Comments on: #gamedev: We need to aim higher [...] on my blog a few months ago, and then all of the sudden two weeks ago I put a comment on an #AltDevBlogADay post by Mike Acton. Next thing I know, I was invited [...] [...] on my blog a few months ago, and then all of the sudden two weeks ago I put a comment on an #AltDevBlogADay post by Mike Acton. Next thing I know, I was invited [...]

]]>
By: How I got into game development: a Latin American perspective. | Game Design Tales/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-6313 How I got into game development: a Latin American perspective. | Game Design Tales Sat, 25 Jun 2011 02:30:31 +0000 Do you remember Planescape: Torment? I do. I loved that game. Even to this day it has some of the best writing and character development set in one of the most engaging worlds in gaming. It is still one of my favorite games of all time and it was released in - oh crap I'm getting old - 1999. It did not do well. The company that developed it, Black Isle Studios, no longer exists. Maybe it was part of the first stages of games turning into not-games; movies or novels or something. It still managed to be a game, mind you, and the gameplay was adequate, it didn't shake the foundations of the industry, but it served its purpose and didn't really get in the way. But really now, how many RPGs are remembered for their gameplay? My point is, Planescape was pretty revolutionary for its setting, plot, characters, lore, and writing in general. It didn't have pretenses of grandeur, and didn't poster at being high art or anything. It didn't <em>try</em> to be great, it just was. But not many copies of it sold. It never had a sequel, or any of the other markers of success in the gaming industry. I should think its fans are quite loyal, it would be hard to play through the game and not be. So what happened? I don't know. But saying depth of story, gameplay, and lore is what makes a strong fanbase and makes the most money is, sadly, rather mistaken. Maybe the game was too niche, or the marketing was too poor, I don't know. But the point is it's a fine line. People want novelty, but not <em>too</em> much novelty. They either want something new, but shallow (until later companies, such as Insomniac or Blizzard, come along and refine it, as you mentioned), or they want something familiar and deep. I'm not sure you can get a lot of people interested in something off-the-wall crazy <em>and</em> emotionally demanding. It's like we have a limited reserve of energy to put towards games. But hey, I'm just a consumer, not a producer. From my perspective most games, especially the big-name ones, are entirely uninteresting. But I still frequently play games, mostly indie ones or novel games from bigger industries willing to take a risk. I think we need a blend of both, old and new, to keep the most people satisfied. I suppose the problem is in neither side willing to be flexible, so we can have indie development die off as a fad and big companies collapse due to unsustainable models. Or maybe they'll continue to play off each other, both playing to their strengths and filling more and more of the holes in consumers' desires. Since big companies are risk averse, and small indie companies strapped for resources, it's likely this is what will happen. And for the most part I'm fine with this, my only real fear is some sort of cascading collapse if either side of the relationship fails and we end up with nothing. But, isn't this a similar trend happening with movies and television shows, now that the Internet is giving voice to smaller groups more willing to take risks? And aren't these industry giants, more or less, responding in a similarly belligerent way? Maybe we should watch and see what they do, to get some sense of what might be in store for us. Do you remember Planescape: Torment? I do. I loved that game. Even to this day it has some of the best writing and character development set in one of the most engaging worlds in gaming. It is still one of my favorite games of all time and it was released in – oh crap I’m getting old – 1999.

It did not do well. The company that developed it, Black Isle Studios, no longer exists. Maybe it was part of the first stages of games turning into not-games; movies or novels or something. It still managed to be a game, mind you, and the gameplay was adequate, it didn’t shake the foundations of the industry, but it served its purpose and didn’t really get in the way. But really now, how many RPGs are remembered for their gameplay? My point is, Planescape was pretty revolutionary for its setting, plot, characters, lore, and writing in general. It didn’t have pretenses of grandeur, and didn’t poster at being high art or anything. It didn’t try to be great, it just was.

But not many copies of it sold. It never had a sequel, or any of the other markers of success in the gaming industry. I should think its fans are quite loyal, it would be hard to play through the game and not be. So what happened?

I don’t know. But saying depth of story, gameplay, and lore is what makes a strong fanbase and makes the most money is, sadly, rather mistaken. Maybe the game was too niche, or the marketing was too poor, I don’t know. But the point is it’s a fine line. People want novelty, but not too much novelty. They either want something new, but shallow (until later companies, such as Insomniac or Blizzard, come along and refine it, as you mentioned), or they want something familiar and deep. I’m not sure you can get a lot of people interested in something off-the-wall crazy and emotionally demanding. It’s like we have a limited reserve of energy to put towards games.

But hey, I’m just a consumer, not a producer. From my perspective most games, especially the big-name ones, are entirely uninteresting. But I still frequently play games, mostly indie ones or novel games from bigger industries willing to take a risk. I think we need a blend of both, old and new, to keep the most people satisfied. I suppose the problem is in neither side willing to be flexible, so we can have indie development die off as a fad and big companies collapse due to unsustainable models. Or maybe they’ll continue to play off each other, both playing to their strengths and filling more and more of the holes in consumers’ desires. Since big companies are risk averse, and small indie companies strapped for resources, it’s likely this is what will happen. And for the most part I’m fine with this, my only real fear is some sort of cascading collapse if either side of the relationship fails and we end up with nothing.

But, isn’t this a similar trend happening with movies and television shows, now that the Internet is giving voice to smaller groups more willing to take risks? And aren’t these industry giants, more or less, responding in a similarly belligerent way? Maybe we should watch and see what they do, to get some sense of what might be in store for us.

]]>
By: Misaki/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5718 Misaki Fri, 17 Jun 2011 01:23:27 +0000 ]]> By: gavin burton/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5565 gavin burton Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:09:59 +0000 The game industry is a fad-driven industry. A new platform, or a new genre comes along that is under-exploited and some lucky developer jumps on it and makes a mint, and then everybody has to be there for a year or two. The market becomes glutted with "me too!" ideas, everybody stops making money, and then somebody someplace else has a success and everybody goes there. The company you work for, Insomniac Games, is a company that I used to work for too. Their model is the opposite of that, but it is also the opposite of what you suggest. The Insomniac Games / Naughty Dog / Blizzard model is to make a game that has been made many times before successfully, but make it in a higher quality than anybody else. This strategy has served them very well. If Insomniac is having trouble, it is because Sony is having trouble, not because their strategy is flawed. At least, not any more flawed than any other strategy that involves set-top consoles. I think the big problem for the electronic entertainment industry right now, ironically, is that there are low barriers to entry for certain platforms. It is dirt simple to make a crappy game on iPhone, Android, or Flash. Some developers have told me they churn them out over a weekend. Consequently, the market becomes glutted with terrible product, a cycle that has happened many times in history. The crash when that happened on the Atari 2600 in the 80's killed console game systems in the US for years until Nintendo brought out the NES (which they had to market through entirely different channels, because toy stores would have nothing to do with them at first!) The console manufacturers acted as gate keepers, keeping out buggy content with their approval processes, and smaller companies with the high costs of doing business with them (a problem I am currently having). They also stifled a lot of interesting and innovative games, but because there were fewer players in the market, each player could get a bigger slice of the pie. This allowed game development budgets to increase, allowing for larger and more detailed games. However, raising the cost of development also means raising the RISK of development. As costs rose to a point where developers could no longer self-fund, the large publishers rose to handle the funding and marketing of games. As publishers are paying all of the bills, they call all of the shots. Ask Ted sometime what happens if you miss a deadline with Sony... Publishers, having a lot of money on the line, try to reduce their risk. Mostly they do this by making things that they know how to market. Often that involves slapping a license on something, imitating a game that is already successful. They also try to reduce their costs, which generally means paying for only what gets used, and not doing any R&D or experimentation. This is directly what leads to "me too" game syndrome. For the budget of one Ratchet and Clank game, you could probably invest in 20-30 really high quality smaller experimental games. Given your company's engine technology, a team of five people from your company could knock out a game in two weeks that would be better than 100% of games on the cel phones. The LG / T-Mobile booth at E3 was showing off a space game that looked amazingly like space combat that I wrote for Ratchet and Clank 3 and was cut for not being good enough. The question is, would you make enough money on them? You might... once. I think the novelty wears off pretty quick. Everybody likes Angry Birds today, but will we even remember them in 2 years? Most of the cel phone games are completely pathetic compared to games from the SNES era, much less current console output. They lack polish and depth <em>because the budgets can't support it</em>! Believe me, I am a DSiWare developer, and even on that closed platform, I'd have to turn out a game every two months to even have a chance of making a living. Really, I think the solution for developers is to stop the escalation of costs. Yes, it's great if your game looks like a movie, but it doesn't make it play any better. Don't make your game better by simply improving the graphics or making it longer. Make your game better by giving your players more involvement in the game and its world and characters. Instead of giving them 25 levels, give them a level editor and let them share levels with their friends. Instead of giving them cut scenes, let the game tell the story. Build mystery and lore and learning into your world. Writing is cheap, acting is expensive. By making your games deep, rather than flashy, you build player interest and loyalty. You build and maintain a fan base that lives and dies by your product... your guaranteed sales, and your most effective advertising. Extra polygons don't do that. Extra levels don't do that. Depth of writing and gameplay and game lore does. -- Tim Trzepacz -- SoftEgg Enterprises The game industry is a fad-driven industry. A new platform, or a new genre comes along that is under-exploited and some lucky developer jumps on it and makes a mint, and then everybody has to be there for a year or two. The market becomes glutted with “me too!” ideas, everybody stops making money, and then somebody someplace else has a success and everybody goes there.

The company you work for, Insomniac Games, is a company that I used to work for too. Their model is the opposite of that, but it is also the opposite of what you suggest. The Insomniac Games / Naughty Dog / Blizzard model is to make a game that has been made many times before successfully, but make it in a higher quality than anybody else. This strategy has served them very well. If Insomniac is having trouble, it is because Sony is having trouble, not because their strategy is flawed. At least, not any more flawed than any other strategy that involves set-top consoles.

I think the big problem for the electronic entertainment industry right now, ironically, is that there are low barriers to entry for certain platforms. It is dirt simple to make a crappy game on iPhone, Android, or Flash. Some developers have told me they churn them out over a weekend. Consequently, the market becomes glutted with terrible product, a cycle that has happened many times in history. The crash when that happened on the Atari 2600 in the 80′s killed console game systems in the US for years until Nintendo brought out the NES (which they had to market through entirely different channels, because toy stores would have nothing to do with them at first!)

The console manufacturers acted as gate keepers, keeping out buggy content with their approval processes, and smaller companies with the high costs of doing business with them (a problem I am currently having). They also stifled a lot of interesting and innovative games, but because there were fewer players in the market, each player could get a bigger slice of the pie. This allowed game development budgets to increase, allowing for larger and more detailed games.

However, raising the cost of development also means raising the RISK of development. As costs rose to a point where developers could no longer self-fund, the large publishers rose to handle the funding and marketing of games. As publishers are paying all of the bills, they call all of the shots. Ask Ted sometime what happens if you miss a deadline with Sony…

Publishers, having a lot of money on the line, try to reduce their risk. Mostly they do this by making things that they know how to market. Often that involves slapping a license on something, imitating a game that is already successful. They also try to reduce their costs, which generally means paying for only what gets used, and not doing any R&D or experimentation. This is directly what leads to “me too” game syndrome.

For the budget of one Ratchet and Clank game, you could probably invest in 20-30 really high quality smaller experimental games. Given your company’s engine technology, a team of five people from your company could knock out a game in two weeks that would be better than 100% of games on the cel phones. The LG / T-Mobile booth at E3 was showing off a space game that looked amazingly like space combat that I wrote for Ratchet and Clank 3 and was cut for not being good enough.

The question is, would you make enough money on them? You might… once. I think the novelty wears off pretty quick. Everybody likes Angry Birds today, but will we even remember them in 2 years? Most of the cel phone games are completely pathetic compared to games from the SNES era, much less current console output. They lack polish and depth because the budgets can’t support it! Believe me, I am a DSiWare developer, and even on that closed platform, I’d have to turn out a game every two months to even have a chance of making a living.

Really, I think the solution for developers is to stop the escalation of costs. Yes, it’s great if your game looks like a movie, but it doesn’t make it play any better. Don’t make your game better by simply improving the graphics or making it longer. Make your game better by giving your players more involvement in the game and its world and characters. Instead of giving them 25 levels, give them a level editor and let them share levels with their friends. Instead of giving them cut scenes, let the game tell the story. Build mystery and lore and learning into your world. Writing is cheap, acting is expensive. By making your games deep, rather than flashy, you build player interest and loyalty. You build and maintain a fan base that lives and dies by your product… your guaranteed sales, and your most effective advertising.

Extra polygons don’t do that. Extra levels don’t do that. Depth of writing and gameplay and game lore does.

– Tim Trzepacz –
SoftEgg Enterprises

]]>
By: Doctor Mike Reddy/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5504 Doctor Mike Reddy Sat, 11 Jun 2011 06:05:00 +0000 Gamasutra a commercial initiative started by @Gamasutra devoted to giving game developers of all disciplines a place to motivate each other to read regularly about their competitors game development passions :-P]

On points 2 and 4 of the signs of apocalypse I’d suggest a note of caution. As a professional educator, who just happens in this case to be teaching game development, I’m convinced of the Educational benefit of Games. However, it’s an article of Faith, a perceived virtuous circle, not one of Evidence-Based Practice. Sure, there is some evidence, but there always is. Education Research is rather like Medicine in that respect, rather 19th century in approach: “Did it kill the patient? No? Better write it up then!” Developments in Learning can only benefit from hindsight. It takes people to try something, anything, to progress, but there’s always what I call the Education Placebo to consider: games are novel right now and novelty motivates, but not sustainably. It’s important not to think necessarily that games were the inherent cause of improved learning without eliminating other factors. Educators know this. Others often don’t. 

The thing to avoid is saturation. I used to do lots of Education outreach work in UK schools. The British Council flew me all round the World advocating Climate Change Games and Educational Robotics. (There’s an Ed Tech that comes and goes! Remember the fascination a few years ago with Robot Wars, TechnoGames and the like?) I regularly saw teachers amazed at the engagement of pupils, even and especially the normally disruptive students, but I’d always remind everyone that it was probably as much (if not more) to do with the variety as the activity. Like teenagers listening to advice only when it didn’t come from their parents. The teachers usually knew though, that when I left, they’d have to pick things up again. That the fun activity couldn’t be the norm. That if it was, it wouldn’t be fun. That the magic of the activity would evaporate. I can imagine a school lesson where the kids, through some unintended aversion therapy, roll their eyes and plead, Plead, PLEAD not to play another Game, preferring some Chalk and Talk. Maybe a test? Anything but another game!

This has happened with other technologies. I’ve seen it myself, being a former school teacher. And it’s something for the Brabens and Livingstone-Hopes, advocating teaching Programming in schools, to consider. We need to use Games Technology judiciously, sparingly, wisely to prevent student burnout. Which leads me to item 4 on the apocalist (see what I did there?): Gamification is JUST the way to rapidly disengage young people. Many don’t just have a problem with the word. It’s the whole disingenuous philosophy that stinks. Only Mary Poppins could pull off making a chore into a game, and she’s fictional! We aren’t Skinner’s rats pressing levers. Making a game out of life can only work if it comes from the people themselves.

At best Gamification successes are an example of the placebo effect mentioned earlier. At worst, it’s the fast track to losing what is, in my opinion, a genuinely useful educational technology. I’m completely with Mike Acton’s call to aim higher, but please listen to the everyday teachers, who want you to look at your feet every so often so you don’t trip.

]]>
By: Nicolas Lamanna/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5477 Nicolas Lamanna Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:51:36 +0000 Do you remember Bob’s Game? Nintendo wouldn’t allow the game solely because it was developed at home.

And no, not all video game genres work well on a desktop PC or on a smartphone. Take fighting games, for example. These work better with one large (TV size) monitor and two gamepads or joysticks than with separate machines, one per player, connected over the Internet. Every PC made in the past decade can use multiple USB gamepads and output to an HDTV, but by and large, most people are unwilling to try connecting a PC to a TV.

]]>
By: Doug Schwartz/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5474 Doug Schwartz Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:52:42 +0000 Your complaint is a little disingenuous, as he didn't mention *any* company by name. Also your complaint seems to be more of a hardware related matter than a game development matter. Nintendo certainly does both, but it's their hardware that has been most revolutionary (recently), and thus, not relevant to this article. Your complaint is a little disingenuous, as he didn’t mention *any* company by name. Also your complaint seems to be more of a hardware related matter than a game development matter. Nintendo certainly does both, but it’s their hardware that has been most revolutionary (recently), and thus, not relevant to this article.

]]>
By: Tyler Laing/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5471 Tyler Laing Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:49:42 +0000 Thank god someone finally put all of this into a post somewhere. I've been saying this for a couple years now. The big houses are in their death spiral of driving franchises into the ground, (which is a non sustainable business model) and the time of the underground game developer is NOW. If you need further evidence of this, notice how some of the AAA houses are starting to co-opt the "indie" label. When the big houses start co-opting, you know you're doing something right. Unrestricted by conventional (and corporate) thinking, underground and indie developers have a unique ability: to usher in a new golden age of games. The ones who stay independent are the ones who are going to make things shine..in the face of the large meat grinding houses that just want to regurgitate titles. Thanks Mike, for this. You have definitely re-inspired me to to keep my eyes on the prize...to create the new instead of just doing what's been done...because "That's the way it's always been" is not an appropriate axiom for the game development industry. Thank god someone finally put all of this into a post somewhere. I’ve been saying this for a couple years now. The big houses are in their death spiral of driving franchises into the ground, (which is a non sustainable business model) and the time of the underground game developer is NOW. If you need further evidence of this, notice how some of the AAA houses are starting to co-opt the “indie” label. When the big houses start co-opting, you know you’re doing something right.

Unrestricted by conventional (and corporate) thinking, underground and indie developers have a unique ability: to usher in a new golden age of games. The ones who stay independent are the ones who are going to make things shine..in the face of the large meat grinding houses that just want to regurgitate titles.

Thanks Mike, for this. You have definitely re-inspired me to to keep my eyes on the prize…to create the new instead of just doing what’s been done…because “That’s the way it’s always been” is not an appropriate axiom for the game development industry.

]]>
By: Armando Gerard/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5469 Armando Gerard Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:26:51 +0000 seriously?? 90 million Wii owners have been saying this for a while now...many of them since 2006, and some even earlier than that! Clearly the fact Wii was such a runaway success indicates there existed a market for radically different games long before it was revealed to the public. Now that Wii is ending its life, it's clear there is a huge vacuum of untapped potential left in its wake... 90 million consumers who were practically asking to hand over their money to anybody who would just step up to the opportunity and think outside of the box for once... Any developer/publisher whining about the lack of risk-taking and innovation is both a hypocrite if they haven't supported Nintendo, as well as plane stupid for leaving so much money on the table. --Wii owner with not enough games to play seriously??
90 million Wii owners have been saying this for a while now…many of them since 2006, and some even earlier than that!
Clearly the fact Wii was such a runaway success indicates there existed a market for radically different games long before it was revealed to the public.

Now that Wii is ending its life, it’s clear there is a huge vacuum of untapped potential left in its wake… 90 million consumers who were practically asking to hand over their money to anybody who would just step up to the opportunity and think outside of the box for once…

Any developer/publisher whining about the lack of risk-taking and innovation is both a hypocrite if they haven’t supported Nintendo, as well as plane stupid for leaving so much money on the table.

–Wii owner with not enough games to play

]]>
By: Matt/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5465 Matt Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:26:32 +0000 Old School Apocalypse? Or the return of that olden spirit! Today's indie vibe totally captures what it was like building games in the early 80's and shipping games with photocopied manuals in ziploc bags. The big difference is that instead of there being just a few of us, now there's a huge community to hang out with. Huzzah! Old School Apocalypse? Or the return of that olden spirit! Today’s indie vibe totally captures what it was like building games in the early 80′s and shipping games with photocopied manuals in ziploc bags. The big difference is that instead of there being just a few of us, now there’s a huge community to hang out with. Huzzah!

]]>
By: Darren Tomlyn/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5417 Darren Tomlyn Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:35:35 +0000 Thanks for you thoughts, guys. I don't think that "part 3 announcements" and new IP are mutually exclusive. For example, I'm working on a "part 3" game (Resistance 3) and even a "part 10" game (Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One) but we *also* teased our new IP (Overstrike) at the same time. That said, aiming higher isn't *necessarily* about new IP. It depends on your goals. Mario is a great example - if you're goal is to invest in an idea and really push it to become a household name, then maybe it's *not* (always) about new IP for you. I also don't think that you can quite divide indies vs. "big company" in terms of investing (and tossing out) ideas that don't work. I think that's totally studio dependent - again, what's REALLY important for that studio? How can that be pushed even further? As for publishers, only time will tell, but I agree with you Phil that the current model doesn't represent how things are going. So something will change. Maybe they'll adapt? Or maybe they'll just fail. The real question for publishers I think is about how *fast* they can adapt and modify their approaches. Mike. Thanks for you thoughts, guys.

I don’t think that “part 3 announcements” and new IP are mutually exclusive. For example, I’m working on a “part 3″ game (Resistance 3) and even a “part 10″ game (Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One) but we *also* teased our new IP (Overstrike) at the same time. That said, aiming higher isn’t *necessarily* about new IP. It depends on your goals. Mario is a great example – if you’re goal is to invest in an idea and really push it to become a household name, then maybe it’s *not* (always) about new IP for you.

I also don’t think that you can quite divide indies vs. “big company” in terms of investing (and tossing out) ideas that don’t work. I think that’s totally studio dependent – again, what’s REALLY important for that studio? How can that be pushed even further?

As for publishers, only time will tell, but I agree with you Phil that the current model doesn’t represent how things are going. So something will change. Maybe they’ll adapt? Or maybe they’ll just fail. The real question for publishers I think is about how *fast* they can adapt and modify their approaches.

Mike.

]]>
By: Phil Carlisle/2011/06/06/gamedev-we-need-to-aim-higher/#comment-5281 Phil Carlisle Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:08:44 +0000 MIke, do you see the slew of part 3 announcements at E3 as another sign of fear of expanding into new IP? Could it (also) be that at least indies work on concepts in quite small teams and toss them if they do not work, whereas a big company devotes too many resources to such conceptualising/prototyping things from the get-go? MIke,

do you see the slew of part 3 announcements at E3 as another sign of fear of expanding into new IP?

Could it (also) be that at least indies work on concepts in quite small teams and toss them if they do not work, whereas a big company devotes too many resources to such conceptualising/prototyping things from the get-go?

]]>