Making Games

[roadkill]

Correct.

But that's not why you'd produce it.

But then you're not evaluating if the game is fun, but whether it looks good. This is exactly why the industry produces so many soulless graphic demos.

When the little reels get made absolutely no consideration will be put into how to play it, because this means nothing to the person watching, compared with how many fancy effects you've used, and whether your art team can use Maya's dynamics systems. What the game actually is is only considered afterwards.

[tiedtiger]

But then you're not evaluating if the game is fun, but whether it looks good. This is exactly why the industry produces so many soulless graphic demos.

When the little reels get made absolutely no consideration will be put into how to play it, because this means nothing to the person watching, compared with how many fancy effects you've used, and whether your art team can use Maya's dynamics systems. What the game actually is is only considered afterwards.

I refer you to my earlier post where I said that such things are less important these days as far as the business is concerned, then to be able to show that you have a real product on your hands.

Besides, video clips are not a million miles away from a proof of concept for a lot of kinds of games. How many people here downloaded the trailer for Halo 2 and proceeded to cream their pants? They have no idea how the game will play until they get to it, but it does provide a genuine proof of concept to the audience. That's worth something.

These sorts of non-interactive solutions like documents and analog equivalent rules and video clips are not entirely valueless. They show concepts, product and intent.

In the movies, a script is not a finished film. It is a show of concept, product and intent. But a thousand things can go wrong with a film, and many a bad film has been made from a good script. You can't know what the final product will look like until it's made, but a good script allows you to hedge your bets (the old saying goes that you can make a bad film out of a good script, but you can't make a good film out of a bad script). And most released films are eventually only approximately like the script they were based on.

In games, design materials are not the finished product. A thousand things can go wrong with the project in the prototyping phase, a million things can go wrong in production, and the game at the end will only probably approximate what the original design intended. Big deal, so long as it's fun in the end of the day. The problem that the industry needs to get around is a fundamental inability to recognise a good idea from the bad without spending a ton of money in development to begin with.

That ton-of-money cost is what's driving so much conservatism in publisher choices.

[roadkill]

So you're a graphics whore then?

EDIT: I think it's the mentality you're expressing that is why things have become so creatively dire.

[tiedtiger]

So you're a graphics whore then?

What?

No, of course not.

I'm just advocating a pragmatic cost solution for the current environment. If you have a better way to produce an entertainment product design for less than 50 grand as opposed to a million plus, I'm all ears.

[roadkill]

How about get someone to knock up a playable prototype in some ultra high level language with placeholder graphics in a couple of days??

The reason this is a waste of time is the marketing people that make the decisions will tell you "It looks crap, go and make something that looks better".

[tiedtiger]

I think it's the mentality you're expressing that is why things have become so creatively dire.

Just saw this bit.

The business is pretty grim, that's true. But it's grim primarily because of the financial forces that override it more than anyone's evil intent or whatever. The scales and costs involved make it very risky, for one thing. They also therefore make it risk averse. If a publisher is to spend several million with your development house, they need to see that you're on the same page as them. They need to believe it.

In the current climate, that means expensive pre-done demos or movie franchise licenses. Cheap demos are worthless, because they invariably show nice mechanics, but no understanding of entertainment product. Unless you can make them believe that you're making a compelling product, forget it. It is easier to do this with sequels and franchises because you can say 'look, see, it's like this' and that makes them interested.

Expensive demos are ideal, but not many developers have access to a million or more to make them and see if they work. That rules out many ideas at the developer level. It also rules out any sort of young punk studio getting their foot in the door, because their demo will not look like a professional-level product.

So the solution is to ditch the demo side of it (initially), make a reel (cheaper) that shows you understand product, and get a publisher (if they like it) to fund you to make a proper professional demo, which they can then pass or fail. They will feel a lot surer of where their money is going, you will have the funds you need to do the real work, and you're all on the same page.

And you can crank out these product ideas at considerably less cost, therefore be more adventurous and sell publishers on really exciting projects because you can make them understand what they are getting from quite early in the day.

[tiedtiger]

How about get someone to knock up a playable prototype in some ultra high level language with placeholder graphics in a couple of days??

The reason this is a waste of time is the marketing people that make the decisions will tell you "It looks crap, go and make something that looks better".

Absolutely. They're looking for products first. I said all this already.

[roadkill]

Absolutely. They're looking for products first. I said all this already.

They're not looking for products first.

Brand first.

Product later.

[tiedtiger]

They're not looking for products first.

Brand first.

Product later.

They're the same thing.

What you mean to say is product first, gameplay later.

[smac]

Try one in twenty.

Historically, about 5% of games sold on the street actually are successful, so it's probably a more accurate figure, even counting in those few games that are pushed so heavily that they are successes regardless of quality.

You missed my original point -- probably because I didn't spell it out clearly.

You don't necessarily expect to fund all (random figure) six past prototype stage; the aim is to end up with fewer costly flops, encourage creative development and develop new IP.

Speculate to accumulate and all that.

Mind you, that's still no guarantee of success.

I can't honestly advocate a publisher follow this model when we all know, deep down in our hearts, that they can make shedloads of money making Harry Potter, Driv3r and Matrix games without the need to take *any* creative risk.

[roadkill]

They're the same thing.

Brand and product are certainly not the same thing.

What marketing want to know is what it looks like and who they can sell it to. Because 99% of games marketing people don't play games (never have, and never will) they only care about how it looks, and think that the way it plays is irrelevant.

To reinforce the brand/product thing: would Monkey Ball appeal to the same target audience if it looked like Halo? Marketing are more interested by the fact it has Monkeys in (which whilst great, is irrelevant) than the fact it involves rolling a ball around. Monkeys are just part of the branding of Monkey Ball.

[tiedtiger]

You missed my original point -- probably because I didn't spell it out clearly.

You don't necessarily expect to fund all (random figure) six past prototype stage; the aim is to end up with fewer costly flops, encourage creative development and develop new IP.

Speculate to accumulate and all that.

No, I got it. What I as saying was that the cost of this speculation would run to 6 million dollars by itself (6x1million) before you took even one of those projects on to actually make it. That's too much money for most, even for most publishers.

I can't honestly advocate a publisher follow this model when we all know, deep down in our hearts, that they can make shedloads of money making Harry Potter, Driv3r and Matrix games without the need to take *any* creative risk.

They do have to take some creative risk though, because franchises can die out, and tie-in products don't make nearly as much money as innovative product despite the high sales because the IP owner takes a hefty cut.

[tiedtiger]

Brand and product are certainly not the same thing.

Let me clarify that a bit (I was running out to lunch).

What I meant to say was that they're inextricably intertwined. A brand is a name and a logo. A product, for games industry purposes, is a trailer and a list of features on the back of a box and series of PR features with the developer in Edge, and a box on a shelf with point of sale, favourable reviews, and featuring the brand to sell it.

A brand by itself is worthless, and a product without a brand will go nowhere.

What marketing want to know is what it looks like and who they can sell it to. Because 99% of games marketing people don't play games (never have, and never will) they only care about how it looks, and think that the way it plays is irrelevant.

They also want to know what the product features are, where those thngs provide PR opportunities and so on. And with good reason. Gameplay doesn't sell unless it sounds exciting, looks exciting, and appeals to people as a product. That's why I said earlier that, for business purposes, the aesthetics of the product are more important than the mechanics of gameplay. It's roughly analogous to the way that PR and trailers and stars are more important for movie sales than the actual quality of movie itself.

But nobody actively wants to make a stinker, yet sometimes the business pressures force them to.

To reinforce the brand/product thing: would Monkey Ball appeal to the same target audience if it looked like Halo? Marketing are more interested by the fact it has Monkeys in (which whilst great, is irrelevant) than the fact it involves rolling a ball around. Monkeys are just part of the branding of Monkey Ball.

But the only reason that they are interested in the product featuring monkeys is because that's what the public is interested in as well. The public are NOT impressed simply by mechanics. There is no wow factor in game mechanics.

[roadkill]

You're clearly the kind of person that shown Tetris at a meeting would've gone "it's crap and won't sell - NEXT!"

[tiedtiger]

You're clearly the kind of person that shown Tetris at a meeting would've gone "it's crap and won't sell - NEXT!"

Stop trying to make me out be the bad guy here. I'm trying to advocate some way to get back to creative game design and production in a way that will allow industrial success as well as creative.

[roadkill]

Stop trying to make me out be the bad guy here. I'm trying to advocate some way to get back to creative game design and production in a way that will allow industrial success as well as creative.

You mistake creative games design for creative use of branding.

Game design isn't choosing what your platform game character is going to look like, or if your FPS is going to have a sci-fi theme, those are branding.

[JoeK]

Fingers crossed for Ed's RPG game maker for me.

I think you've got a cracking idea there - short (ish) serial-based games sound great. WHen Cavedog were around they had a vaguely similar idea - big epic style RPG split into chapters which would have been downloadable. Never got off the ground, and Cavedog went the way of the...erm...Cavedog, but I reckon the idea is remarkably sound.

Does the engine really need to be 3d though? I'd be more than happy to have a 2d engine, as long as the story bears up.

Hurry up Ed. I've got brilliant stories to tell!!!

Mainly revolving around aliens disguised as Clouds, farmers, and strange glasses...

[tiedtiger]

You mistake creative games design for creative use of branding.

Game design isn't choosing what your platform game character is going to look like, or if your FPS is going to have a sci-fi theme, those are branding.

Well d'uh.

I do actually work as a game designer, I am aware of what it is and isn't.

However, the modern industry does involve product considerations AS WELL AS game design. You'll never sell a game to a publisher without thinking them through.

[roadkill]

However, the modern industry does involve product considerations AS WELL AS game design. You'll never sell a game to a publisher without thinking them through.

As I observed earlier, you're actually better off leaving those elements to the end, because then you can brand it far more in the zeitgeist, as opposed to having to think "what's going to be cool when we finally get around to releasing this beast??"

The reason game design has stagnated is the preoccupation with branding, and projects being approved/denied on brand strength alone. Working with decent game concepts, developing the ones that work, and branding them at the end would be a much more sensible and efficient way to run things. Totally at odds with what the marketing department want to do though, sending pre-vis shots to magazines etc.

[tiedtiger]

As I observed earlier, you're actually better off leaving those elements to the end, because then you can brand it far more in the zeitgeist, as opposed to having to think "what's going to be cool when we finally get around to releasing this beast??"

'Brand it far more in the zeitgeist'?

What?

Your solution is highly idealistic to say the least, and prone to endless feature-creeeping development. It is the sort of solution that would have worked well in the 80s and early 90s, but not today for reasons of cost. It also takes no account of how long it takes to evelop a visual look for a game, or do all that animation etc. Between one thing and another it would result in giant-schedule projects that would never get done.

The reason game design has stagnated is the preoccupation with branding, and projects being approved/denied on brand strength alone. Working with decent game concepts, developing the ones that work, and branding them at the end would be a much more sensible and efficient way to run things. Totally at odds with what the marketing department want to do though, sending pre-vis shots to magazines etc.

That is untrue.

The reasons that game design have stagnated are much more complex, and most of them start with the financial reasons. Some, however, are to do with the matured market and genrification, the main natural ideas having had their impact, and the plain fact that there actually aren't many really great ideas out there.

What I'm saying is that design innovation has plateau'd naturally, marketing or no marketing, which has led to genres and a much surer sense on the part of the press and the public of the kinds of games that they like etc. The period of sharp innovation in 3d gaming is long over, and we have much more gentle innovation steps now.

[roadkill]

Your solution is highly idealistic to say the least, and prone to endless feature-creeeping development. It is the sort of solution that would have worked well in the 80s and early 90s, but not today for reasons of cost. It also takes no account of how long it takes to evelop a visual look for a game, or do all that animation etc. Between one thing and another it would result in giant-schedule projects that would never get done.

Rubbish. That's because you think about the art and code as so close.

You could have the art team doing an entire separate project to the coders. Whereas now you often have the art team a project ahead, you should really run them a project behind. This is so if space marines become cool you can choose to make your game look sci-fi or whatever.

Game design has become subservient to technical innovation because that's much easier. When you stop thinking creatively like that for any length of time it becomes much harder to return to the level of free thinking required. And 99% of ideas tend to be tat, but if you're not trying in the first place you're not going to get to the 1% of good.

I agree I'm being idealistic to a certain extent, but that's the point of the thread.

[smac]

6 million dollars by itself (6x1million) before you took even one of those projects on to actually make it. That's too much money for most, even for most publishers.

Then halve the costs, whatever -- I really just completely plucked them from the air as an extreme example.

And I don't suggest that you go from nothing to a $1m demo, either, so yeah, you'd be looking at cheaper ways of evaluating before you hit this point, as you suggest.

[tiedtiger]

Rubbish. That's because you think about the art and code as so close.

You could have the art team doing an entire separate project to the coders. Whereas now you often have the art team a project ahead, you should really run them a project behind. This is so if space marines become cool you can choose to make your game look sci-fi or whatever.

How to make a generic game:

Step One:

Assume that all of your departments are separate.

[roadkill]

Making a generic game is always as a result of trying to please everyone. Departmental separation has nothing to do with it. You're simply working from the assumption that big companies have departments, and they tend to output generic stuff therefore . . . . . . It doesn't have to be like that.

Separating design/code from the graphics will massively increase creativity in the design end, which is where it's lacking. People get way too caught up in being graphically creative early on these days, and forget the game in favour of what looks cool.

[tiedtiger]

Making a generic game is always as a result of trying to please everyone. Departmental separation has nothing to do with it. You're simply working from the assumption that big companies have departments, and they tend to output generic stuff therefore . . . . . . It doesn't have to be like that.

Making a generic game is often a result of believing that the process of production can be separated into generic lumps to 'boost creativity'.

Separating design/code from the graphics will massively increase creativity in the design end, which is where it's lacking. People get way too caught up in being graphically creative early on these days, and forget the game in favour of what looks cool.

Nonsense. Inspiration passes back and forth in a team, and one of the worst things that you can do is to try and drive a stake down the middle of it and fence it off into camps. It breeds isolationism, not creativity, and robs the team of cross-pollenation possibilities (where someone has an idea for an enemy, for example, and talks to a coder, who gets enthused by an artist's picture of said enemy and then tries to figure ways to implement its behaviour properly etc).

What you are assuming is that the art part of the project is somehow secondary and that artist's effectively skin whatever sop the coders and designers throw to them from the table. That's a foolish way to work because it creates generic projects.

What you want is to have all the various disciplines involved at the earliest opportunity in a small group, so they can all bounce off each other, have mad ideas and come to feel like they're working in a team toward the same goal. That is how you make interesting games full of character where the aesthetics and the mechanics seem to blend into each other.

[roadkill]

What you want is to have all the various disciplines involved at the earliest opportunity in a small group, so they can all bounce off each other, have mad ideas and come to feel like they're working in a team toward the same goal. That is how you make interesting games full of character where the aesthetics and the mechanics seem to blend into each other.

That's the theory.

In practise everyone has pet suggestions and ideas that they'll get upset about if they don't get in. The end result is a convoluted mess.

One of the gutsiest things I think a designer can do is look at something they've done and go "that's not working". In a smaller team it's more likely to get removed because there's less risk of causing offence, and there tends to be greater trust there. Especially if the bad idea came from someone senior, it's likely to stay in there regardless of the impact on the game. (Hardly unique to games this either).

Design by commitee in this way is a bad bad thing, largely because when trying to brainstorm the idea it's classed as "like [existing game] but . . . " at which point everyone round the table starts thinking about how good [existing game] was.

[tiedtiger]

That's the theory.

In practise everyone has pet suggestions and ideas that they'll get upset about if they don't get in. The end result is a convoluted mess.

Yeah, but they'll live. Good production and design is the ability to say no, as you said below:

One of the gutsiest things I think a designer can do is look at something they've done and go "that's not working". In a smaller team it's more likely to get removed because there's less risk of causing offence, and there tends to be greater trust there. Especially if the bad idea came from someone senior, it's likely to stay in there regardless of the impact on the game. (Hardly unique to games this either).

Design by commitee in this way is a bad bad thing, largely because when trying to brainstorm the idea it's classed as "like [existing game] but . . . " at which point everyone round the table starts thinking about how good [existing game] was.

Ok, hold on a second here. I didn't say 'design by committee' I said cross-pollenation, which is different. Design should be an authoritarian process, but open to input. On the other hand, cross-pollenation helps amazingly with covering all the bits and pieces of production that are needed to fill in the design and make it work. Designers can accept or reject these ideas as they come up, but to try and prevent them happening at all is one of the stupidest things that you can do. A few bruised egos is a well-worth-it price for a potentially gold idea. You can never know where inspiration will come from.

[roadkill]

I don't think that necessarily say the art people shouldn't have input early on. Just that it should be on a fairly random basis, and they really shouldn't be considering the games appearance until really quite late into production, as opposed to being the first thing discussed which is the way it tends to be.

One of the biggest arguments ever at the company I'm at was regarding the colour of the corporate website. It was the first thing they discussed, and the ensuing argument meant nothing got done on it for years, because they'd be so easily sidetracked by what colour they wanted it to be.