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