Game Design, Programming and running a one-man games business…

What is this list?

  • “Only the paranoid survive” – the story of Intel.
  • A book on tactics and strategies used in war
  • A pizza cutter shaped like the USS Enterprise NCC-1701
  • A darwin fish car sticker
  • A book on advertising
  • A trip to see the stage version of ‘Yes Minister’.

Answers on a postcard…

The hypothetical endless-development indie game

There are basically two types of big budget studio-made PC game. The AAA singleplayer or multiplayer game, and the MMO. In some rare cases, the studio will hold over a big proportion of the budget to provide post release supprot to encourage continued playing of the non MMO game. The best examples of these are clearly Team Fortress 2 and Galactic Civilisations. Both games have had tons of post-release add-ons and support and patches. I think they may even rival GSB. (I’m only half kidding, GSB has had 47 post release improvement patches).

The majority of gamers, commentators and critics would describe this trend as being a “good thing”. I agree, I find it awesome. As games visual fidelity improves, and the rate of the improvement slows, we are increasingly finding that a four or even 6 year old fgame is perfectly playable, without cringing. I have recently become re-addicted to Call of Duty 2 multiplayer, and it’s a relief to see some people still playing that game everyday, enough for a decent game when I feel like it.

The problem with the ‘ongoing, maybe never-ending post-release support’ thing, is that it costs money. Valve are treating TF2 as their internal business test-bed, so sales are fairly irrelevant to them, but stardock can only pump money into GalCiv, or Elemental, until the money runs out. Paying a whole studfio with offices and pensions costs a lot of money.

And here is where I think it gets interesting. Take indie games like Minecraft or… GSB for example. Minecraft has made enough money to buy the moon, so it’s already achieved what I’m thinking of. GSB hasn’t done so yet. But the interesting thing is that, in theory, if GSB could break through it’s current threshold to have a high enough level of ongoing sales over time, it *could* become a permenantly supported and expanded and improved game. Effectively an MMO without the fees. Paying just my wages is far cheaper than an entire studio. Massively cheaper.

This is a bit of a pipe dream, but when you think about, you’ll see how it explains a lot of what I’ve been doing. There have been 4 expansion packs, and a campaign expansion is coming soon. The  existing expansions don’t bring in buckets of money, but they do keep the game in the news and in the minds of gamers, and help it to continue selling. If I was to publish daily sales figures, you would see them as laughable next to minecraft, but I don’t need $100,000 a day to keep working on GSB. I don’t even need 1% of that.

The likliehood is that the campaign will make *some* money, and hopefully tide me over for a while as I get stuck into my top secret next game. But in theory, if I could propel it slightly higher, could there be another year of continual improvements to GSB? The game could become truly awesome over that time. It’s not like there aren’t 500 new ideas for stuff to improve the game. Hmmmm.

metrics and accidental genius

Are metrics killing creativity?

Imagine a future where all TV is either watched digitally, or streamed online, and the TV networks have 100% certain data over what program is watched, when channels are changed, and a good idea of what adverts were shown. The precision of the data would be vastly better than we have now.

Now combine that with the current trend for intensive study of audience reactions. Lets say in 2020, no TV program will get commissioned without the pilot being screened to 500 people in MRI scanners, to observe their emotional response to each line, each character, each event, each word.

This is probably how zynga would make TV, and who can blame them? All the data shows that if you collect extensive metrics on everything, you can fine tune the design of entertainment to maximise the audience figures and the revenue. The problem is,  sometimes the first impressions are just wrong. Sometimes, people think character X sucks, in the pilot, but goes on to be the best thing about the show. Sometimes, series I is basically a bit hit-or-miss, but by series II or III, its an emmy-winning masterpiece.

The first attempt at anything, with a new crew and cast, is normally a bit wobbly. People don’t really know what they are doing, how the whole experience will ‘gel’ and what the character of the program will be. I remember thinking that the first series of QI, and the first series of ‘would I lie to you’ on BBC TV, were both a bit ‘meh’. Apparently, the first series or two of Dragons Den had low audience figures and were dull. All 3 are hugely popular now.

I’m glad sometimes stuff that might seem a bit ‘meh’ is allowed to work out the kinks. The metrics are screaming ‘KILL IT!’, but if there is someone really talented behind a project, who can really see it in their minds eye, those things often go on to be the best things around.

We all know that the beatles got turned down by many record companies and that the sims was turned down by everyone. What if its true that not only are the big money-men often wrong with their first impression, but all of us are often wrong too? Maybe we shouldn’t trust the metrics 100%?

Focus

I was reading some comments by a would-be indie developer today, lamenting the amount of knowledge that is required to be an ‘all-rounder’, and thus to be a solo game developer. It *is* an insane amount of work. You need to know web design, PR, accountancy, marketing, advertising, game design, programming, and probably a dozen other things, even if (like me) you contract out art and sound.

There are a number of ways to approach this, but one of the best is to be focusd. to only do one thing at a time. To avoid distractions. if you are trying to develop games from home, alone, but you have MSN, Skype and a web browser open all day, you probably aren’t focused on the task at hand.

As a hobby, I attempt archery. I’m not very good at it, but it’s very useful. Archery teaches me to stand up straight, focus on a distant object, and get some exericse, all of which my job lacks. In addition, archery is all about focus. When I’m distracted, I shoot badly. One of the main aims in recurve archery is to be absolutely totally and utterly motionless at the point where you release the string. Your body must not move (which it wants to) at the point of release. How good can people get at this? See below. Keep watching, it’s not a photo. Watch the bow string move. Are you this focused?