gamedevlists-design — List for discussing game development design

RE: [GD-Design] Dealing with the media

[Jamie F. <ja...@qu...>]

Sadly, the best way i've seen of dealing with media folk in general is show
them around the studio, don't show them too much, then take them down the
pubs and clubs and get them totally s**t-faced.

Jamie

-----Original Message-----
From: gam...@li...
[mailto:gam...@li...]On Behalf Of
Javier Arevalo
Sent: 27 February 2003 09:40
To: gam...@li...
Subject: Re: [GD-Design] Dealing with the media


Brian,

You are absolutely right; dealing with the media in general (not just
reviewers) is a serious problem, and you have to take it very seriously.
Just yesterday, a national TV channel came to the office to film some
minute-long blurb about "Praetorians". They were not exactly professional...
one of the questions they asked our FMV team was "Which movie did you base
this off?" The natural answer was "Inspired by many, not one in particular",
but such answer didn't fit their "editorial approach", which they felt was
clearer to the audience if they could give something more concrete.

Obviously, we didn't want Praetorians to appear on TV as some kind of
unnofficial version of Gladiator. We had an argument with them, and among
the stuff mentioned was the idea that we preferred to forego such an
appearance on TV if we felt that the portray of the game was not accurate.
They couldn't understand that simple concept (after all, everyone wants to
be on TV, right?), and so kept arguing the point, accusing us of intrusion
and so on...

We have had journalists come over to one of our presentations, and tell us
that they didn't like RTS games anyway (I guess they _do_ like spending a
couple days in Rome or wherever, though).

We have had work-in-progress articles complain about lack of balance despite
the fact that we told them "game code is pretty much complete, we're now
starting the balancing and QA process which will take several months." They
were just angry they had lost while playing the preview code.

This kind of thing happens all the time, and you have to be ready for it.
There is a fine line between being strict and being offensive, and most
media types are offended by anything that does not go according to their
wishes. In the end, you really appreciate having PR specialists take care of
all this, nurturing the relationship with the media, but you must keep them
on their toes and remind them that they are on YOUR side.

That said, I wouldn't care much about "idiots with FrontPage". Yes they may
be annoying, but the truth is, they tend to attract idiots.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone of how important it is to have a
good digital signature system for your preview versions (oh and make it
batchable, so signing 80+ code builds is a no-brainer!). If you can keep the
signature tool out of the hands of your publisher, you may have the
opportunity of knowing exactly which versions have been sent, when and to
whom.

  Javier Arevalo
  Pyro Studios

Brian Hook wrote:
>> Can you recall which reviewers gave the lazy reviews?
>
> There's no way you can really cull the bad reviewers out.  There are
> many reasons for this:
>
> - the biases of individual reviewers often change
>
> - if they find out they've been blacklisted, they'll often publicly
> accuse the developer or publisher of knowing that they'll give an
> "honest" review and thus this is obviously favoritism
>
> - often review copies are handed out by publishers without the
> knowledge or consent of the developer
>
> - review copies are often given to a magazine or a publisher or a Web
> site, without knowing ahead of time which individual reviewer will
> receive a copy
>
> The fact of the matter is that the popularity of the Web has allowed
> any idiot that knows FrontPage to throw up a Web site and have an
> opinion that someone will listen to.  Such is life, you just have to
> hope that there are more level-headed, intelligent reviewers out
> there than dishonest, lazy and disinterested ones.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=556

RE: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...>]

> > Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play Celtic
Kings 
> > in that mode :-) because the Pause is implemented in a way  that
allows 
> > you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen it coming, it was 
> > definitely "emergent game abuse" :-)
> 
> Personaly I like this kind of feature :)
> 
> It could also be something like a "speed bar" that you could 
> move back and forth, to play "a la" matrix :) When you want 
> to move from a point A to a point B fastly, put the cursor on 
> "fast", in fight reduce to "normal", and when it become hard, 
> switch to "slow"...

Well, actually it's exactly like that, with zero speed being Pause.
It's common for LAN games to bump up the speed during the initial
development phase, and then lower it back to normal when battles start.

The need for this, of course, is a sign of problems with tuning the
design :-)

Re: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...>]

Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:
>> Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and
>> "paused" mode.
>
> Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play
> Celtic Kings in that mode :-) because the Pause is implemented in a
> way that allows you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen
> it coming, it was definitely "emergent game abuse" :-)

Personaly I like this kind of feature :)

It could also be something like a "speed bar" that you could move back and
forth, to play "a la" matrix :)
When you want to move from a point A to a point B fastly, put the cursor on
"fast", in fight reduce to "normal", and when it become hard, switch to
"slow"...

IIRC, "HExplore" (an old Diablo like game in voxel) had a similar system.

    Mickael Pointier

RE: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...>]

> Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and 
> "paused" mode. 

Actually, some people wrote us to say they actually play
Celtic Kings in that mode :-) because the Pause is implemented in a way
that allows you to give orders while paused. We hadn't seen
it coming, it was definitely "emergent game abuse" :-)

Re: [GD-Design] Dealing with the media

[Javier A. <ja...@py...>]

Brian,

You are absolutely right; dealing with the media in general (not just
reviewers) is a serious problem, and you have to take it very seriously.
Just yesterday, a national TV channel came to the office to film some
minute-long blurb about "Praetorians". They were not exactly professional...
one of the questions they asked our FMV team was "Which movie did you base
this off?" The natural answer was "Inspired by many, not one in particular",
but such answer didn't fit their "editorial approach", which they felt was
clearer to the audience if they could give something more concrete.

Obviously, we didn't want Praetorians to appear on TV as some kind of
unnofficial version of Gladiator. We had an argument with them, and among
the stuff mentioned was the idea that we preferred to forego such an
appearance on TV if we felt that the portray of the game was not accurate.
They couldn't understand that simple concept (after all, everyone wants to
be on TV, right?), and so kept arguing the point, accusing us of intrusion
and so on...

We have had journalists come over to one of our presentations, and tell us
that they didn't like RTS games anyway (I guess they _do_ like spending a
couple days in Rome or wherever, though).

We have had work-in-progress articles complain about lack of balance despite
the fact that we told them "game code is pretty much complete, we're now
starting the balancing and QA process which will take several months." They
were just angry they had lost while playing the preview code.

This kind of thing happens all the time, and you have to be ready for it.
There is a fine line between being strict and being offensive, and most
media types are offended by anything that does not go according to their
wishes. In the end, you really appreciate having PR specialists take care of
all this, nurturing the relationship with the media, but you must keep them
on their toes and remind them that they are on YOUR side.

That said, I wouldn't care much about "idiots with FrontPage". Yes they may
be annoying, but the truth is, they tend to attract idiots.

Finally, I would like to remind everyone of how important it is to have a
good digital signature system for your preview versions (oh and make it
batchable, so signing 80+ code builds is a no-brainer!). If you can keep the
signature tool out of the hands of your publisher, you may have the
opportunity of knowing exactly which versions have been sent, when and to
whom.

  Javier Arevalo
  Pyro Studios

Brian Hook wrote:
>> Can you recall which reviewers gave the lazy reviews?
>
> There's no way you can really cull the bad reviewers out.  There are
> many reasons for this:
>
> - the biases of individual reviewers often change
>
> - if they find out they've been blacklisted, they'll often publicly
> accuse the developer or publisher of knowing that they'll give an
> "honest" review and thus this is obviously favoritism
>
> - often review copies are handed out by publishers without the
> knowledge or consent of the developer
>
> - review copies are often given to a magazine or a publisher or a Web
> site, without knowing ahead of time which individual reviewer will
> receive a copy
>
> The fact of the matter is that the popularity of the Web has allowed
> any idiot that knows FrontPage to throw up a Web site and have an
> opinion that someone will listen to.  Such is life, you just have to
> hope that there are more level-headed, intelligent reviewers out
> there than dishonest, lazy and disinterested ones.

Re: [GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...>]

>>> It's still real-time.  I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as
>>> more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and
>>> Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.
>>
>> I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on
>> "Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based
>> aspect of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who
>> *wants* those kind of turn based games but every time I talked about
>> it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one
>> wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time
>> !"
>
> Well, I think it depends in the target audience. If you aim for the
> more hardcore staretegy gamers you would be better off using
> turnbased, as that allows the players to focus on strategies, check
> unit stats, view terrain in detail and other things that an RTS game
> just doesn't have the time for. On the other hand, if the target
> audience is the casual gamer that plays RTS games and does not bother
> with the strategic content, then you're better off going RTS.

Actually, there are some multiplayer turn based games that sold very well,
and was quite entertaining: think about "Heroes of Might and Magic" by 3DO.


> There are variations on turnbased gaming too:
>
> 1. the traditional turnbased. When it's your turn to move you click a
> unit, move it as much as you want, see what it managed to do, get the
> next unit, repeat. Typical game here is Civilization, Steel Panthers.
>
> 2. turnbased with action phase. During an orders phase you give
> orders to your units, but they don't actually do anything yet. All
> action is resolved during an action phase where the units move and
> all action takes place. This seems to be very liked for more tactical
> wargames, as it is more "fair". You can't use a single fast moving
> unit as a scout into unknown territory and let it find all enemies,
> then follow up with the "heavies" once you know the locations of the
> enemies. A good example here is Combat Mission.
>
> I myself prefer the latter category.

There is also the "time limited" turn based game system. I think SquareSoft
used it on some FinalFantasy games. A lot of Japanese RPG games are real
time during the adventure, and switch to turn based systems for the fight
resolution.

Also Bioware RPG can be switched between real time and "paused" mode. This
system is quite nice, because it allows you to fastly wippe out small
opposition, while still giving you the opportunity to pause the game to
develop a better strategy in front of strong opponents.

This led to the point that the real important fact is not if you should be
real time or not, but if your are using not real time efficiently. The
advantage of turn based systems is that you have all the cpu time free to:

1) Display awesome animations and effects (eg: Japanese RPG fights in
general where the animations are done in a way to maximize the visual
results by knowing in advance who will be hit or not in the action)

2) Allow the player to perform very complex actions (eg: Merging/Splitting
armies, exchanging magic items in HOM&M, consult your counsellors for the
best strategy to adopt in Civilization)

3) Perform some heavy path-finding computation instead of using cheap bugged
real time path-finding, or give the IA opponent a real smartness with
evaluation of conflicts zones, sensibles areas, evaluation of forces on the
map, and so on.

If a turn based game could have been done in real time without sacrifying
anything in the gameplay, IMO it's a bad game.

    Mickael Pointier

Re: Different vs. too different was Re: Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?)

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>Or simply considering the monthly cash spended to keep a big
>publisher alive it's not viable for them to even try to publish
>something for these market segments ?

That too, although I'm fairly confident most publishers would be=
 very 
happy to have RC Tycoon's revenue stream =3D)

Brian

Re: Different vs. too different was Re: Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?)

[Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...>]

Brian Hook wrote:
>> it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one
>> wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time
>> !"
>
> And this is largely what publishers said to Chris Sawyer when he was
> shopping around RC Tycoon.  Specifically, they were deriding the fact
> that it had no competitive aspect, lots of little people, and no
> blood or violence.  They felt such a game simply wasn't relevant.
>
> So there are always opportunities when the big publishers simply
> refuse to believe that some market segments exist.

Or simply considering the monthly cash spended to keep a big publisher alive
it's not viable for them to even try to publish something for these market
segments ?



>> hmmm... what about the "rewarding" factor in the game. It has been a
>> long time paradigm to reward players with better graphics, more
>> demanding enemies and improved items to keep him playing.
>
> That's not rewarding as much as it is simply providing progressively
> greater challenges.  Obviously you want to do that, but at the same
> time you don't want to save your best stuff for the few players that
> find it by finishing a game.
>
> Basically, first impressions count.

On the Atari ST I had a game (forget the name) that had a nice way to keep
you motivated to continue the game. Instead of having an endless number of
levels, it proposed "rounds" in "leagues". The end result is exactly the
same, but you know that you had to finish a serie of 5 rounds to end the
current league and move to the next one. Each end of league displayed a
small screen with statistics and comments about your performance and also
some fun animation around that, a little bit like in Bomberman when you see
your character wininng with all other behind him in very bad shape.
Every each "leagues" you had a specific screen telling you how good you
were...

This way you still get the impression you had something new to discover, and
it makes the game more interesting.

    Mickael Pointier

Re: [GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>Can you recall which reviewers gave the lazy reviews? 

There's no way you can really cull the bad reviewers out.  There=
 are 
many reasons for this:

- the biases of individual reviewers often change

- if they find out they've been blacklisted, they'll often=
 publicly 
accuse the developer or publisher of knowing that they'll give an=
 
"honest" review and thus this is obviously favoritism

- often review copies are handed out by publishers without the 
knowledge or consent of the developer

- review copies are often given to a magazine or a publisher or a=
 Web 
site, without knowing ahead of time which individual reviewer=
 will 
receive a copy

The fact of the matter is that the popularity of the Web has=
 allowed 
any idiot that knows FrontPage to throw up a Web site and have an=
 
opinion that someone will listen to.  Such is life, you just have=
 to 
hope that there are more level-headed, intelligent reviewers out=
 
there than dishonest, lazy and disinterested ones.

Brian

[GD-Design] Re: Gamedevlists-design digest, Vol 1 #38 - 10 msgs

[<ham...@tm...>]

on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:14:20PM -0800, gam...@li... wrote:
> Message: 8
> From: "Ivan-Assen Ivanov" <as...@ha...>
> 
> > A better example might be the aforementioned Combat Mission or CA's 
> > Medieval: Total War.  The Total War stuff has sold very, very well, 
> > and I think it's partly because it wasn't the same resource 
> > management RTS that everyone else has written a million times.
> 
> There is a fine line between making your game too similar in apparent
> gameplay
> to one of the classics, and making it too different so that no reviewer
> gets it in the 30 or so minutes he is able to devote.
> As our lead designer put it after the first few reviews, "No more
> *different*
> games from me".
> We've seen wildly varying reviews - people who "got it" and played the
> game
> we play, and people who didnt "get it" and play a vastly different,
> shallow and bland game. (Of course, the blame for this sits squarely on
> us, not them.) For that matter, we've seen reviews which say
> "great multiplayer/skirmish mode, but the single-player is a totally
> lame, boring attempt at an RPG" AND reviews which say
> "great single-player missions, but the multiplayer/skirmish mode
> is a totally lame standard RTS". We got good scores both from
> people who obviously had played the game for 5 minutes (probably
> due to good marketing on part of our publishers), and from people who
> understood it; however, most of the bad scores we got were from
> reviewers who judged the game completely superficially
> (what, 2D graphics? only two races? shallow tech tree? must be bad).
> 
> Maybe in the long term, it's gameplay that matters. But for good
> reviews in the initial period, you need not only glitzy technology,
> but also very accessible gameplay. No one cares if two of your advanced
> units form a very interesting symbiotic combination in the endspiel,
> or if there's a great scripted sequence after the incredibly difficult
> mission 8. The game must be obviously good, not just good.
>

Can you recall which reviewers gave the lazy reviews? Personally, if/when
the situation arises, I'd like to do my best to keep review copies out of
the hands of useless reviewers. I understand that you typically feel you
can't afford to reduce the amount of exposure you get, but if these people
aren't doing their job properly (perhaps includes people who don't even know
how to do their job properly?) and they're doing more harm than good, then
it's time to cut them out, surely? I'd have nothing against an honest, but
negative review (depressing, but...) - but a review that shows someone has
just been a lazy **** is another thing entirely... 

[GD-Design] RTS vs. turnbased

[Jan E. <ch...@in...>]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Stefan Maton wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> It's still real-time.  I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as 
>> more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and 
>> Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.
>
>I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on
>"Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based aspect
>of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who *wants* those
>kind of turn based games but every time I talked about it to some
>publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one wants to play
>that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time !"

Well, I think it depends in the target audience. If you aim for the more
hardcore staretegy gamers you would be better off using turnbased, as that
allows the players to focus on strategies, check unit stats, view terrain
in detail and other things that an RTS game just doesn't have the time
for. On the other hand, if the target audience is the casual gamer that
plays RTS games and does not bother with the strategic content, then
you're better off going RTS.

There are variations on turnbased gaming too:

1. the traditional turnbased. When it's your turn to move you click a
unit, move it as much as you want, see what it managed to do, get the next
unit, repeat. Typical game here is Civilization, Steel Panthers.

2. turnbased with action phase. During an orders phase you give orders to
your units, but they don't actually do anything yet. All action is
resolved during an action phase where the units move and all action takes
place. This seems to be very liked for more tactical wargames, as it is
more "fair". You can't use a single fast moving unit as a scout into
unknown territory and let it find all enemies, then follow up with the
"heavies" once you know the locations of the enemies. A good example here
is Combat Mission.

I myself prefer the latter category.

-- 
                        "Bingeley bingeley beep!"
               -- The Personal Disorganizer, Terry Pratchett in Feet of Clay

RE: Different vs. too different was Re: Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?)

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>it to some publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No=
 one
>wants to play that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real=
 time
>!"

And this is largely what publishers said to Chris Sawyer when he=
 was 
shopping around RC Tycoon.  Specifically, they were deriding the=
 fact 
that it had no competitive aspect, lots of little people, and no=
 
blood or violence.  They felt such a game simply wasn't=
 relevant.

So there are always opportunities when the big publishers simply=
 
refuse to believe that some market segments exist.

>hmmm... what about the "rewarding" factor in the game. It has=
 been a
>long time paradigm to reward players with better graphics, more
>demanding enemies and improved items to keep him playing.

That's not rewarding as much as it is simply providing=
 progressively 
greater challenges.  Obviously you want to do that, but at the=
 same 
time you don't want to save your best stuff for the few players=
 that 
find it by finishing a game.

Basically, first impressions count.

Brian

RE: Different vs. too different was Re: Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?)

[Stefan M. <me...@sk...>]

Hi,

> It's still real-time.  I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as 
> more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and 
> Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.

I had some talks about turn-based games or not. I've been working on
"Incubation" some years ago and I absolutely liked the turn based aspect
of the game. There seems to be a fan base out there who *wants* those
kind of turn based games but every time I talked about it to some
publishers their reaction was : "Turn based ?!? No one wants to play
that ! It's long and boring ! Make your game real time !"

> imagination of the player immediately.  It's tempting to save the 
> best for last to provide a final sense of "wow!" when they complete 
> the game, but two hard facts make this a bad idea:
> 
> 1.  The demo is often the first few levels, so if they're boring the 
> 2.  Very few players actually complete games, so you really want to 

hmmm... what about the "rewarding" factor in the game. It has been a
long time paradigm to reward players with better graphics, more
demanding enemies and improved items to keep him playing.

IIRC our marketing departement told us (back then) that "Game, Net &
Match", one of the first real time 3D tennis games with internet play,
sold less because reviewers wrote that there weren't any trophies
displayed. The graphics were top-notch then but it didn't seem to
be enough.

Kind regards,
Stefan

Re: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Mike W. <ge...@ub...>]

>
>
>Many wants games that are easy to pickup, play for a few minutes/hours and
>which then can be dropped. I still play a few occasional games of online
>chess, as one game can be played in 3-5 minutes without any hassle. It's
>also easy to just throw a disk into the PS2 and game away during the
>commerical breaks of shows you watch on TV.
>
>One should take the "ease of playing" into account too. Not everyone wants
>complex monstrosities that take ages to start, setup and play. Almost any
>current "big game" falls into that monstrosity category.
>  
>
exactly.  i think this is one of the bigger draws of games like 
counter-strike even - you can jump in and play for 5 minutes or 5 hours 
... and have as much fun both times... that instant accessibility is a 
major factor.  

i have almost stopped playing single player games for that reason - 
don't have enough time to set aside for a 60 hour epic anymore...at 
least until deus ex 2 comes...or doom 3

i think it doesn't matter if you are designing a puzzle game or an 
action fps, allowing the players to jump in and play as easily and 
simply as possible is something important to consider...

mike w
www.uber-geek.ca

Re: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Jan E. <ch...@in...>]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Mike Wuetherick wrote:

>there was an excellent writeup from the indie games conference (i think) 
>that had a much better explanation of why - but by charging MORE, you 
>actually will increase your sales because people associate quality with 
>cost - charge too little and no one will purchase it.

A pretty interesting but off-topic analogy might be software that
bussinesses depend on. I've seen many IT managers say that they can't use
free Linux software, because "it's free, we have to have a price tag, the
higher the better".  The same may to a certain extent hold for games.

<snip>

>look at how popular the online versions of these types of games are - 
>the yahoo games, the msn gaming zone, all that - they are packed with 
>people playing these types of games...
>
>i'd have to definitely say there is a market for this type of game...

Many wants games that are easy to pickup, play for a few minutes/hours and
which then can be dropped. I still play a few occasional games of online
chess, as one game can be played in 3-5 minutes without any hassle. It's
also easy to just throw a disk into the PS2 and game away during the
commerical breaks of shows you watch on TV.

One should take the "ease of playing" into account too. Not everyone wants
complex monstrosities that take ages to start, setup and play. Almost any
current "big game" falls into that monstrosity category.

-- 
                        "Bingeley bingeley beep!"
               -- The Personal Disorganizer, Terry Pratchett in Feet of Clay

Re: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Mike W. <ge...@ub...>]

Brian Hook wrote:

>>This remark about _puzzle games_ reminds me a discussion I had with
>>some friends about what is sometimes called "desktop games". I
>>wonder how much people are willing to pay for this kind of games ?
>>    
>>
>
>$15-20 seems to be the sweet spot, but I doubt any real research has 
>gone into pricing models.
>  
>
i'd have to say that charging less than that and you are ripping 
yourselves off as the developers.  

there was an excellent writeup from the indie games conference (i think) 
that had a much better explanation of why - but by charging MORE, you 
actually will increase your sales because people associate quality with 
cost - charge too little and no one will purchase it.

>>Do you think there is a market for decently made games of this kind
>>?
>>    
>>
>Er, yes.  Most of our business model (www.pyrogon.com) is predicated 
>directly on targeting that player base.  Word games, puzzle games, 
>card games, etc.
>  
>
look at how popular the online versions of these types of games are - 
the yahoo games, the msn gaming zone, all that - they are packed with 
people playing these types of games...

i'd have to definitely say there is a market for this type of game...

mike w
www.uber-geek.ca

Re: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>This remark about _puzzle games_ reminds me a discussion I had=
 with
>some friends about what is sometimes called "desktop games". I
>wonder how much people are willing to pay for this kind of games=
 ?

$15-20 seems to be the sweet spot, but I doubt any real research=
 has 
gone into pricing models.

>Do you think there is a market for decently made games of this=
 kind
>?

Er, yes.  Most of our business model (www.pyrogon.com) is=
 predicated 
directly on targeting that player base.  Word games, puzzle=
 games, 
card games, etc.

Brian

Different vs. too different was Re: Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?)

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>While Total War is a fine game by itself, I believe a large=
 amount
>of its sales can be attributed to its pretense of realism and
>"historism".

I don't think that's the case, because, honestly, there aren't=
 enough 
history buffs to really make it a top 10 game, and it was in the=
 top 
10 for several weeks.

The realism factor -- large unit movement -- and lack of resource=
 
management I think greatly contributed to its fun.  Also note=
 that 
its graphics weren't particularly anything to write home about.

>So I guess Total War took some part of the substantial, although=
 not
>very large wargame market.

It's still real-time.  I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames"=
 as 
more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General=
 and 
Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.

>There is a fine line between making your game too similar in
>apparent gameplay to one of the classics, and making it too
>different so that no reviewer gets it in the 30 or so minutes he=
 is
>able to devote.

I completely agree.  Having come from the first-person shooting 
genre, I witnessed this first hand with the migration from Quake=
 to 
Quake 2.  ANY change that was entertained was derided by half the=
 
market as "not being true to our roots", but any LACK of change=
 was 
perceived as "same old stuff, unoriginal".  It's a tough line to=
 
balance.

Which is why sometimes you have to come out with something SO 
different that people have to dump much of their preconceived 
notions.  I think Homeworld and Thief captured this very well.  
Homeworld felt like an RTS, but the extra dimension changed=
 things so 
much that you couldn't think in terms of 2D bases/units anymore.

Thief felt like a first-person shooter, and a lot of people still=
 
reviewed it as such, but it obviously was not, and enjoyed a lot=
 of 
success for being so different (and still good).

>As our lead designer put it after the first few reviews, "No=
 more
>*different* games from me".

I think there's an area where you can be so different that people=
 
don't "get it", but yet still similar enough that people have=
 certain 
expectations that may not be met.  It's what helicopter pilots=
 call 
the dead man's curve.  There's a zone where if you lose your=
 engine 
you must be high enough to allow for autotation to safety, or low=
 
enough that you can survive the crash, but if you're in between,=
 
you're pretty much dead.

>different, shallow and bland game. (Of course, the blame for=
 this
>sits squarely on us, not them.)

I think that's a really positive attitude to have, because it=
 gives 
you room to grow in the future.  I've seen too many game=
 designers 
that blame the players for not enjoying their game.  Trust me,=
 it's 
tempting to do when I get e-mails from people that disliked Candy=
 
Cruncher =3D)

>reviewers who judged the game completely superficially (what,=
 2D
>graphics? only two races? shallow tech tree? must be bad).

Unfortunately the nature of the Internet is such that anyone can=
 have 
an opinion.  I know of at least one reviewer who has bragged to=
 me 
that for "shitty games" he doesn't even bother opening the box,=
 he 
just sells it on eBay.  And this is from one of the more=
 respected 
sites *sigh*

>Maybe in the long term, it's gameplay that matters. But for=
 good
>reviews in the initial period, you need not only glitzy=
 technology,
>but also very accessible gameplay. 

Yes.  As the player base matures and broadens we're seeing 
accessibility becoming more and more important.  I remember=
 trying to 
show a friend how to play Quake, and often we forget how=
 incredibly 
difficult mouselook was to learn when first playing.

I'm happy to see the trend towards integrated tutorials, etc. so=
 that 
you can learn without reading a manual.

>No one cares if two of your
>advanced units form a very interesting symbiotic combination in=
 the
>endspiel, or if there's a great scripted sequence after the
>incredibly difficult mission 8. The game must be obviously good,=
 not
>just good.

Also a very good point.  I had a friend comment once that "You=
 need 
to show your best stuff FIRST", because that's what captures the=
 
imagination of the player immediately.  It's tempting to save the=
 
best for last to provide a final sense of "wow!" when they=
 complete 
the game, but two hard facts make this a bad idea:

1.  The demo is often the first few levels, so if they're boring=
 the 
game will be perceived as boring.  I'm amazed how many times I've=
 
downloaded a demo and it ends up being the tutorial with no 
indication of the actual gameplay.

2.  Very few players actually complete games, so you really want=
 to 
front load as much content as possible.

Brian

Re: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Mickael P. <mpo...@ed...>]

> We sell _puzzle games_ for $20 and we're surviving quite well.
> Hardcore gameers laugh at us because, hey, Candy Cruncher isn't
> 1/10th as cool as Serious Sam, and yet it's the same price.  But our
> consumers DON'T CARE, because they're not buying our games thinking
> "Man, this puzzle game is a rip off because Serious Sam is the same
> price!", they're thinking "Hey, this is fun, I finally found a game I
> can relate to!"

This remark about _puzzle games_ reminds me a discussion I had with some
friends about what is sometimes called "desktop games". I wonder how much
people are willing to pay for this kind of games ?

A lot of people are playing MineSweeper, FreeCell, and other windows games
during compilation, printing of a rapport, waiting for the end of a
rendering, and so on...

Do you think there is a market for decently made games of this kind ?

    Mickael Pointier

RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Oscar C. <osc...@cr...>]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:

>Personally I'd like to one day see the old "Laser Squad" ported to Linux,
>or just about any of the old (1980:s) SSI games. Ah, those were strategy
>games...

Interesting choice of game...

Julian and Nick Gollop founded an indie studio called Codo Technologies a
couple of years back, after the collapse of Mythos Games. They're now
self-publishing a subscription-based play-by-email game called "Laser Squad:
Nemesis":

http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/

The last time we spoke, they were looking into some very interesting sales
models (I'm not sure if I should elaborate, so I won't - but you might be
able to work some of it out for yourselves using Google and a little
imagination).

Oscar Cooper.
Creature Labs.

PS: The last time we spoke, there was only a Win32 client available - but a
Linux port was always on the TODO list :-)

Reviews (was RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?)

[Ivan-Assen I. <as...@ha...>]

> A better example might be the aforementioned Combat Mission or CA's 
> Medieval: Total War.  The Total War stuff has sold very, very well, 
> and I think it's partly because it wasn't the same resource 
> management RTS that everyone else has written a million times.

While Total War is a fine game by itself, I believe a large amount
of its sales can be attributed to its pretense of realism and
"historism". 
There are a lot of history buffs. On our forum and our support email
we get quite a lot of emails of the following two types:

1. "Your game is great! Why don't you do a historical campaign about
the battles of King Umperdincus the Greenbearded and his conquest of
Zashmorzonia? I have a lot of friend who are interested in the
history of Zashmorzonia [read: 2] and they would all buy it!"

2. "Your game sucks! I bought it because I'm interested in Roman
history,
but what's with all those 'spells' and 'healing' and 'druids'?
It's totally unrealistic."

So I guess Total War took some part of the substantial, although not
very large wargame market.

> Not to belabor the point -- and without having seen your game even 
> once -- then I would think that the design wasn't sufficiently 
> different for the reviewers to retain interest.

(BTW, if you have any interest in RTS games, EBGames already list it
for $9.99... not exactly a plug, because, obviously, at that price
nothing would come to us. And no, Jan, it's not a clickfest by any
means.)

There is a fine line between making your game too similar in apparent
gameplay
to one of the classics, and making it too different so that no reviewer
gets it in the 30 or so minutes he is able to devote.
As our lead designer put it after the first few reviews, "No more
*different*
games from me".
We've seen wildly varying reviews - people who "got it" and played the
game
we play, and people who didnt "get it" and play a vastly different,
shallow and bland game. (Of course, the blame for this sits squarely on
us, not them.) For that matter, we've seen reviews which say
"great multiplayer/skirmish mode, but the single-player is a totally
lame, boring attempt at an RPG" AND reviews which say
"great single-player missions, but the multiplayer/skirmish mode
is a totally lame standard RTS". We got good scores both from
people who obviously had played the game for 5 minutes (probably
due to good marketing on part of our publishers), and from people who
understood it; however, most of the bad scores we got were from
reviewers who judged the game completely superficially
(what, 2D graphics? only two races? shallow tech tree? must be bad).

Maybe in the long term, it's gameplay that matters. But for good
reviews in the initial period, you need not only glitzy technology,
but also very accessible gameplay. No one cares if two of your advanced
units form a very interesting symbiotic combination in the endspiel,
or if there's a great scripted sequence after the incredibly difficult
mission 8. The game must be obviously good, not just good.

RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Jan E. <ch...@in...>]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:

>> >Actually, I think there is one genre where one person could 
>> do a great game: strategy games.
>
>One advice from the trenches: if you start out doing a strategy game,
>make sure it doesn't hit the market right between the then-current
>iterations of BlizzardCraft and Age Of Ensembles. :-)

Heh, if I actually created a strategy game the average RTS gamer would
have a far too short attention span to play it. Strategy games are not RTS
games, it's very unfortunate that the whole genre of strategy games has
nowadays been associated with this (imho) stupid little sector.

Personally I'd like to one day see the old "Laser Squad" ported to Linux,
or just about any of the old (1980:s) SSI games. Ah, those were strategy
games...


-- 
      Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
                          -- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)

RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Jan E. <ch...@in...>]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ivan-Assen Ivanov wrote:

>> Of course, but that genre is a bit more realistic. Players 
>> don't demand state-of-the-art multithreaded texturewhizbangs 
>> with Cg and THX 6.3 sound in a teratexel DVD engine. Only 
>> games with no real playable content need that. :)
>
>Ummm, do you want a digest of the "graphics" sections of Celtic Kings
>reviews (by the way, published by the aforementioned StrategyFirst)?
>"outdated", "AOE clone", "not up to modern standards", "plain", etc...

As I already said I am not including silly RTS games into the category
"strategy games". RTS games should be called something else, maybe
"realtime clickfests" (RTF)...

-- 
      Real children don't go hoppity-skip unless they are on drugs.
                          -- Susan Sto Helit, in Hogfather (Terry Pratchett)

RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>But in almost all reviews there was a mention of how dated the
>graphics technology was. If the reviewer had an overall=
 favorable
>impression of the game, it was along the lines of "dated but=
 OK",
>otherwise it was "too dated to compete".

Not to belabor the point -- and without having seen your game=
 even 
once -- then I would think that the design wasn't sufficiently 
different for the reviewers to retain interest.  Take that same=
 type 
of engine and do a radically different design, or at least one=
 that 
makes people sit up and realize that it IS different, and you're=
 onto 
something.

Brian

RE: [GD-Design] Indie games?

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

>One advice from the trenches: if you start out doing a strategy
>game, make sure it doesn't hit the market right between the=
 then-
>current iterations of BlizzardCraft and Age Of Ensembles. :-)

A-ha, but that assumes you're writing a game that competes with=
 them 
stylistically, and I would submit that that is a losing battle no=
 
matter how good you are =3D)

A better example might be the aforementioned Combat Mission or=
 CA's 
Medieval: Total War.  The Total War stuff has sold very, very=
 well, 
and I think it's partly because it wasn't the same resource 
management RTS that everyone else has written a million times.

It also really pushed the envelope with having so many units on 
screen, which looked awesome.

Brian