Good casual games
by Ian Omroth Hardingham · 09/08/2006 (7:45 am) · 4 comments
----------------------------
This is an exact copy of a post on the Mode 7 Blog, but I thought it would make interesting reading here. By the way, Determinance is in final testing and is pretty much finished WOO. If you're looking for more info follow the blog, mail me, or drop into #determinance on the GG irc server.
-----------------------------
I'm going to answer a question Edge magazine posed to someone this month:
Edge: What do you see next-gen technology being used for in the coming years? Remarkable visuals are already being explored, so where do you see the power going next?
Ian Hardingham: Into making my life easier. More power means I can code faster because I have to worry about cpu-limits less.
You want a revolution in gaming? The biggest revolution there is will be the process of making games easier to create. Hundreds of developers, multi-year development cycles? Yeah, that's a great way of making an artist's idea into a product. Why are we stuck with boring sequels? Because it takes so much time and money to make a game that publishers go with the high-percentage shots. You the savvy reader know all that - you've heard it all before.
Really? Doesn't sound to me like you, or anyone else, is actually listening to that piece of information. If the problem with the industry is that games cost too much to make, then the solution must be:
1. Hate EA. That'll work.
2. "Embargo" boring sequels. Yes, because you have so much market influence.
3. Make a gaming system with a unique controller to force people to make innovative games. Hah! I'd like to see you make a third person action game with that now EA. Yeah!
4. Talk about how great gaming was in the 80's. You know, back when small development teams could make a game in six months. OH WAIT.
Have I got my point accross yet? These are the solutions people who want interesting games turn to. And don't get me wrong with number 3: I love the DS and the Wii more than I love the CFL. But it seems kind of strange that the best solution to boring games we've come up with so far is to literally force developers to innovate by taking away all their usual toys.
The solution is very simple: make games easier to make. Sounds hard? No. Just invest in stuff like dynamically created content and useful middleware.
"Casual" games were boring for two years. Then it became a multi-million dollar industry and teams are making interesting games. Why?
The term "casual" gives them permission (because developers are stupid and they need permission) to make a small game quickly with a few people.
There's now money in casual games.
Competition means they need to stand out, and they've found that the best way to do that (well, the best way to do that other than putting Da Vinci in their game's title) is to make proper games, but on a small scale.
Market forces combining to make the market better? Lenin would not be happy.
I'm telling you that the first golden age of indie games is only a few months away. But please, as more and more people start making small and interesting games, follow these simple rules:
1. If you're innovating, make your tutorial a massive priority.
2. Cut back on the amount of content, not the quality. That sounds really content-less so here's an example: one polished level is better than ten levels by Derek Smart.
3. Just so we're clear, I know you didn't listen to point 2. I know, it sounded boring and obvious. But you will make this mistake. No really. You will make this mistake.
4. Have a nice menu screen.
Good tutorial, one level, nice menu screen. Maybe I should rename this post to that.
This is an exact copy of a post on the Mode 7 Blog, but I thought it would make interesting reading here. By the way, Determinance is in final testing and is pretty much finished WOO. If you're looking for more info follow the blog, mail me, or drop into #determinance on the GG irc server.
-----------------------------
I'm going to answer a question Edge magazine posed to someone this month:
Edge: What do you see next-gen technology being used for in the coming years? Remarkable visuals are already being explored, so where do you see the power going next?
Ian Hardingham: Into making my life easier. More power means I can code faster because I have to worry about cpu-limits less.
You want a revolution in gaming? The biggest revolution there is will be the process of making games easier to create. Hundreds of developers, multi-year development cycles? Yeah, that's a great way of making an artist's idea into a product. Why are we stuck with boring sequels? Because it takes so much time and money to make a game that publishers go with the high-percentage shots. You the savvy reader know all that - you've heard it all before.
Really? Doesn't sound to me like you, or anyone else, is actually listening to that piece of information. If the problem with the industry is that games cost too much to make, then the solution must be:
1. Hate EA. That'll work.
2. "Embargo" boring sequels. Yes, because you have so much market influence.
3. Make a gaming system with a unique controller to force people to make innovative games. Hah! I'd like to see you make a third person action game with that now EA. Yeah!
4. Talk about how great gaming was in the 80's. You know, back when small development teams could make a game in six months. OH WAIT.
Have I got my point accross yet? These are the solutions people who want interesting games turn to. And don't get me wrong with number 3: I love the DS and the Wii more than I love the CFL. But it seems kind of strange that the best solution to boring games we've come up with so far is to literally force developers to innovate by taking away all their usual toys.
The solution is very simple: make games easier to make. Sounds hard? No. Just invest in stuff like dynamically created content and useful middleware.
"Casual" games were boring for two years. Then it became a multi-million dollar industry and teams are making interesting games. Why?
The term "casual" gives them permission (because developers are stupid and they need permission) to make a small game quickly with a few people.
There's now money in casual games.
Competition means they need to stand out, and they've found that the best way to do that (well, the best way to do that other than putting Da Vinci in their game's title) is to make proper games, but on a small scale.
Market forces combining to make the market better? Lenin would not be happy.
I'm telling you that the first golden age of indie games is only a few months away. But please, as more and more people start making small and interesting games, follow these simple rules:
1. If you're innovating, make your tutorial a massive priority.
2. Cut back on the amount of content, not the quality. That sounds really content-less so here's an example: one polished level is better than ten levels by Derek Smart.
3. Just so we're clear, I know you didn't listen to point 2. I know, it sounded boring and obvious. But you will make this mistake. No really. You will make this mistake.
4. Have a nice menu screen.
Good tutorial, one level, nice menu screen. Maybe I should rename this post to that.
About the author
Designer and lead programmer on Frozen Synapse, Frozen Endzone, and Determinance. Co-owner of Mode 7 Games.
#2
09/08/2006 (12:45 pm)
I like it, words to live by.
#3
Well, I mainly think that because of what I've said about Casual games: I think we're in the middle of a huge leap in that market, from everyone making match-3 games to people experimenting more and more into proper, polished, but small games.
I think the next step is high-polish remakes of really good old games (asteroids, jetpac, and so on). I know there are plenty of remakes of these already, but I'm talking Casual game studios doing it properly, with distinctive graphical styles and tweaks to gameplay. Once we're into that stage, innovation will become more and more important. We'll see new genres evolve out of highly tweaked old ones.
I never thought that our first golden age would happen like this. I always thought casual games were the enemy. But in fact casual games found out how to make money by developing small games fast, and are now in the position to evolve into great indie games.
Big developers and publishers are the movie business, and indie and casual studios are the TV business.
Ian
09/08/2006 (1:46 pm)
Hi Tony.Well, I mainly think that because of what I've said about Casual games: I think we're in the middle of a huge leap in that market, from everyone making match-3 games to people experimenting more and more into proper, polished, but small games.
I think the next step is high-polish remakes of really good old games (asteroids, jetpac, and so on). I know there are plenty of remakes of these already, but I'm talking Casual game studios doing it properly, with distinctive graphical styles and tweaks to gameplay. Once we're into that stage, innovation will become more and more important. We'll see new genres evolve out of highly tweaked old ones.
I never thought that our first golden age would happen like this. I always thought casual games were the enemy. But in fact casual games found out how to make money by developing small games fast, and are now in the position to evolve into great indie games.
Big developers and publishers are the movie business, and indie and casual studios are the TV business.
Ian
#4
It's definitely an exciting time for indies. Good post.
09/09/2006 (2:34 pm)
..or the indie film business. :PIt's definitely an exciting time for indies. Good post.
Torque 3D Owner Tony Richards
Interesting point of view... what makes you think that? Any clue how long it'll last? Just asking for opinions.