-moving" is how I work in the key game feature of terrain deformations, which is a FEATURE and not so much an EXPERIENCE, but when I think "what sets this game apart?" (ie from something like thinktanks) terrain deforms are a huge part of that so it just doesn't seem right to leave it out completely, but still not focus on it entirely; earth-moving also again points back to evoking scorched earth
"explosive turtle shells" is the first mention that these are turtle shells you fire, not bombs or whatnot, so this is purely descriptive, and maybe evokes the mario series to boot
"including nukes, spreads, and more!" the nuke/spread words are specifically intended to invoke scorched earth, and the whole line conveys that there are indeed different weapon types in this game, which was a big part of the fun in scorch, without specifically saying "x# of weapons"
"Pilot your jet-powered turtle tank" does two things: explains that not only do you fire TURTLE shells, but you are YOURSELF a turtle (well, turtle tank), which explains the core premise of the game (fire turtle shells with your turtle tank) without confusing the person on that premise by stating these are turtle tanks in the first line (this "buries" it a bit so it's not info-overload); two, it explains the "other half" of the fun experience in the game, namely jetting around (as opposed to shooting as just a purely stationary turret).
"through colorful land, sea, and air." makes the environments sound fun and adds to the idea that jetting around in a variety of situations (land sea and air) might be fun
"Features realtime action and first person aiming" back when I thought this game was for casual players I'd NEVER include something like this - but for ex-hardcores I think they'll get the keywords...
"realtime action" is an important descriptive element as opposed to turn-based, which traditionally scorch remakes are, and I want to beat the marketing drum of conveying that this is not a slow & boring game as much as possible
"first person aiming" will, I hope, intrigue and pull in some ex-FPS fans even if they don't get the rest of the pitch, as well as show how the game is unique from scorch & other clones, which are more 3rd person based and using the keyboard to punch in the angle/power of your shot
"for arcade style fun" again I hope conveys the "action" element of the game as opposed to a slow strategy game, but also I hope conveys the "pick up and play" aspect of the game, as it truly is an insert quarter kind of game
"reminicent of Scorched Earth." last but not least, rope in them old ex-scorchers... saved for last because even lots of ex-hardcore players haven't played scorch so putting it too upfront will either confuse or turn off people
feel free to save your responses to any of this for the actual blog post... but dang this is good discussion and already it's got me thinking of helpful stuff. this is what makes the community great... thanks!
06/19/2006 (8:37 pm)
Quote:They realized that the 'value' that they provided to people had little to do with the service of moving a package and everything to do with the fact that it would get there when the end user expected itamazing reference and analogy. so with shelled I'm not selling tanks & cool bombs & terrain deforms, I'm selling... what? still figuring that part out.
the online social experience is my best answer. a feeling of achievement when you successfully make a tough shot is another answer (cuz I still get excited when it happens, I'll be like "BOOM SUCKA!" and my roommates will wonder what the heck I'm doing in my room cuz shelled doesn't really have sound yet).
and maybe there's not one answer, or doesn't have to be one answer. but thinking in these terms shifts my thinking from "how do I make the tanks / bombs / terrain deforms better" to "how to I make the social aspect of the game more compelling... how do I make the tough shot reward feedback more compelling...". whatever way you make your game, you only have so much resources to allocate. so instead of polishing tank physics that much more, adding detection of "LONG SHOT - GREAT JOB!" or even "DOUBLE TANK KILL!!" type "reward" messages is better allocation... per the actual value of the game and not the thin surface value of bad marketing bullet-points ("realistic newtonian physics!!!").
Quote:developers are like Costco shoppers and those buying games on the portals are looking for the New York resturaunt experienceouch!! wow, that definitely resonates. as jefft once said you don't buy books by their weight or number of pages... but by what they offer of value to you. it's something newbie developers tend to do and I myself fell into this with the IGC version of shelled which had "MORE! MORE! MORE!" it had a lot more than it does now - you could customize everything, change the physics, there was team play, minigame, it was an all you can eat buffet... but compared to a finely crafted roast beef sandwich and only the sandwich it was nothing, just a whole lot of filler.
have you ever eaten at chipolte? or in'n'out burger? both resteraunts have FOUR menu items. FOUR!! (burrito, taco, burrito bowl, salad / burger, cheeseburger, fries, milkshake respectively). you look at other resteraunts that have dozens of items and add new ones every month and you say how could these resteraunts do so well (they're HUGE chains with thousands of daily customers) with such a limited menu. well simple, because what they do isn't just good, it's the best. when I want a burger, I go to in'n'out. not because I want FOOD... because I want the best BURGER there is, and by god they have it.
so again back to shelled... I was reading over the first post-igc-changelist and it was cut, cut, cut! feature uncreep as you once called it. and every day since then people have suggested all kinds of "kewl" ways to complicate the game again... and it's been hard to resist that siren call. what if you could ADD dirt? what if you played levels in a box with bouncing walls? what about putting team play back in? CTF? etc. etc. at one point I was determined to have no water and only one level type (green grass blue sky) but we can't all be strong and eventually water and more level textures found their way in. but the point is I was determined to make a game where you only do ONE THING - SHOOT PROJECTILES THAT FALL WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO RE-SHOOT IF YOU FAIL - but keep at it until that ONE THING was fun. it's a little disspiriting to realize just how much polish that takes - it feels like a ton of polish has been put in and it still needs more - but still without that focus I'd still be off wandering in no-man's land making a game that nobody wants to play, rather than something that at least christophe canon & a handfull of beta testers think is fun and addicting purely for its core game mechanic (a success by some modest measure).
Quote:games that sell well in the causal market, I see a lot of the end users buying what amounts to a small snack in a pretty wrapper... (versus) The hardcore gamers looks for value in volume.this is a really interesting distinction to me... not a distinction I've heard before, and one that worries me slightly. first let me say that there's lots of games that have neither a pretty wrapper NOR value in volume! and I think that's why they don't sell. that's a big thought to chew on all by itself, especially for those out there who've made games that didn't sell well.
why I say it worries me though, two reasons. my "wrapper" is or is going to be pretty, but not over-the-top-I-have-100k-to-spend-on-a-match-3-game pretty. the UI isn't "an experience" in and of itself. and there's not that many features in shelled, no map editor/skin uploading/team play, "value in volume" features. uh-oh.
second though, I finally figured out who my game is for (yes, 4/5ths the way into development!) and that is for so called ex-hardcore casual players. so I ask you - what the heck do THEY expect? less polish OK for them than "general audience" portal players? but less features volume ok too? or what? I honestly don't know.
Quote:everything from the name of the game, to the screenshots, to the first few minutes of experience.. all have to flow and be seamless in order to get people to part with their cash in order to get more of it.this is a BIG one that a lot of people miss, I think. I've been thinking of this a lot lately as I've been working on menu flow changes and how to best work the tutorial in. for comparision I was playing the tubetwist beta recently and that's a game that I think really nails that "seamless flow" you speak of. you start the game up and you simply don't want to LEAVE the game, even if you're not even playing it! (I've never gotten past level 2). compared to shelled, where you get shuffled around a good bit, or are suddenly presented with a "game over" score screen with no transition, no feeling of "flow" and interconnectedness. the game playing part itself feels solid and more every day, but that's only one part of the "experience" of shelled. this is something to work on as the game gets polished to completion, but it's nice to hear the point recognized here as something of importance. yet another thing to worry about >:P
Quote:If the end user can 'get it' from the first glance, then it works.#$#@!(#!! ummm, yeah. this is pretty much why shelled did so badly at the nwgamefest. people would walk by and watch someone play but wouldn't "get it." people would even play for a little and not "get it." sure those that DID get it would either LIKE it or LOVE it - I haven't met anyone in person or in the beta that got it and didn't like it - but what about the other 9 out of 10 people? which kinda brings me to...
Quote:Make it something the end user can relate to.and for shelled this is double edged. the people that "get" that it's a realtime scorched earth with first person shooter aiming, they love it. the ex-hardcores, THEY get the game. if they've played scorched earth, it's great. someone even said it was better than scorch (I replayed scorch the other day and would have to agree - heh). so in marketing I'm aligning myself with scorch as much as possible.
BUT -- if they've never played scorch or a game like it, then *THERE'S NOTHING TO RELATE TO* and this whole trajectory shooting thing is like, huh? WTF, why can't I just shoot straight? my tank's cannon bent or somethin? what, they can make rocket jets but not lightweight shells that don't fall so fast that I can't shoot straight??? UH JUST WUNNA SHOOT DA PURDY TOY-TALS!
worse, the turtle theme complicates things slightly because a lot of people relate this to the mario series, which I had hoped for... BUT here's the thing, in mario shooting turtle shells (especially in mariokart) is a constant theme and the shells go sliding straight. sure, shelled has a slider shell you can use, but that one shell isn't the whole game, and it still goes in a trajectory first. so they play and they expect to shoot turtle shells from the front of the tank and watch them go shooting forward towards an enemy like mariokart... instead they're presented with this whole trajectory thing and it's like, huh? why can't I just shoot shells from the front of my tank w/o picking the angle and all that? and that might be a great game - and it might even sell a lot more copies than the current one - but IT'S NOT MY GAME!!! I don't mean this in the subborn designer married to his ideas kind of way, I mean this in the it's a completely different game and guts what makes shelled shelled kind of way. I'm open to change, but not to change that takes away the heart of my game. a trajectory game without trajectories is not a step in the right direction.
so did I fudge up here in making a game that only hardcore players with a reference to scorched earth are really going to get into and potentially purchase? or does it just mean that my market is even more specific (and smaller) than I had originally thought and intended? or what? (so confused, so confused...)
for yet even further discussion, here's the umpteenth revision of the marketing copy for shelled and the logic behind it. I always limit myself to four sentences for these:
Shelled! is an artillery combat game in full 3D that allows up to 8 online players to blow each other to bits! Fire a variety of earth-moving explosive turtle shells including nukes, spreads, and more! Pilot your jet-powered turtle tank through colorful land, sea, and air. Features realtime action and first person aiming for arcade style fun reminicent of Scorched Earth.
"artillery combat game" is a keyword phrase I'm hoping my ex-hardcore demographic will be able to relate to even if they haven't specifically played scorch... artillery = flying through air
"in full 3D" is an important distinction in conveying the quality of the game and hinting at its gameplay, especially since a lot of scorch clones are 2D
"8 players online" focuses on social/online/multiplayer aspect of the game, which has always been the game's focus (so much so that I briefly flirted with renaming the game to "Shelled: Arena"). note that nowhere in the paragraph does it mention the single player mode and its AI and 20 levels.
"to blow each other to bits!" relates the actual experience of the game - as you said before with the fedex example - blowing tanks or better "each other" to "bits" is the REAL "fun" in the game, the real "value"; this verbage was actually taken directly from the scorch file_id.diz file
"earth-moving" is how I work in the key game feature of terrain deformations, which is a FEATURE and not so much an EXPERIENCE, but when I think "what sets this game apart?" (ie from something like thinktanks) terrain deforms are a huge part of that so it just doesn't seem right to leave it out completely, but still not focus on it entirely; earth-moving also again points back to evoking scorched earth
"explosive turtle shells" is the first mention that these are turtle shells you fire, not bombs or whatnot, so this is purely descriptive, and maybe evokes the mario series to boot
"including nukes, spreads, and more!" the nuke/spread words are specifically intended to invoke scorched earth, and the whole line conveys that there are indeed different weapon types in this game, which was a big part of the fun in scorch, without specifically saying "x# of weapons"
"Pilot your jet-powered turtle tank" does two things: explains that not only do you fire TURTLE shells, but you are YOURSELF a turtle (well, turtle tank), which explains the core premise of the game (fire turtle shells with your turtle tank) without confusing the person on that premise by stating these are turtle tanks in the first line (this "buries" it a bit so it's not info-overload); two, it explains the "other half" of the fun experience in the game, namely jetting around (as opposed to shooting as just a purely stationary turret).
"through colorful land, sea, and air." makes the environments sound fun and adds to the idea that jetting around in a variety of situations (land sea and air) might be fun
"Features realtime action and first person aiming" back when I thought this game was for casual players I'd NEVER include something like this - but for ex-hardcores I think they'll get the keywords...
"realtime action" is an important descriptive element as opposed to turn-based, which traditionally scorch remakes are, and I want to beat the marketing drum of conveying that this is not a slow & boring game as much as possible
"first person aiming" will, I hope, intrigue and pull in some ex-FPS fans even if they don't get the rest of the pitch, as well as show how the game is unique from scorch & other clones, which are more 3rd person based and using the keyboard to punch in the angle/power of your shot
"for arcade style fun" again I hope conveys the "action" element of the game as opposed to a slow strategy game, but also I hope conveys the "pick up and play" aspect of the game, as it truly is an insert quarter kind of game
"reminicent of Scorched Earth." last but not least, rope in them old ex-scorchers... saved for last because even lots of ex-hardcore players haven't played scorch so putting it too upfront will either confuse or turn off people
feel free to save your responses to any of this for the actual blog post... but dang this is good discussion and already it's got me thinking of helpful stuff. this is what makes the community great... thanks!
Associate Canon
Christophe