Game Development Community

Plan for David Myers

by Dave Myers · 02/23/2005 (3:55 pm) · 6 comments



I had an interesting discussion with fellow game dev Paul Dana yesterday that I think I'm going to expand into a full-blown article. It concerned what I would say is a bullet-point list of concerns about the direction of my studio. Of course, a lot of the answers to those questions are entirely dependent on your particular situation, but I think it might still be interesting to interview a few other people out there who already have studios and/or make and sell games and put together a summary. But that's later.

One thing that Paul mentioned that I feel I have to keep foremost in my mind is the concept of prototyping before deciding on what game to make next. In the past I had attacked that decision by putting down a list of ideas on paper and then having everyone pick out one that really seemed like a possible winner. And then just making the game. Which seems terribly questionable, even if you attack the game design in an iterative fashion.

It makes more sense to me to prototype multiple ideas before deciding on which to focus on for a full-blown game. In fact, Paul mentioned prototyping practically until it hurt. For me, I take this to mean don't be afraid to invest time prototyping a good handful of your best ideas before settling. Don't worry about getting everything just right in terms of game mechanics, and certainly don't mess with anything other than programmer art. The key is to get to the heart of the fun as quickly as possible, as purely as possible.

If it is taking too long to prototype and find the fun, take a hard look at what you are trying to do. Maybe it just isn't fun, or maybe it will take a good while to find the fun. As an indie who only has a few hours per week to work on my products, I don't believe I can waste too much time on a game design that doesn't almost immediately reveal its fun.

I also think that just because the very first idea you tried seems like a lot of fun does not necessarily mean you just stop there and go into full-scale production. Who's to say that the third prototype won't be more fun and lend itself much better to marketing and better sales? There is a limit to the prototyping phase, of course - the definition of "where it hurts" will be different for each studio. But taking one idea and settling on it as an indie strikes me as just too little and a tad short-sighted. You are possibly betting a little bit too much on good luck, which might be fine for some but not for me.

One last thing. Once you've decided on a game and are firing away on all cylinders don't be afraid to evaluate the game again, and if it for some reason is not turning out as well as expected, don't rule out the possibility of shelving it. It's your time and resources that you would be "wasting", so that's a painful decision to make, but don't get into the mindset that you absolutely positively MUST finish the game. Because it's possible that it will kill your morale and dedication and passion, and no game is worth that. Beware of not finishing anything, however. That would be almost as bad.

When you finish a game, you should have a host of game ideas not only on paper lying around, but also in some stages of prototype that you can then use for a starting point on the next planning phase. That seems terribly appealing.

About the author

Considerable experience developing with Torque-based technologies and produced the first third-party game using any Torque technology (Orbz). Game designer, programmer, and producer, and credits include the innovative title Orbz and the colorful BuggOut.


#1
02/23/2005 (5:53 pm)
Everyone has their own way -- and "prototype, prototype, prototype!" was the gospel I heard from everyone at IGC -- but it's not the way I do things. Legend of Wik, for example, is an example of a game where the heart of the gameplay really wasn't discovered until 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way through the game. They had an idea of the gameplay, but didn't really find the true gameplay until they had undergone the process of making it. Good article about it on gamasutra. Sometimes you can take a ball and just run with it. I doubt I will ever prototype my ideas before I commit time and funds to them. Good writeup, just offering a differing view.
#2
02/23/2005 (7:41 pm)
Well, if you're talking about Wik and the Fable of Souls, actually they did exactly what I'm suggesting.

Quote:
The roots of Wik began with what we at Reflexive call a "one-day-quick" prototype, where we regularly invest time in exploring new game ideas and mechanics by building a working, playable prototype.

and later

Quote:
Out of the six or so quick prototypes we short-listed at the time, "BugEater" was chosen for full development.

They realized halfway through that the basic game mechanic needed help, and they adjusted accordingly, but first and foremost they chose the best prototype of the bunch they had instead of just starting with a single prototype. The root game mechanic was actually already in the prototype, it just needed help. And the guys at Reflexive are not part-time indies, which means they likely have more time to make mistakes and correct them.

But of course to each his own if you wish to just jump in and go. I shipped games that way too. I just don't think I will again.
#3
02/23/2005 (8:35 pm)
A lot can be said for the Game in a Day sessions that Tom Bampton has brought to the GarageGames community. Sure you cannot get a lot done but you can get the basic premise tested out before you waste a lot of time running down a path that may lead to a dead end. At the very least it can let you test out an idea or two on a gameplay mechanic. So I have to agree with you there on your thoughts Dave, its worth the investment to test this stuff out before going anywhere and this can be done irregardless of your teams technology and experiance, the tools are all before us just make due with whats there.

Edit: I just wanted to add a comment about bodgering your game or game design till its good. This is a horrible way to make games and is IMHO a bad habit for people to pick up. If somethings not working find another solution or drop it until you can solve it, don't attack the problem until it fits. Square pegs go in the square holes, round pegs go in the round ones. Work smarter not harder :)
#4
02/23/2005 (9:06 pm)
although it can be said, 'to each his own way', when it comes to game development, there are effective ways to do it, and ineffective ways to do it. Prototyping is effective in that allows you to understand the game in ways you cannto on paper or in your head, and it allows you to effecitively allocate resources to parts of the game that need it. I have seen a lot of work go into dead ends. Prototyping and iteration allow you to develop the game as good as possible, as quick as possible, as cheap as possible.

This is not to say that one cannot (or should not) do whatever they want when it comes to making their game, but for those reading this, the two approaches should not be considered to be equally effective approaches.

as a gereral rule, prototyping is very effective, and as a rule, forging straight ahead is not particulary effective (especially in terms of conservation of resources).
#5
02/24/2005 (3:32 am)
@Joe

It's all too true that without a prototype you end up creating stuff that may end up being a dud 6 months down the line (not guaranteed even with a prototype but, you reduce the risk of failure significantly).

Also once you have the prototype down and decide to do the project, you should also remember that you need to keep a design document. So few people do this and this is another reason for failure. If you don't have a design you can stick to or use as a guide then 9 times out of 10 the project with zig zag out of control.
#6
02/24/2005 (4:44 pm)
@Peter

Agreed - though sometimes a "design document" can mean nothing more than a *deatiled* TO-DO list...what you INTEND to do.

There is nothing magical about writing it down...it's just yet another visual aid. It let's you more effecively asses the scope of what you are going to do. Nothing more.