How much of the growth in development team sizes is a result of scheduling pressure from publishers?
Just because four people can accomplish the same work in half the time as two people doesn't mean putting four people on the job is the most efficient use of human resources. Accepting just two people means accepting slower production, but those other two folks can be applied to a different game.
Would publishers be better served by producing more games at a slower rate?
Bear in mind, this doesn't necessarily mean a barren publishing schedule. If average production takes four years instead of two, the publisher can still rely on regular releases by offsetting the various studios (Studio A's game releases in Spring 2010, Studio B's in Fall 2010, Studio C's in Spring 2011, etc).
Showing posts with label production. Show all posts
Showing posts with label production. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Pandemic job cuts
It seems the rumor about Pandemic closing was largely true. About 200 Pandemic employees are being laid off today.
It's unclear right now what exactly EA's plans are for Pandemic. Apparently, some senior Pandemic employees will be transferred to EA's studio in Los Angeles. EA claims this is not the end of the "Pandemic brand", so those folks may get their own studio within the existing infrastructure there in LA.
Three questions seem to be repeating among my friends in reaction:
First, assuming Pandemic remains in some form as EA suggested, what can we expect in regard to quality of future Pandemic games? I expect the same.
The sad fact is that high turnover is the norm all across the game industry, with few exceptions (Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling recently cited their good employee retention as a factor in the quality of their work). One might excuse this as the inevitable consequence of any project-based work or condemn it as something fiscally unnecessary, but it is the industry norm.
My point is that most of the development companies you admire switch out junior staff all the time. It is the leadership of senior staff and management which define each company's reputation. If Pandemic's leadership transfers relatively intact to LA, then I expect their high standards to transfer as well.
By the way, I mean no disrespect to the junior employees at Pandemic who have lost their jobs. The Saboteur seems like a great game, and that level of quality is not possible without talented and dedicated workers from top to bottom.
Next, how does this reflect on EA?
Many gamers think of EA as a giant, evil corporation that gobbles up the little guys and likes to churn out endless sequels to games that were once great. Five years ago, that might have been a fair reputation. But in the past year, EA's leadership changed, and I believe they've done a good job of improving the company.
Look at what John Carmack of id Studios had to say:
"I think there really has been a major intentional corporate cultural change there that came down from on high, that said, 'We're going to change the way things are done here.' "
Or just look at EA's recent games: Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Spore, The Saboteur, etc -- fresh, quality games. I wouldn't call Mirror's Edge or Spore great games, but they certainly excel in some ways and broke new ground. Some forget, but the studio that made Dead Space was called EA Redwood Shores when the game was released, not Visceral Games like it's called now. An EA studio was also responsible for a game I consider to be one of the best of all time, LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth II (the PC version puts the console version to shame).
Of course, EA could always return to their old ways, especially given a catalyst like our current struggling economy. I expressed worry a week or two ago on Twitter when EA made some remark about placing more emphasis on established IPs to protect themselves from the economy. It's hard to begrudge them that, considering Dead Space and Mirror's Edge certainly didn't sell as many copies as they had hoped. Anyway, I learned long ago that even the most reliable organizations can falter and the weak ones can grow stronger. I just accept them as they are.
Finally, should today's Pandemic news affect your decision of whether or not to buy their latest game, The Saboteur? I'd advise no.
Whether or not EA's mass layoffs were avoidable or even selfish, I have no doubt that the developers involved in The Saboteur want to see that the game they made is appreciated by gamers. If the game was shown lots of love on forums but no in sales, it just wouldn't be the same. That would raise questions about its quality, don't you think? The best way you can appreciate the fired developers is to buy their game.
Myself, I wouldn't buy it solely for that reason. I'm not saying go out and buy it to support those Pandemic folks even if the game doesn't interest you. I'm just saying, if it does look like a game you'd enjoy, don't let this Pandemic news stop you from buying it.
And, of course, you could also appreciate these folks by paying attention to the game credits and following their careers as they move to other positions and companies.
Anyway, what do you think? Does that all sound fair enough?
It's unclear right now what exactly EA's plans are for Pandemic. Apparently, some senior Pandemic employees will be transferred to EA's studio in Los Angeles. EA claims this is not the end of the "Pandemic brand", so those folks may get their own studio within the existing infrastructure there in LA.
Three questions seem to be repeating among my friends in reaction:
- Is this really the end of Pandemic?
- How does this reflect on EA?
- Should I still buy The Saboteur?
First, assuming Pandemic remains in some form as EA suggested, what can we expect in regard to quality of future Pandemic games? I expect the same.
The sad fact is that high turnover is the norm all across the game industry, with few exceptions (Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling recently cited their good employee retention as a factor in the quality of their work). One might excuse this as the inevitable consequence of any project-based work or condemn it as something fiscally unnecessary, but it is the industry norm.
My point is that most of the development companies you admire switch out junior staff all the time. It is the leadership of senior staff and management which define each company's reputation. If Pandemic's leadership transfers relatively intact to LA, then I expect their high standards to transfer as well.
By the way, I mean no disrespect to the junior employees at Pandemic who have lost their jobs. The Saboteur seems like a great game, and that level of quality is not possible without talented and dedicated workers from top to bottom.
Next, how does this reflect on EA?
Many gamers think of EA as a giant, evil corporation that gobbles up the little guys and likes to churn out endless sequels to games that were once great. Five years ago, that might have been a fair reputation. But in the past year, EA's leadership changed, and I believe they've done a good job of improving the company.
Look at what John Carmack of id Studios had to say:
"I think there really has been a major intentional corporate cultural change there that came down from on high, that said, 'We're going to change the way things are done here.' "
Or just look at EA's recent games: Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Spore, The Saboteur, etc -- fresh, quality games. I wouldn't call Mirror's Edge or Spore great games, but they certainly excel in some ways and broke new ground. Some forget, but the studio that made Dead Space was called EA Redwood Shores when the game was released, not Visceral Games like it's called now. An EA studio was also responsible for a game I consider to be one of the best of all time, LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth II (the PC version puts the console version to shame).
Of course, EA could always return to their old ways, especially given a catalyst like our current struggling economy. I expressed worry a week or two ago on Twitter when EA made some remark about placing more emphasis on established IPs to protect themselves from the economy. It's hard to begrudge them that, considering Dead Space and Mirror's Edge certainly didn't sell as many copies as they had hoped. Anyway, I learned long ago that even the most reliable organizations can falter and the weak ones can grow stronger. I just accept them as they are.
Finally, should today's Pandemic news affect your decision of whether or not to buy their latest game, The Saboteur? I'd advise no.
Whether or not EA's mass layoffs were avoidable or even selfish, I have no doubt that the developers involved in The Saboteur want to see that the game they made is appreciated by gamers. If the game was shown lots of love on forums but no in sales, it just wouldn't be the same. That would raise questions about its quality, don't you think? The best way you can appreciate the fired developers is to buy their game.
Myself, I wouldn't buy it solely for that reason. I'm not saying go out and buy it to support those Pandemic folks even if the game doesn't interest you. I'm just saying, if it does look like a game you'd enjoy, don't let this Pandemic news stop you from buying it.
And, of course, you could also appreciate these folks by paying attention to the game credits and following their careers as they move to other positions and companies.
Anyway, what do you think? Does that all sound fair enough?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
iterating early
Something great designers do is experiment and polish by iterating frequently. I wonder how early they start.
As a songwriter, I've learned that it becomes more difficult to iterate the longer I've stuck with a particular version of song or element. The more I play a song one way, the more linear my thinking becomes about that song. If I want to change a part, then I'm more likely to think of something similar to what I already have and not explore other possibilities.
The same is probably true of programming and game design. The earlier you can create something that even vaguely resembles what you're aiming for, and the earlier you can get 1st-hand and 2nd-hand feedback on that model, the better. Whenever you think up a new feature, get it into the game as quickly as possible.
Of course, sometimes feedback mistakes problems with a prototype for problems with the design it's meant to represent. Just because something gets booed early on doesn't mean it should be scrapped or reworked. Experiment early, but trust your instincts.
What do you think?
As a songwriter, I've learned that it becomes more difficult to iterate the longer I've stuck with a particular version of song or element. The more I play a song one way, the more linear my thinking becomes about that song. If I want to change a part, then I'm more likely to think of something similar to what I already have and not explore other possibilities.
The same is probably true of programming and game design. The earlier you can create something that even vaguely resembles what you're aiming for, and the earlier you can get 1st-hand and 2nd-hand feedback on that model, the better. Whenever you think up a new feature, get it into the game as quickly as possible.
Of course, sometimes feedback mistakes problems with a prototype for problems with the design it's meant to represent. Just because something gets booed early on doesn't mean it should be scrapped or reworked. Experiment early, but trust your instincts.
What do you think?
Thursday, May 07, 2009
libraries for developers
For as long as I've been following the articles and comments of game designers, I've heard that good designers play many games. The most common reason given is, as Ian Fisch put it: "When the designers all have experience playing the relevant games, their ability to express ideas to one another is greatly enhanced." Ian also points out that hands-on experience with a game mechanic can often dispel misconceptions from abstract analysis.
The advice is good, but playing games isn't free. It costs money to buy or rent a game. It costs time.
Fisch argues that development companies should schedule play time to enable more exposure to ideas and implementations. It's a good idea, but that still leaves the other hurdle: money. Which is why I suggest development companies should keep game libraries. I bet many companies already have such libraries, but it could be a standard practice.
But why libraries? Why not just keep a list of all the games each designer owns and promote sharing?
Well, that's not a bad idea, but there are some snags. First, anyone who has much experience sharing things knows how those things don't always come back in prime condition. Different people have different standards of care, and unforeseen events regularly happen. Reimbursement can be complicated in private transactions. Second, different employees will have different consoles. Loaning consoles can be a burdensome task, and many people share their consoles with family and friends. Third, it's simply easier to track ownership when the games belong to the company. And lastly, employees should be able to choose what they spend money on. A library, by contrast, can provide games that are more educational than fun, without forcing anyone to purchase a game they don't really want. Veterans might have large enough salaries to afford a lot of job-related investments, but I doubt rookies do.
So what I'm suggesting is a company room in which a wide variety of games and platforms are both stored and played.
The company might even arrange meetings in which the whole development team, or whole departments, play through a particular game together and discuss that game's features. Such collective play sessions would help the designers understand each other's styles and biases (which would greatly facilitate debates about their own game's design issues). Those sessions would also provide a regular and structured means for senior designers to impart knowledge to the rookies; and vis versa.
Again, I expect some of this is already practiced. But should it be a standard practice? And how might the idea be improved, if it's a good one?
The advice is good, but playing games isn't free. It costs money to buy or rent a game. It costs time.
Fisch argues that development companies should schedule play time to enable more exposure to ideas and implementations. It's a good idea, but that still leaves the other hurdle: money. Which is why I suggest development companies should keep game libraries. I bet many companies already have such libraries, but it could be a standard practice.
But why libraries? Why not just keep a list of all the games each designer owns and promote sharing?
Well, that's not a bad idea, but there are some snags. First, anyone who has much experience sharing things knows how those things don't always come back in prime condition. Different people have different standards of care, and unforeseen events regularly happen. Reimbursement can be complicated in private transactions. Second, different employees will have different consoles. Loaning consoles can be a burdensome task, and many people share their consoles with family and friends. Third, it's simply easier to track ownership when the games belong to the company. And lastly, employees should be able to choose what they spend money on. A library, by contrast, can provide games that are more educational than fun, without forcing anyone to purchase a game they don't really want. Veterans might have large enough salaries to afford a lot of job-related investments, but I doubt rookies do.
So what I'm suggesting is a company room in which a wide variety of games and platforms are both stored and played.
The company might even arrange meetings in which the whole development team, or whole departments, play through a particular game together and discuss that game's features. Such collective play sessions would help the designers understand each other's styles and biases (which would greatly facilitate debates about their own game's design issues). Those sessions would also provide a regular and structured means for senior designers to impart knowledge to the rookies; and vis versa.
Again, I expect some of this is already practiced. But should it be a standard practice? And how might the idea be improved, if it's a good one?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
executive rationing
I grew up in an area with millionaire homes just a short walk from trailer parks. So I quickly learned that rich and poor people, excepting the furthest extremes, tend to worry about the same things: grocery bills, energy and water bills, medical bills, tuition, gas, etc. This occurs because most people, regardless of social class, live up to their means. If they have money, they spend money... much of it on fruitless activities and items.
This basic psychological pattern applies to all aspects of life, including production of both artistic and (for lack of a better term) pragmatic works. Whatever resources you offer, expect them to be spent. I was reminded of this as I put Christmas ornaments on a tree. The tree would look good with half the ornaments I had available, but I felt compelled to use every ornament.
It's good executive practice to intentionally limit resources. Doing so not only helps to bring costs down, but also forces craftsmen to be more careful and innovative.
For example, provide artists with less memory storage and RAM usage than they would like. You can also place aesthetic limits on them, such as forbidding particular methods or styles. Challenge them by saying their new work should not look like anything they've created before (forbidding styles and imposing styles are very different in effect, particularly regarding the artist's enthusiasm).
Demand miracles. All the great leaders throughout history accomplished what they did because they demanded the impossible of those who served them. All people are capable of more than what they usually commit to. Inspiring leadership goes a long way in helping them achieve greater things. Their greatest reward will probably be the moment the job is finished and they can appreciate the extraordinary work they've done, but some positive encouragement helps, of course.
Writers, especially, need limits. Generally speaking, words cost nothing... and writers love to spend (use more words, more characters, etc). And a bad story can ruin a game. So be sure to place plenty of limits on your writers.
Allow workers to help choose their own limits. This doesn't mean accepting exactly the limits they offer, but their input will help keep the limits reasonable and also make workers more willing to accept the hardships.
People tend to rise to expectations. Even unreachable ideals can be useful when expectations are reasonable.
This basic psychological pattern applies to all aspects of life, including production of both artistic and (for lack of a better term) pragmatic works. Whatever resources you offer, expect them to be spent. I was reminded of this as I put Christmas ornaments on a tree. The tree would look good with half the ornaments I had available, but I felt compelled to use every ornament.
It's good executive practice to intentionally limit resources. Doing so not only helps to bring costs down, but also forces craftsmen to be more careful and innovative.
For example, provide artists with less memory storage and RAM usage than they would like. You can also place aesthetic limits on them, such as forbidding particular methods or styles. Challenge them by saying their new work should not look like anything they've created before (forbidding styles and imposing styles are very different in effect, particularly regarding the artist's enthusiasm).
Demand miracles. All the great leaders throughout history accomplished what they did because they demanded the impossible of those who served them. All people are capable of more than what they usually commit to. Inspiring leadership goes a long way in helping them achieve greater things. Their greatest reward will probably be the moment the job is finished and they can appreciate the extraordinary work they've done, but some positive encouragement helps, of course.
Writers, especially, need limits. Generally speaking, words cost nothing... and writers love to spend (use more words, more characters, etc). And a bad story can ruin a game. So be sure to place plenty of limits on your writers.
Allow workers to help choose their own limits. This doesn't mean accepting exactly the limits they offer, but their input will help keep the limits reasonable and also make workers more willing to accept the hardships.
People tend to rise to expectations. Even unreachable ideals can be useful when expectations are reasonable.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
imperfections and details
Again, I'm going to use a comment of mine as my post for the day. I have many good games right now that are demanding my attention (Fable 2, Dead Space, Saints Row 2, Spore, etc).
Savid Daunders asks whether or not imperfections, like flawed architecture of a building, are important to good level design. Well, consider these examples.
My first thought when commenting on his article was of modeling human faces. Modelers learned long ago that old people are easier to simulate accurately than young people, because the skin imperfections make the skin seem more real.
Another example is tree modeling. Trees generally don't look realistic without variation. Each tree is shaped by its response to unique challenges (ex: competing for sunlight) and setbacks (drought, bugs, disease, etc). One might argue that a perfect tree is one unhindered by any obstacle. The variety we see in believable tree simulation replicates the plants' struggles to survive and conquer. In other words, good simulations mimic the results of tree vulnerability to conditions and interactions.
Now consider item placement and arrangement in interior settings. Games started simulating building interiors more accurately when they started to include random objects and messes, like magazines scattered on tables and floors. When an interior setting is entirely neat and orderly, it feels unnatural. This might only suggest that someone recently cleaned it up for a special occasion, like guests coming over, but that's still an impression that should be deliberately created by artists when it exists.
Unlike novels and films, games are still only conceptual presentations. A concept is abstracted enough to lose many particulars. It's used as an inexact representation of actuality, begging forbearance from the reader or listener who is well aware of what detail the abstract omits or blurs.
Compared to best-selling novels and films, games include far fewer and, generally, less accurately rendered details of every setting, object, and character. An average book or film places dozens of high-detailed objects in one room which the audience might only witness a single time in the story. For example: in the film I, Robot, only five minutes of the movie occurs in the AI creator's home office; yet there are bookcases full of unique books (individually titled, colored, shaped, etc), many pictures and framed photographs, loose stationary, and countless other peripheral elements of setting... including a cat.
One of my creative writing instructors used to say that good fiction, like good lying, is in the details. Good storytellers make ample use of peripheral details to project a setting that can't be accurately portrayed with adjectives.
Technical limitations are certainly at the heart of this shortcoming in games, but also production focus. Developers make a conscious choice to focus on expanse, rather than depth and detail. It's a balancing act, and the proper course won't be the same for any two games or teams, but it's a necessary consideration in the process of planning and implementation.
There are many ways to tackle this issue, of course, but I recommend making it the sole concern of one employee to create details for the game's settings and characters. Let one person focus on fleshing out the presentation.
Anyway, the game industry still has a long way to go before our stories and experiences are as detailed as other media. And I say that will due respect for the admirable amount of detailing in games like Dead Space and Mass Effect.
Savid Daunders asks whether or not imperfections, like flawed architecture of a building, are important to good level design. Well, consider these examples.
My first thought when commenting on his article was of modeling human faces. Modelers learned long ago that old people are easier to simulate accurately than young people, because the skin imperfections make the skin seem more real.
Another example is tree modeling. Trees generally don't look realistic without variation. Each tree is shaped by its response to unique challenges (ex: competing for sunlight) and setbacks (drought, bugs, disease, etc). One might argue that a perfect tree is one unhindered by any obstacle. The variety we see in believable tree simulation replicates the plants' struggles to survive and conquer. In other words, good simulations mimic the results of tree vulnerability to conditions and interactions.
Now consider item placement and arrangement in interior settings. Games started simulating building interiors more accurately when they started to include random objects and messes, like magazines scattered on tables and floors. When an interior setting is entirely neat and orderly, it feels unnatural. This might only suggest that someone recently cleaned it up for a special occasion, like guests coming over, but that's still an impression that should be deliberately created by artists when it exists.
Unlike novels and films, games are still only conceptual presentations. A concept is abstracted enough to lose many particulars. It's used as an inexact representation of actuality, begging forbearance from the reader or listener who is well aware of what detail the abstract omits or blurs.
Compared to best-selling novels and films, games include far fewer and, generally, less accurately rendered details of every setting, object, and character. An average book or film places dozens of high-detailed objects in one room which the audience might only witness a single time in the story. For example: in the film I, Robot, only five minutes of the movie occurs in the AI creator's home office; yet there are bookcases full of unique books (individually titled, colored, shaped, etc), many pictures and framed photographs, loose stationary, and countless other peripheral elements of setting... including a cat.
One of my creative writing instructors used to say that good fiction, like good lying, is in the details. Good storytellers make ample use of peripheral details to project a setting that can't be accurately portrayed with adjectives.
Technical limitations are certainly at the heart of this shortcoming in games, but also production focus. Developers make a conscious choice to focus on expanse, rather than depth and detail. It's a balancing act, and the proper course won't be the same for any two games or teams, but it's a necessary consideration in the process of planning and implementation.
There are many ways to tackle this issue, of course, but I recommend making it the sole concern of one employee to create details for the game's settings and characters. Let one person focus on fleshing out the presentation.
Anyway, the game industry still has a long way to go before our stories and experiences are as detailed as other media. And I say that will due respect for the admirable amount of detailing in games like Dead Space and Mass Effect.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
the LBP delay
I have mixed feelings about LittleBigPlanet being recalled by Sony worldwide because of a song that includes a verse or two from the Koran.
The song in question was written by a Muslim musician who supposedly cares himself about being respectful. Even if he considers his action honorable, the other Muslims who disagree should also be listened to. But the key here is who has the most reasonable argument. There will always be people who are offended only because they are being unreasonable, short-sighted, or selfish. Such people should be engaged in conversation, but it is only reasonable objections that should be acted upon.
To some extent, I agree with this guy, also a Muslim. He does not like to see holy verses used in songs not of praise or in frivolous games (as opposed to educational games), but he also does not like to see censorship for the sake of guarding someone from conflicting beliefs. Speaking as a deeply religious person myself (orthodox Catholic), I can see the balance that must be found between open expression and sacrificial respect.
If someone insults a person I love, it's right for me to stand up for that loved one, but (in most cases) that person should be free to insult. We don't want to encourage people to be harmful or callous, but free will should be honored and people should often be allowed to act with even unreasonable disrespect. It's complicated when that loved one is your King, Savior, and Creator, but the same principle basically applies. People should be generally free to insult God. God is the giver of free will, so to undermine free will is to disrespect God.
Free will is not an absolute freedom, of course. Some censorship is justified. But it's right to generally rely on self-censorship. It's right to allow informal interventions to ensure interactions between persons and peoples are respectful. In that article, Jasser calls these informal interventions the "free market", but that seems to me a limited view of our informal interactions.
So what do we have so far? (1) Act only on reasonable objections. (2) Honor free will and allow informal interactions to filter discourse. What else needs to be added?
Well, we also need to recognize Sony's freedom to govern its own operations and determine what works will represent it in the market. Whether or not we believe the Muslims who objected to this song in LBP are reasonably offended does not matter as much as whether or not Sony agrees with their objection. Even if Sony's thinking is flawed, it is still that company's decision to make. As a publisher, it has a duty to honor the free expression of its artists, but those artists reflect on Sony and the publisher has a right to filter them within reason.
Ultimately, I think it's good if Sony decided to delay LBP because they agree the objections are reasonable and LBP is not intended to be a game that challenges ideas, though the disappointment of thousands of anxious fans should certainly have been a factor in the decision (as I'm sure it was). I only think this reflects poorly on Sony if the decision was more political than sincere. Like Tipa, I have to wonder if Sony is just following the popular trend of protecting Muslims while caring nothing for Christians and Jews.
The song in question was written by a Muslim musician who supposedly cares himself about being respectful. Even if he considers his action honorable, the other Muslims who disagree should also be listened to. But the key here is who has the most reasonable argument. There will always be people who are offended only because they are being unreasonable, short-sighted, or selfish. Such people should be engaged in conversation, but it is only reasonable objections that should be acted upon.
To some extent, I agree with this guy, also a Muslim. He does not like to see holy verses used in songs not of praise or in frivolous games (as opposed to educational games), but he also does not like to see censorship for the sake of guarding someone from conflicting beliefs. Speaking as a deeply religious person myself (orthodox Catholic), I can see the balance that must be found between open expression and sacrificial respect.
If someone insults a person I love, it's right for me to stand up for that loved one, but (in most cases) that person should be free to insult. We don't want to encourage people to be harmful or callous, but free will should be honored and people should often be allowed to act with even unreasonable disrespect. It's complicated when that loved one is your King, Savior, and Creator, but the same principle basically applies. People should be generally free to insult God. God is the giver of free will, so to undermine free will is to disrespect God.
Free will is not an absolute freedom, of course. Some censorship is justified. But it's right to generally rely on self-censorship. It's right to allow informal interventions to ensure interactions between persons and peoples are respectful. In that article, Jasser calls these informal interventions the "free market", but that seems to me a limited view of our informal interactions.
So what do we have so far? (1) Act only on reasonable objections. (2) Honor free will and allow informal interactions to filter discourse. What else needs to be added?
Well, we also need to recognize Sony's freedom to govern its own operations and determine what works will represent it in the market. Whether or not we believe the Muslims who objected to this song in LBP are reasonably offended does not matter as much as whether or not Sony agrees with their objection. Even if Sony's thinking is flawed, it is still that company's decision to make. As a publisher, it has a duty to honor the free expression of its artists, but those artists reflect on Sony and the publisher has a right to filter them within reason.
Ultimately, I think it's good if Sony decided to delay LBP because they agree the objections are reasonable and LBP is not intended to be a game that challenges ideas, though the disappointment of thousands of anxious fans should certainly have been a factor in the decision (as I'm sure it was). I only think this reflects poorly on Sony if the decision was more political than sincere. Like Tipa, I have to wonder if Sony is just following the popular trend of protecting Muslims while caring nothing for Christians and Jews.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
"anything goes" settings
The benefit of a setting not meant to be taken seriously is that nothing is off limits.
For those of you who avoid links like the plague, that's a video showing a Saints Row 2 "Zombie Uprising" mini-game. That's right, zombies in a ganster's paradise. Hilarious and fun!
A more serious, focused setting is often better, of course. But the benefits of a light-hearted setting should usually be considered while planning the game's fundamentals.
Aside from making expansion content easier to come up with, such openness in the setting also allows more opportunity to pivot during the production process. If a particular feature or activity looked better on paper than it feels after programming, then there are few limits to the alternatives available to you.
Incidentally, I might be looking forward to Saints Row 2 more than any game due out this year.
After playing GTA IV, I went back and played the first Saints Row... and I'm 100% convinced Saints Row (the original) is the better game. It's what the GTA games used to be. Rockstar is free to take the GTA series in whatever direction they want, but their last few games haven't felt anything like the early GTA games. The early games were sillier, wilder, and more open. THQ took over where Rockstar left off.
That's why I think Saints Row 2 is competing more with GTA's history than with GTA IV.
For those of you who avoid links like the plague, that's a video showing a Saints Row 2 "Zombie Uprising" mini-game. That's right, zombies in a ganster's paradise. Hilarious and fun!
A more serious, focused setting is often better, of course. But the benefits of a light-hearted setting should usually be considered while planning the game's fundamentals.
Aside from making expansion content easier to come up with, such openness in the setting also allows more opportunity to pivot during the production process. If a particular feature or activity looked better on paper than it feels after programming, then there are few limits to the alternatives available to you.
Incidentally, I might be looking forward to Saints Row 2 more than any game due out this year.
After playing GTA IV, I went back and played the first Saints Row... and I'm 100% convinced Saints Row (the original) is the better game. It's what the GTA games used to be. Rockstar is free to take the GTA series in whatever direction they want, but their last few games haven't felt anything like the early GTA games. The early games were sillier, wilder, and more open. THQ took over where Rockstar left off.
That's why I think Saints Row 2 is competing more with GTA's history than with GTA IV.
Friday, August 22, 2008
goals alone don't motivate
So I finally got around to watching the trailers for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. Just about everyone who has played RTS games since the genre's earliest days knows that Red Alert is one of the gems in the RTS crown, so hopes are high for any game that seeks to recapture that experience.
In RA3 (gamers love acronyms, right?), the graphical quality and visual detail are very impressive, the story sounds intriguing, and the scale of combat seems right for a Red Alert game. But you know what really grabbed me in the trailers?
That classic Red Alert music! Heavy metal guitar mixed with marching orders and a touch of techno. Oh yes. It's time to rock!
Music, more than any other artform, acts as inspiration. And inspiration is vital to any player experience. It's not enough to provide goals and some challenges to overcome.
It basically boils down to this: human beings are not defined merely by logic, by our capacity for reasoning. Emotion is every bit as vital to our being, and the purpose of emotion is to motivate. Every one of us sometimes fails to act in accordance with our own reasoning, and that is because logic is simply not enough.
Great music inspires. Wondrous and beautiful visions inspire. Deep and larger-than-life characters inspire.
Mathematical formulations fail to produce great works of art because art is math yet it is more than math... just as humans are logical, but we are more than logic. Calculations are often accurate, but they are not enough. A good game designer studies the science behind the systems, he pays attention to demographics and other statistical feedback, but he also steps back from all the numbers and the figures to look at his work with a child's eyes and a loving heart. He takes a moment to regain that child-like sense of wonder and asks simply, "Now, what would be cool?".
A wise man once said that anything worth knowing can be explained to a child. If you can't explain to a child why your game is worth playing, why your game is "cool", then it's time to start over. Goals and challenges are nothing without inspiration to pursue and conquer them.
In RA3 (gamers love acronyms, right?), the graphical quality and visual detail are very impressive, the story sounds intriguing, and the scale of combat seems right for a Red Alert game. But you know what really grabbed me in the trailers?
That classic Red Alert music! Heavy metal guitar mixed with marching orders and a touch of techno. Oh yes. It's time to rock!
Music, more than any other artform, acts as inspiration. And inspiration is vital to any player experience. It's not enough to provide goals and some challenges to overcome.
It basically boils down to this: human beings are not defined merely by logic, by our capacity for reasoning. Emotion is every bit as vital to our being, and the purpose of emotion is to motivate. Every one of us sometimes fails to act in accordance with our own reasoning, and that is because logic is simply not enough.
Great music inspires. Wondrous and beautiful visions inspire. Deep and larger-than-life characters inspire.
Mathematical formulations fail to produce great works of art because art is math yet it is more than math... just as humans are logical, but we are more than logic. Calculations are often accurate, but they are not enough. A good game designer studies the science behind the systems, he pays attention to demographics and other statistical feedback, but he also steps back from all the numbers and the figures to look at his work with a child's eyes and a loving heart. He takes a moment to regain that child-like sense of wonder and asks simply, "Now, what would be cool?".
A wise man once said that anything worth knowing can be explained to a child. If you can't explain to a child why your game is worth playing, why your game is "cool", then it's time to start over. Goals and challenges are nothing without inspiration to pursue and conquer them.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
silence in production
You might have heard about Paul Barnett's choice to discourage his designers from playing WoW. Not everyone likes the idea.
As I said at Ryan's, odds are that most of Barnett's team played WoW before, so it's not turning a blind eye to ask them to not play WoW now.
It's a trade-off. Fresh isn't necessarily better, but avoiding too much exposure to other games will help the designers to approach things from the fundamental goals and pressures, rather than starting with models. As Paul pointed out, the fact that something was extremely successful for someone else doesn't mean it will be successful for you. In any work comprised of many elements, it's how things fit together to create a whole that matters most. And in any art, masterworks reflect the individual designer as much as shared wisdom.
Beethoven wrote his best work when he was deaf. He had been influenced and trained by many other composers beforehand, but the silence allowed him to explore in a way he couldn't have done otherwise.
As with most things, balance is good. Designers should alternate between periods of studying others and periods of quiet seclusion (from other games). One truth every world religion pinpointed thousands of years ago is that periodic silence leads to clarity. It's harmful to cut out inspirational influences entirely, but it's good to moderate them with peaceful reflection and lone exploration.
As I said at Ryan's, odds are that most of Barnett's team played WoW before, so it's not turning a blind eye to ask them to not play WoW now.
It's a trade-off. Fresh isn't necessarily better, but avoiding too much exposure to other games will help the designers to approach things from the fundamental goals and pressures, rather than starting with models. As Paul pointed out, the fact that something was extremely successful for someone else doesn't mean it will be successful for you. In any work comprised of many elements, it's how things fit together to create a whole that matters most. And in any art, masterworks reflect the individual designer as much as shared wisdom.
Beethoven wrote his best work when he was deaf. He had been influenced and trained by many other composers beforehand, but the silence allowed him to explore in a way he couldn't have done otherwise.
As with most things, balance is good. Designers should alternate between periods of studying others and periods of quiet seclusion (from other games). One truth every world religion pinpointed thousands of years ago is that periodic silence leads to clarity. It's harmful to cut out inspirational influences entirely, but it's good to moderate them with peaceful reflection and lone exploration.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
PC gaming is never dead
Spurred by this and a half-dozen other articles, I'd like to explain why I think PC gaming is not dead, dying, or even dogpaddling in the kiddie pool and screaming that it can't swim.
A market will always be there.
As long as PCs are capable of gaming, people will be playing games on them, and other people will be making those games. Desktop PCs might very well disappear in the next 20 years, perhaps to be replaced by a non-centralized interface and AI that follows you from wall to wall to ceiling to countertop to oven to dashboard to [any flat surface you can think of], like a dog you cuddled too much as a puppy and now just won't go away. That is, afterall, the ultimate goal of Microsoft's LiveAnywhere project. When that day comes, there will be games for that platform. But until then, millions of people will play games on their PCs every day... and often when they're supposed to be working.
Modes of profit and delivery can and will adapt.
In fact, they already are adapting. As the first linked article mentions, companies are already experimenting with the use of advertisements to fund games. Some games will integrate advertising seamlessly and invisibly, but don't think the annoyance other games cause will prevent advertising from catching on. The first TV commercial wasn't three frogs croaking "Bud... Weis... Er!" -- it was probably three jerks, obviously high on Mountain Dew, yelling at the screen how Dapper Dan's hair gel could change our lives. Yet, despite our almost-constant loathing, we've come to the point where roughly a third of primetime television is commercials.
If you doubt this development for a second, consider that Battlefield: Heroes (which looks like a fun game, incidentally) will place its advertisements at the loading screen between levels/battles... just like TV commercials between plot events. Hopefully, the additional profit scheme, undisruptive microtransactions for things like appearance, will stave off greed long enough that we won't see 5-minute loading screens for another 10-20 years.
And let's not forget franchising -- the new industry buzzword. Even if Spore is pirated left and right, Maxis will recoup those losses from custom trading cards, creature models, and any number of other peripherals. On top of that, they'll be providing a number of online services which strongly reward connection to official (key-accessed) EA servers, thereby making pirated copies of the game weak and shabby by comparison. A thief hidden in anonymity is much more likely to respond to positive incentives than to threats, because he ain't scared of you.
Far from being on the decline or soon to be replaced by Asian business models, I bet we've only seen the beginning of subscription gaming. Prices and plans will vary greatly, largely because savvy developers will realize that they can start publishing content within six months or less if they simply abandon the nonsense that is the traditional MMORPG world. Start with less, expand more often -- made possible by increased dynamics and decreased emphasis on power and balance. Of course, that's only one of many development styles that will take advantage of subscriptions.
Games will be better
The quality of games matters. The PC platform, like console platforms, will occasionally have a bad series of years on the development side. The original Xbox was the victim of poor development throughout its life. Aside from the Halo games, few other games released on that console were worth a damn. Today, the 360 is the most profitable console out there -- selling more games per console than the Wii --because it hosts so many quality games. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone raving about the Wii, they're raving about Wii Sports... which comes with the console (I hope to own a Wii eventually, so don't take this as an attack). When PC game sales slump, a major factor is probably the abscence of quality-focused and reasonably limited game design on that platform.
"Reasonably limited?" I mean games, like WoW, that don't spit on owners of older PCs through insane processing requirements. I mean developers thinking about what they could do with a fraction of the funding and team size that has become the norm, rather than automatically accepting any resources available to them. I don't mean designing the next great solitaire game for Flash, cellphones, and a 5-year-old's Etch-a-Sketch. Games don't have to be quick, easy, or shallow to appeal to millions.
What sort of PC games are selling best? Of the top 40 best-selling PC games of 2007, nearly all are open-ended. MMOs, Sim games, RTS games, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Diablo (yes, still!) ... almost every one is a game with months or even years of gameplay, most with a strong social component. Even on consoles, what are the most anticipated games of this year? The ones with dynamics and replayability: GTA IV, Fable 2, MarioKart, etc.
open-ended gameplay + simple but smooth graphics and a limited scope = lower costs, greater revenues
But then, I'm not a dev, so why listen to me?
Speaking of open-ended games:
A market will always be there.
As long as PCs are capable of gaming, people will be playing games on them, and other people will be making those games. Desktop PCs might very well disappear in the next 20 years, perhaps to be replaced by a non-centralized interface and AI that follows you from wall to wall to ceiling to countertop to oven to dashboard to [any flat surface you can think of], like a dog you cuddled too much as a puppy and now just won't go away. That is, afterall, the ultimate goal of Microsoft's LiveAnywhere project. When that day comes, there will be games for that platform. But until then, millions of people will play games on their PCs every day... and often when they're supposed to be working.
Modes of profit and delivery can and will adapt.
In fact, they already are adapting. As the first linked article mentions, companies are already experimenting with the use of advertisements to fund games. Some games will integrate advertising seamlessly and invisibly, but don't think the annoyance other games cause will prevent advertising from catching on. The first TV commercial wasn't three frogs croaking "Bud... Weis... Er!" -- it was probably three jerks, obviously high on Mountain Dew, yelling at the screen how Dapper Dan's hair gel could change our lives. Yet, despite our almost-constant loathing, we've come to the point where roughly a third of primetime television is commercials.
If you doubt this development for a second, consider that Battlefield: Heroes (which looks like a fun game, incidentally) will place its advertisements at the loading screen between levels/battles... just like TV commercials between plot events. Hopefully, the additional profit scheme, undisruptive microtransactions for things like appearance, will stave off greed long enough that we won't see 5-minute loading screens for another 10-20 years.
And let's not forget franchising -- the new industry buzzword. Even if Spore is pirated left and right, Maxis will recoup those losses from custom trading cards, creature models, and any number of other peripherals. On top of that, they'll be providing a number of online services which strongly reward connection to official (key-accessed) EA servers, thereby making pirated copies of the game weak and shabby by comparison. A thief hidden in anonymity is much more likely to respond to positive incentives than to threats, because he ain't scared of you.
Far from being on the decline or soon to be replaced by Asian business models, I bet we've only seen the beginning of subscription gaming. Prices and plans will vary greatly, largely because savvy developers will realize that they can start publishing content within six months or less if they simply abandon the nonsense that is the traditional MMORPG world. Start with less, expand more often -- made possible by increased dynamics and decreased emphasis on power and balance. Of course, that's only one of many development styles that will take advantage of subscriptions.
Games will be better
The quality of games matters. The PC platform, like console platforms, will occasionally have a bad series of years on the development side. The original Xbox was the victim of poor development throughout its life. Aside from the Halo games, few other games released on that console were worth a damn. Today, the 360 is the most profitable console out there -- selling more games per console than the Wii --because it hosts so many quality games. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone raving about the Wii, they're raving about Wii Sports... which comes with the console (I hope to own a Wii eventually, so don't take this as an attack). When PC game sales slump, a major factor is probably the abscence of quality-focused and reasonably limited game design on that platform.
"Reasonably limited?" I mean games, like WoW, that don't spit on owners of older PCs through insane processing requirements. I mean developers thinking about what they could do with a fraction of the funding and team size that has become the norm, rather than automatically accepting any resources available to them. I don't mean designing the next great solitaire game for Flash, cellphones, and a 5-year-old's Etch-a-Sketch. Games don't have to be quick, easy, or shallow to appeal to millions.
What sort of PC games are selling best? Of the top 40 best-selling PC games of 2007, nearly all are open-ended. MMOs, Sim games, RTS games, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Diablo (yes, still!) ... almost every one is a game with months or even years of gameplay, most with a strong social component. Even on consoles, what are the most anticipated games of this year? The ones with dynamics and replayability: GTA IV, Fable 2, MarioKart, etc.
open-ended gameplay + simple but smooth graphics and a limited scope = lower costs, greater revenues
But then, I'm not a dev, so why listen to me?
Speaking of open-ended games:
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Leave the game alone!
Yet another poll for you. As I said here:
"As a gamer, I’ve always been irritated by patches. Patches for other forms of software are generally limited to bug fixes, optimization, and feature additions. Game patches, on the other hand, usually make significant changes to original gameplay. ..."
How I feel about patches makes little difference if most online gamers are just fine with them, I suppose. Do we have any idea what the majority thinks? Do changes to original gameplay (generally, not just the nerfs to your favorite class) bother you?
It's a certainty that a developer's game will not be exactly how he or she wants it to be at release. Developers of other industries are willing to accept that and treat their products as finished, if only basic (meaning additions are possible). Why is it different with games?
Aside from the problems mentioned in that WTG article, changing important gameplay features after release opens players' eyes to all the game's flaws. It makes gamers endlessly critical of published designs and diminishes their enjoyment of the games.
Some developers talk as if an MMO is some great democracy in which community participation in design takes gameplay to new levels. But that hasn't happened, has it? MMOs today haven't progressed far beyond what they were a decade ago. Most individual MMOs face the same problems years after release that they faced initially, like balancing issues. And if so many other industries can improve just through internal research and occasional polling of outsiders, why can't game developers do the same?
Should original gameplay generally remain untouched after released, excepting for bugs and polish?
"As a gamer, I’ve always been irritated by patches. Patches for other forms of software are generally limited to bug fixes, optimization, and feature additions. Game patches, on the other hand, usually make significant changes to original gameplay. ..."
How I feel about patches makes little difference if most online gamers are just fine with them, I suppose. Do we have any idea what the majority thinks? Do changes to original gameplay (generally, not just the nerfs to your favorite class) bother you?
It's a certainty that a developer's game will not be exactly how he or she wants it to be at release. Developers of other industries are willing to accept that and treat their products as finished, if only basic (meaning additions are possible). Why is it different with games?
Aside from the problems mentioned in that WTG article, changing important gameplay features after release opens players' eyes to all the game's flaws. It makes gamers endlessly critical of published designs and diminishes their enjoyment of the games.
Some developers talk as if an MMO is some great democracy in which community participation in design takes gameplay to new levels. But that hasn't happened, has it? MMOs today haven't progressed far beyond what they were a decade ago. Most individual MMOs face the same problems years after release that they faced initially, like balancing issues. And if so many other industries can improve just through internal research and occasional polling of outsiders, why can't game developers do the same?
Should original gameplay generally remain untouched after released, excepting for bugs and polish?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Prototypes, storyboards, sculpting, and other production thoughts
Once again, Craig got me thinking. This time, he got me thinking about the usual process of building a game and how it might be improved.
A long article. Sorry, I'm a thorough thinker. =P I might not write anything tomorrow, so no one feels rushed. Anyway...
THE PROBLEM
The core difficulty in game development is that the necessary process of trial-and-error is much more expensive for games than for other arts.
Revision
With any art, there's usually a lot of revision in production of quality works. So far, the development tools aren't such that game revision can be done quickly and cheaply. I think there will be a day when comprehensive software makes programming far less necessary (HeroEngine and Metaplace are just the beginning), but programmers will always be useful, since games will never be as malleable as literature or music.
Prototyping
The other side of that coin is prototyping. Prototyping lets you try different iterations of the same idea. It also lets you try different substructures within a main structure. And, most foreign to current game development, it lets you try many ideas (like concepts for entire games) before choosing the one with the most promise to flesh out.
I've been making music for something like 15 years now. I have literally thousands of recordings of song concepts (some are just riffs on one instrument; some are a full half of a song with multiple instruments and movements). I don't just imagine the concepts. I make sketch recordings; I build prototypes. One of the main benefits of this is that it allows me to receive feedback at the earliest stage. Not only could I let someone listen to a song concept and offer me feedback, but I could also let that person listen to half a dozen concepts and tell me how they compare. Often, words aren't enough to paint clear pictures for review.
Imagine being able to take half a dozen game prototypes to people you trust and ask them which they prefer. Like with revision, the technology will be there eventually, I think.
LESSONS FROM THE FILM INDUSTRY
Considering how game development compares to the development of other arts, I wonder if more could be learned from the film industry. Blockbuster films, like AAA games, involve incredibly high production costs.
So how does a blockbuster film get made? First, the script goes through multiple iterations before the final copy. A smart director, like Spielberg, then translates the script into a storyboard; drawings of each scene (camera angles, settings and props, actor positions, etc). The scenes are then filmed in order of setting and resource availability/efficiency, not in the order of the story. The director has some leeway to try unplanned shots and perhaps even extra scenes. Finally, when all the filming is done, there's a sculpting period in which excess scenes, filmed moments, and camera angles are cut out.
Concept iterations
The first question to ask: Are game developers beginning to code too quickly?
Hollywood scripts are often revised on-set. Surely, though, beginning "hard" production with more than just a basic skeleton saves a lot of money. Perhaps the game industry should expect more conceptualization up front, like the film industry does. A film director wouldn't start filming until the script is finished. Why should a game director start coding before the gameplay is more than outlined? I doubt that anticipating enjoyable gameplay is inherently more difficult than anticipating enjoyable film experiences.
Polish should be part of the concept phase, not just the production phase.
Storyboarding
Essentially, a storyboard is a production map of the IP. It goes beyond a Gantt chart's representation of what resources are neeeded when and by whom. It specifically diagrams how assets will relate to each other within a particular moment of the film.
I'm not a programmer, but it seems plain to me that half of programming is language (the code language, like C++) while the other half is logic. Why couldn't the logic be mapped out, similar to a film's storyboard?
I'm not suggesting that programming knowledge isn't useful at this stage. Like an experienced guitarist understands the constraints and capacities of the guitar as a particular music-communication device, an experienced programmer would understand the contraints and capacities of a particular programming language and/or other technical mediums.
Storyboarding saves money by keeping the production team small as long as possible. A storyboard also acts as a surrogate prototype, a more detailed representation for reference.
Order of production
Some game developers have shifted to a model of "pods and cells" (as one EA developer called it). Rather than having a programming department, an art department, a sound department, and a design department, one or more members of each discipline is placed onto a team devoted to one particular game feature. For example: on the production of Battle for Middle Earth: 2, one team was devoted solely to the Create-a-Hero feature for a time. I see this as an important movement in the industry. Perhaps it doesn't work for all games, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became the dominant organization style soon.
Unfortunately, in non-linear games, there's the problem of interdependency between features. If you give each feature to a team, how do you arrange for these teams to interact?
Leeway
Obviously, leeway's a balancing act. There are always surprises, so there should always be room for adaptability. Constraints are good for people, good for creativity. But hanging over someone's shoulder isn't so good. That balance really boils down to common sense and personal judgement.
Sculpting
I suggested somewhere before that identifying a game's audience should not be a developer's first step. It should be part of the concept phase, but at the end of the concept phase.
You should start out conceiving what you, personally, think is fun. Then you outline the game, and even flesh it out to an extent. Once you have this general picture of the game, then you consider the audience. That's when you look at what you have and ask, "What is this game trying to be? What is its primary appeal? What features are peripheral to the game's core? Who does that core appeal to?" Then you whittle idea down to its essence, ensuring that the peripheral features support the main feature in some way and that nothing is extraneous.
It's an old method that was used by such successful artists as Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Edgar Allan Poe. Poe called it "unity of effect". Everything comes together into a fine point, a single purpose. Removing unnecessary frills and whimsical additions is vital to clarifying and empowering the main theme.
Sculpting makes sense for the early phases of production. But I wonder if it might be usefully applied to the final phases of game production, as it is to film production.
Some substantial differences between films and games make film editing necessary. For one, film editing usually involves reducing the length of the film, because films are designed for a single, uninterrupted viewing. Game developers have to consider disc space and other tech limitations, but gamers generally want their games as long-lasting as possible, since games can be played in sessions.
Films are also edited so that the director can experiment and see how unexpected insights fit within the greater framework. One version of Scene 19 might give the audience a better sense of who a character is (perhaps because an actor was really on his game that day), while the other version of the scene is faster-paced and has a lighter tone. Because of the sculpting phase at the end of the film, the director can watch each version in the context of the other scenes (now linked together by the editor) and have a better understanding of how each affects the flow of the overall story.
In game development, the whole crew gets to play each new build of the game. Certainly, that doesn't eliminate the value of someone coming in toward the end of production for a completely fresh look at the game, but it does mean that game directors have access to feedback in a way film directors don't (yet).
So I suppose there's no obvious benefit to game developers of adding a similar sculpting phase at the end of production. I do, however, believe sculpting should be mixed in with other considerations throughout game production. In every phase, the director should periodically think back to that "unity of effect", and consider whether or not every aspect of the game is still finely focused on that ultimate purpose. Subtraction should always remain a part of your artistic palette.
A long article. Sorry, I'm a thorough thinker. =P I might not write anything tomorrow, so no one feels rushed. Anyway...
THE PROBLEM
The core difficulty in game development is that the necessary process of trial-and-error is much more expensive for games than for other arts.
Revision
With any art, there's usually a lot of revision in production of quality works. So far, the development tools aren't such that game revision can be done quickly and cheaply. I think there will be a day when comprehensive software makes programming far less necessary (HeroEngine and Metaplace are just the beginning), but programmers will always be useful, since games will never be as malleable as literature or music.
Prototyping
The other side of that coin is prototyping. Prototyping lets you try different iterations of the same idea. It also lets you try different substructures within a main structure. And, most foreign to current game development, it lets you try many ideas (like concepts for entire games) before choosing the one with the most promise to flesh out.
I've been making music for something like 15 years now. I have literally thousands of recordings of song concepts (some are just riffs on one instrument; some are a full half of a song with multiple instruments and movements). I don't just imagine the concepts. I make sketch recordings; I build prototypes. One of the main benefits of this is that it allows me to receive feedback at the earliest stage. Not only could I let someone listen to a song concept and offer me feedback, but I could also let that person listen to half a dozen concepts and tell me how they compare. Often, words aren't enough to paint clear pictures for review.
Imagine being able to take half a dozen game prototypes to people you trust and ask them which they prefer. Like with revision, the technology will be there eventually, I think.
LESSONS FROM THE FILM INDUSTRY
Considering how game development compares to the development of other arts, I wonder if more could be learned from the film industry. Blockbuster films, like AAA games, involve incredibly high production costs.
So how does a blockbuster film get made? First, the script goes through multiple iterations before the final copy. A smart director, like Spielberg, then translates the script into a storyboard; drawings of each scene (camera angles, settings and props, actor positions, etc). The scenes are then filmed in order of setting and resource availability/efficiency, not in the order of the story. The director has some leeway to try unplanned shots and perhaps even extra scenes. Finally, when all the filming is done, there's a sculpting period in which excess scenes, filmed moments, and camera angles are cut out.
Concept iterations
The first question to ask: Are game developers beginning to code too quickly?
Hollywood scripts are often revised on-set. Surely, though, beginning "hard" production with more than just a basic skeleton saves a lot of money. Perhaps the game industry should expect more conceptualization up front, like the film industry does. A film director wouldn't start filming until the script is finished. Why should a game director start coding before the gameplay is more than outlined? I doubt that anticipating enjoyable gameplay is inherently more difficult than anticipating enjoyable film experiences.
Polish should be part of the concept phase, not just the production phase.
Storyboarding
Essentially, a storyboard is a production map of the IP. It goes beyond a Gantt chart's representation of what resources are neeeded when and by whom. It specifically diagrams how assets will relate to each other within a particular moment of the film.
I'm not a programmer, but it seems plain to me that half of programming is language (the code language, like C++) while the other half is logic. Why couldn't the logic be mapped out, similar to a film's storyboard?
I'm not suggesting that programming knowledge isn't useful at this stage. Like an experienced guitarist understands the constraints and capacities of the guitar as a particular music-communication device, an experienced programmer would understand the contraints and capacities of a particular programming language and/or other technical mediums.
Storyboarding saves money by keeping the production team small as long as possible. A storyboard also acts as a surrogate prototype, a more detailed representation for reference.
Order of production
Some game developers have shifted to a model of "pods and cells" (as one EA developer called it). Rather than having a programming department, an art department, a sound department, and a design department, one or more members of each discipline is placed onto a team devoted to one particular game feature. For example: on the production of Battle for Middle Earth: 2, one team was devoted solely to the Create-a-Hero feature for a time. I see this as an important movement in the industry. Perhaps it doesn't work for all games, but I wouldn't be surprised if it became the dominant organization style soon.
Unfortunately, in non-linear games, there's the problem of interdependency between features. If you give each feature to a team, how do you arrange for these teams to interact?
Leeway
Obviously, leeway's a balancing act. There are always surprises, so there should always be room for adaptability. Constraints are good for people, good for creativity. But hanging over someone's shoulder isn't so good. That balance really boils down to common sense and personal judgement.
Sculpting
I suggested somewhere before that identifying a game's audience should not be a developer's first step. It should be part of the concept phase, but at the end of the concept phase.
You should start out conceiving what you, personally, think is fun. Then you outline the game, and even flesh it out to an extent. Once you have this general picture of the game, then you consider the audience. That's when you look at what you have and ask, "What is this game trying to be? What is its primary appeal? What features are peripheral to the game's core? Who does that core appeal to?" Then you whittle idea down to its essence, ensuring that the peripheral features support the main feature in some way and that nothing is extraneous.
It's an old method that was used by such successful artists as Michelangelo, Beethoven, and Edgar Allan Poe. Poe called it "unity of effect". Everything comes together into a fine point, a single purpose. Removing unnecessary frills and whimsical additions is vital to clarifying and empowering the main theme.
Sculpting makes sense for the early phases of production. But I wonder if it might be usefully applied to the final phases of game production, as it is to film production.
Some substantial differences between films and games make film editing necessary. For one, film editing usually involves reducing the length of the film, because films are designed for a single, uninterrupted viewing. Game developers have to consider disc space and other tech limitations, but gamers generally want their games as long-lasting as possible, since games can be played in sessions.
Films are also edited so that the director can experiment and see how unexpected insights fit within the greater framework. One version of Scene 19 might give the audience a better sense of who a character is (perhaps because an actor was really on his game that day), while the other version of the scene is faster-paced and has a lighter tone. Because of the sculpting phase at the end of the film, the director can watch each version in the context of the other scenes (now linked together by the editor) and have a better understanding of how each affects the flow of the overall story.
In game development, the whole crew gets to play each new build of the game. Certainly, that doesn't eliminate the value of someone coming in toward the end of production for a completely fresh look at the game, but it does mean that game directors have access to feedback in a way film directors don't (yet).
So I suppose there's no obvious benefit to game developers of adding a similar sculpting phase at the end of production. I do, however, believe sculpting should be mixed in with other considerations throughout game production. In every phase, the director should periodically think back to that "unity of effect", and consider whether or not every aspect of the game is still finely focused on that ultimate purpose. Subtraction should always remain a part of your artistic palette.
Monday, August 06, 2007
As go the testers...
... so goes the game. Who your testers are can be a powerful determinant of how your game turns out.
Difficulty is an obvious way in which feedback can be greatly skewed by the demography of testers. Take Battle for Middle Earth: 2, for example. If all of EA's testers for the game were avid gamers and RTS fans, like me, then EA would have heard that the "Brutal" computer intelligence is too easy. But if non-gamer folks like my dad had tested the game, they might have said that "Medium" AI is hard as hell.
User interface and pacing are other elements of a game in which the demography of testers can have a huge impact.
So what about the testers of MMO betas?
NON-GAMERS
Developers like SOE and Areae have spoken of reaching out to new audiences, to folks who have never played an MMO or even an online game. That's a pretty common goal these days. But how can they get such audiences involved in the testing process? If their testers are from the usual crop of MMO gamers, then their feedback will be skewed in favor of traditional gamers.
Think about it. How are beta openings usually advertised? In my experience, it's through gaming-news sites, gaming news-magazines, and emails to veteran gamers. None of those reach the audiences they seem to be aiming for.
What about advertisements on non-gaming sites, like Yahoo's homepage, or casual sites, like MSN's game zone? Do you really think just a picture a two or three lines of text is enough to coax non-gamers into trying your MMO? I don't.
My guess?
For advertising the final product and possibly for final-phase testing, mainstream non-gamer news seems like the best bet for these developers. Somehow, their publishers need to buy interview time on TV. Forget the newspapers; they've been losing customers ever since the internet emerged onto the scene, and those who still read a newspaper nearly always watch TV news as well. Don't just place 1-minute commercials. Interviews would offer more bang for you buck, since that would be more conducive to getting the point across that your game isn't just for usual gamers.
You'll probably need to augment the usual testing methods with payed representatives; more like with single-player games. Afterall, you're not just looking for non-gamers; you're looking for non-gamers who care enough to put up with an unpolished game and care enough to offer thoughtful feedback. The fact that it's "a free game" isn't enough to convince many of these folks to aid testing. Remember when you're targetting older folks that people get more set in their ways with age. It takes more for them to pay your concept the time of day.
A more unusual way for both advertising and tester-finding would be to set up computer stations with the game in supermarkets and convenience stores. The fact that it would be such an oddity is the hook. The sight's strangeness would cause many non-gamer shoppers to be insatiably curious. Those with a little time on their hands can watch the game's representative play while that rep engages the shoppers in conversation (ideally, not all game-related) to explain and peak their interest. The rep can then hand out flyers with the website and appropriate information to interested shoppers, perhaps even with the beta codes.
GAMERS
MMOs targeted more toward existent gamers have a different challenge. How can they limit their testers to the intended audience?
Why a developer would want to limit its intended audience might not be obvious. Afterall, don't you want to reach as many people as possible?
I'll talk more in-depth about knowing your audience in my next blog, but the basic idea is that every game feature both adds and removes potential players. For some features, this is obvious (FPS-style vs turn-based, HD graphics vs more widely accessible graphics, etc.).
So, imagine that you're trying to create a Warhammer-style game, which focuses on Realm-vs-Realm warfare and grisly humor. The game might attract many gamers who are not interested in either of those features -- even many gamers who are opposed to those basic concepts -- but who join the beta and stay in beta because they're presently without any fun MMO and your game is the closest thing to fun they have. They might even be common sights on your forums, because it's someplace to voice their opinions and desires for MMOs in general. And they might love some of your game's features enough that they'll tolerate the others.
The "closet thing to fun" bit is worth repeating. Just because McDonald's is the #1 fast-food restaurant doesn't mean the majority of their customers are thrilled with the food (though, personally, I love their McNuggets, regular cheeseburgers, and chocolate shakes). A lot of people go there because, for the price and location, there's no place better. People might flock to your game's beta because it's conveniently timed and located (advertised on the right site, or a quick-and-easy download). They might even join your game's testing because a friend is also testing. If they can hang out with a friend in your game, the game itself might not have to mean much at all to the them.
Suggestion
Include in your testing sign-up form stuff like "Which of these features interests you?" and somehow automatically monitor how each person's answers match up to his or her feedback. That way, if someone like me, who enjoys more FPS-style combat, criticizes your game's turn-based combat system, you'll have some context that may or may not color my criticism. If a lot of testers call for more active combat, you'll know how many are the FPS-desirers.
It's a tricky business. Tweaking your game during the testing phase to people outside your ideal audience might actually increase your potential playerbase. You might discover that an unexpected crowd is interested in a particular feature of your game, so making a mild shift toward that crowd's usual fare results in more people buying your game. But on the other hand, a lot of your testers may be folks who are willing to play-test your game, but not willing to buy your game. God help you if you tweak your game for a portion of your testers only to finally realize they were a part of the test-only group. =/
Difficulty is an obvious way in which feedback can be greatly skewed by the demography of testers. Take Battle for Middle Earth: 2, for example. If all of EA's testers for the game were avid gamers and RTS fans, like me, then EA would have heard that the "Brutal" computer intelligence is too easy. But if non-gamer folks like my dad had tested the game, they might have said that "Medium" AI is hard as hell.
User interface and pacing are other elements of a game in which the demography of testers can have a huge impact.
So what about the testers of MMO betas?
NON-GAMERS
Developers like SOE and Areae have spoken of reaching out to new audiences, to folks who have never played an MMO or even an online game. That's a pretty common goal these days. But how can they get such audiences involved in the testing process? If their testers are from the usual crop of MMO gamers, then their feedback will be skewed in favor of traditional gamers.
Think about it. How are beta openings usually advertised? In my experience, it's through gaming-news sites, gaming news-magazines, and emails to veteran gamers. None of those reach the audiences they seem to be aiming for.
What about advertisements on non-gaming sites, like Yahoo's homepage, or casual sites, like MSN's game zone? Do you really think just a picture a two or three lines of text is enough to coax non-gamers into trying your MMO? I don't.
My guess?
For advertising the final product and possibly for final-phase testing, mainstream non-gamer news seems like the best bet for these developers. Somehow, their publishers need to buy interview time on TV. Forget the newspapers; they've been losing customers ever since the internet emerged onto the scene, and those who still read a newspaper nearly always watch TV news as well. Don't just place 1-minute commercials. Interviews would offer more bang for you buck, since that would be more conducive to getting the point across that your game isn't just for usual gamers.
You'll probably need to augment the usual testing methods with payed representatives; more like with single-player games. Afterall, you're not just looking for non-gamers; you're looking for non-gamers who care enough to put up with an unpolished game and care enough to offer thoughtful feedback. The fact that it's "a free game" isn't enough to convince many of these folks to aid testing. Remember when you're targetting older folks that people get more set in their ways with age. It takes more for them to pay your concept the time of day.
A more unusual way for both advertising and tester-finding would be to set up computer stations with the game in supermarkets and convenience stores. The fact that it would be such an oddity is the hook. The sight's strangeness would cause many non-gamer shoppers to be insatiably curious. Those with a little time on their hands can watch the game's representative play while that rep engages the shoppers in conversation (ideally, not all game-related) to explain and peak their interest. The rep can then hand out flyers with the website and appropriate information to interested shoppers, perhaps even with the beta codes.
GAMERS
MMOs targeted more toward existent gamers have a different challenge. How can they limit their testers to the intended audience?
Why a developer would want to limit its intended audience might not be obvious. Afterall, don't you want to reach as many people as possible?
I'll talk more in-depth about knowing your audience in my next blog, but the basic idea is that every game feature both adds and removes potential players. For some features, this is obvious (FPS-style vs turn-based, HD graphics vs more widely accessible graphics, etc.).
So, imagine that you're trying to create a Warhammer-style game, which focuses on Realm-vs-Realm warfare and grisly humor. The game might attract many gamers who are not interested in either of those features -- even many gamers who are opposed to those basic concepts -- but who join the beta and stay in beta because they're presently without any fun MMO and your game is the closest thing to fun they have. They might even be common sights on your forums, because it's someplace to voice their opinions and desires for MMOs in general. And they might love some of your game's features enough that they'll tolerate the others.
The "closet thing to fun" bit is worth repeating. Just because McDonald's is the #1 fast-food restaurant doesn't mean the majority of their customers are thrilled with the food (though, personally, I love their McNuggets, regular cheeseburgers, and chocolate shakes). A lot of people go there because, for the price and location, there's no place better. People might flock to your game's beta because it's conveniently timed and located (advertised on the right site, or a quick-and-easy download). They might even join your game's testing because a friend is also testing. If they can hang out with a friend in your game, the game itself might not have to mean much at all to the them.
Suggestion
Include in your testing sign-up form stuff like "Which of these features interests you?" and somehow automatically monitor how each person's answers match up to his or her feedback. That way, if someone like me, who enjoys more FPS-style combat, criticizes your game's turn-based combat system, you'll have some context that may or may not color my criticism. If a lot of testers call for more active combat, you'll know how many are the FPS-desirers.
It's a tricky business. Tweaking your game during the testing phase to people outside your ideal audience might actually increase your potential playerbase. You might discover that an unexpected crowd is interested in a particular feature of your game, so making a mild shift toward that crowd's usual fare results in more people buying your game. But on the other hand, a lot of your testers may be folks who are willing to play-test your game, but not willing to buy your game. God help you if you tweak your game for a portion of your testers only to finally realize they were a part of the test-only group. =/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
