Hey,
I read an interesting article over at Gamasutra and wanted to write a bit about it. You can find the article here. The article covers 3 different issues facing PC games: accepting the differences between consoles and the PC, team size and returns, and myths about big budgets.
Each point hits key issues facing PC gaming and need to start being taken into account. Large NPD driven publishers put out AAA title after AAA title and churn out iterations for each console and the PC. Games like this barely ever fulfill expectations and often give the company a bad reputation. All of the consoles and the PC have something that they are better at than the others. This fact should be embraced by developers rather than fought with.
When a developer decides to put a game onto the PC they should look at all of the strengths of the PC and decide if it really is the appropriate place to develop. If you're a game that has a really complex interface and lots of differnt commands the PC is a great place to play it. There are other instances where developing for one or more of the consoles might be the best choice.
I think a lot of people underestimates the amount of people that play or even prefer playing computer games. Obviously the price stops a lot of peoplebut it does not stop everyone. The combined benefits of the PC being easy to develop on and the ability to have smaller teams makes the lack of as large an audience okay. As the article states some of the largest PC developers have the smallest teams.
One of the largest points thae article missed but was mentioned in the comments was personalization. The consoles are starting to realize that people love personalizing their space. The new interfaces for the Xb0x 360 and the PS3 are proof of this. Even with all that personalization the PC trumps them. The PC is an intimate experienceand gives you almost limitless options. Most PC games allow the player to edit the UI and customize it to their liking. This personalization is something unique to the PC and should be added to developer's lists when deciding to develop on the PC.
Cyaz
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Portal (spoiler alert)
Hey,
I know I'm around a year behind but I finally played and beat Portal. I'm really bad at sitting down and completing a game so it took me a while before I finally got around to Portal. After completing the game I fully understand why it won so many awards. They managed to merge a great story with an innovative mechanic making an excellent game. Obviously I'd heard a lot about the game before getting a chance to play it but the game still managed to surprise me.
The start of the game made it seem like the game would be short and quick and simply show off the portal mechanic and mock you as you move through each floor. The only really surprising thing I ran into was the companion cube. I knew you had to kill it and maybe that made me feel no attachment but everyone else who has played the game felt bad about it. For me as soon as I realized I had to kill the companion cube I did it.
The supposed end of the game was when the real game began for me. I had no idea that the game wasn't supposed to end and I thought I had just found a cool secret area that led nowhere. It was perfectly done and accomplished a great balance of player skill and reward. I was completely confused and didn't understand why the game kept letting me explore. I eventually realized that I was supposed to keep going and quickly realized the great depth of the game.
I loved the ending and thought it wrapped the game up great. Hearing Glados telling me not to kill her and having her voice change as each piece was destroyed was great. The song that was rolling during the credits was even better. The story was very simplistic but it had this great comedic quality to it that made the game very endearing. You somehow feel connected to the game world and feel like your actions affect what is going on.
Although the game is very short it is a very hard experience to recreate. Most games can hold the quality that Portal does for short bursts but it never encompasses the whole experience. In WoW the quests often alude to other games or are easter eggs and you get the same feeling that Portal does. Figuring out how to create this experience in a full rpg should be a goal for designers.
Cyaz
I know I'm around a year behind but I finally played and beat Portal. I'm really bad at sitting down and completing a game so it took me a while before I finally got around to Portal. After completing the game I fully understand why it won so many awards. They managed to merge a great story with an innovative mechanic making an excellent game. Obviously I'd heard a lot about the game before getting a chance to play it but the game still managed to surprise me.
The start of the game made it seem like the game would be short and quick and simply show off the portal mechanic and mock you as you move through each floor. The only really surprising thing I ran into was the companion cube. I knew you had to kill it and maybe that made me feel no attachment but everyone else who has played the game felt bad about it. For me as soon as I realized I had to kill the companion cube I did it.
The supposed end of the game was when the real game began for me. I had no idea that the game wasn't supposed to end and I thought I had just found a cool secret area that led nowhere. It was perfectly done and accomplished a great balance of player skill and reward. I was completely confused and didn't understand why the game kept letting me explore. I eventually realized that I was supposed to keep going and quickly realized the great depth of the game.
I loved the ending and thought it wrapped the game up great. Hearing Glados telling me not to kill her and having her voice change as each piece was destroyed was great. The song that was rolling during the credits was even better. The story was very simplistic but it had this great comedic quality to it that made the game very endearing. You somehow feel connected to the game world and feel like your actions affect what is going on.
Although the game is very short it is a very hard experience to recreate. Most games can hold the quality that Portal does for short bursts but it never encompasses the whole experience. In WoW the quests often alude to other games or are easter eggs and you get the same feeling that Portal does. Figuring out how to create this experience in a full rpg should be a goal for designers.
Cyaz
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Game Pitch
Hey,
My last post really focused on pitching my game idea to my class and coincidentally Game Career Guide also had an article about pitching a game idea. http://www.gamecareerguide.com/news/21322/gamecraft_teaches_students_art_of_.php
The article really hit home on the problem with the majority of the pitches including my own. We all had the mindset that words could acurately describe our games. This was completely the wrong approach to pitching a game. Instead we should have found as many visuals as possible and used these to sell our game idea for us. Visuals are very easily understood and would have communicated our idea across much more strongly. The idea of designing the box for the game while designing it is a great one for getting the team to make the game concept into something understandable.
The other difficulty in pitching our games was that we did not have any prototype to show. Over the summer during my internship my boss was preparing for the green light of the project we were working on. This is different than the initial proposal but still similar in a few ways. She had to prove that the game was actually worth continuing to produce. She prepared sales figures of past games in the franchise, had a complete rough draft of the game design document, concept art for each scene, and a short playable demo. This is way too much to have expected from us in our class but shows that having a prototype available is invaluable to showing off a project.
Next time I have to give a proposal I will focus on making my game idea more understandable and increase the amount of excitement surrounding it. Looking back I realize that although my game idea was easily understood the game was not as exciting as some of the other less understandable games.
Cyaz
My last post really focused on pitching my game idea to my class and coincidentally Game Career Guide also had an article about pitching a game idea. http://www.gamecareerguide.com/news/21322/gamecraft_teaches_students_art_of_.php
The article really hit home on the problem with the majority of the pitches including my own. We all had the mindset that words could acurately describe our games. This was completely the wrong approach to pitching a game. Instead we should have found as many visuals as possible and used these to sell our game idea for us. Visuals are very easily understood and would have communicated our idea across much more strongly. The idea of designing the box for the game while designing it is a great one for getting the team to make the game concept into something understandable.
The other difficulty in pitching our games was that we did not have any prototype to show. Over the summer during my internship my boss was preparing for the green light of the project we were working on. This is different than the initial proposal but still similar in a few ways. She had to prove that the game was actually worth continuing to produce. She prepared sales figures of past games in the franchise, had a complete rough draft of the game design document, concept art for each scene, and a short playable demo. This is way too much to have expected from us in our class but shows that having a prototype available is invaluable to showing off a project.
Next time I have to give a proposal I will focus on making my game idea more understandable and increase the amount of excitement surrounding it. Looking back I realize that although my game idea was easily understood the game was not as exciting as some of the other less understandable games.
Cyaz
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Human Body Presentation and Rambling
Hey,
Today my group got to presented our game to a panel. The first day of presentations our class had a developer from EA with a few years experience and a video game analyst who has studied the industry for many years and has years of experience. The second day of presentations we were supposed to get a past editor of Computer Gaming World and been a part of the video game industry for a lot of his professional life. He was unfortunately unable to make it and instead two graduate students sat in for him.
The project is very similar to one I have done before so I had some experience before we started it. The assignment is to write up a concept document for an original video game idea then to pitch the idea to a group of panelists. My past experience was a good one. I enjoyed working on an original video game idea with a group of people but not everyone was excited and enthusiastic as I was. Also during the pitch I realized how hard it was to explain a full AAA title to a group of people who had not participated in the design process. It was even harder because the game was not even fully fleshed out in our minds, the actual designers! For this time around I decided to design a flash game with a significantly smaller scope and planned it as a student developed project.
I feel like the concept document came out better this time then it did the last. The handicap of having students who are not as excited and enthusiastic as me was significantly lessened because I made the game design one that anyone could understand. It was very easily translated into a language that a non-video game player. I did this with the thought in mind that for the presentation I would easily be able to explain our idea making it hard for the panel to find faults in our core concept.
On the first day of presentations the core concept is exactly what the panelists focused on. They might have commented on the details but they focused on the core concepts. One of the panelists went so far as to award the game that he thought was the worst simply because they did the best job of communicating their core concept across. He brought up a very stark fact, of the video game industry, that a lot of the executives in charge, of deciding which games are made, are not gamers.
On the second day of presentations the graduate students did not focus on the core concepts. They focused on the details and the flimsy details of what the games would be. I've heard all of the pitches twice and still had only vague ideas of what the core game play was for some of the games. The graduate students have the same optimism as many of the students and did not focus on the fact that the game play was never really explained. It was really frustrating to watch and to deal with. At the end the other two games were chosen as better presentations and better games.
I've been trying to take an outside approach as to why my game was not liked. The only conclusion that I have made is the one I made before. The difference between an experienced game developer and an unexperienced one is that an experienced developer knows the reality of the video game industry. They realize that good game play is the core of making good games. They also realize that explaining what game they are making is the most important skill to have. I am still extremely optimistic for the video game industry but I accept and am excited to work to overcome the harsh realities. The other students that understand this are the ones I like talking to and enjoy working with.
Cyaz
Today my group got to presented our game to a panel. The first day of presentations our class had a developer from EA with a few years experience and a video game analyst who has studied the industry for many years and has years of experience. The second day of presentations we were supposed to get a past editor of Computer Gaming World and been a part of the video game industry for a lot of his professional life. He was unfortunately unable to make it and instead two graduate students sat in for him.
The project is very similar to one I have done before so I had some experience before we started it. The assignment is to write up a concept document for an original video game idea then to pitch the idea to a group of panelists. My past experience was a good one. I enjoyed working on an original video game idea with a group of people but not everyone was excited and enthusiastic as I was. Also during the pitch I realized how hard it was to explain a full AAA title to a group of people who had not participated in the design process. It was even harder because the game was not even fully fleshed out in our minds, the actual designers! For this time around I decided to design a flash game with a significantly smaller scope and planned it as a student developed project.
I feel like the concept document came out better this time then it did the last. The handicap of having students who are not as excited and enthusiastic as me was significantly lessened because I made the game design one that anyone could understand. It was very easily translated into a language that a non-video game player. I did this with the thought in mind that for the presentation I would easily be able to explain our idea making it hard for the panel to find faults in our core concept.
On the first day of presentations the core concept is exactly what the panelists focused on. They might have commented on the details but they focused on the core concepts. One of the panelists went so far as to award the game that he thought was the worst simply because they did the best job of communicating their core concept across. He brought up a very stark fact, of the video game industry, that a lot of the executives in charge, of deciding which games are made, are not gamers.
On the second day of presentations the graduate students did not focus on the core concepts. They focused on the details and the flimsy details of what the games would be. I've heard all of the pitches twice and still had only vague ideas of what the core game play was for some of the games. The graduate students have the same optimism as many of the students and did not focus on the fact that the game play was never really explained. It was really frustrating to watch and to deal with. At the end the other two games were chosen as better presentations and better games.
I've been trying to take an outside approach as to why my game was not liked. The only conclusion that I have made is the one I made before. The difference between an experienced game developer and an unexperienced one is that an experienced developer knows the reality of the video game industry. They realize that good game play is the core of making good games. They also realize that explaining what game they are making is the most important skill to have. I am still extremely optimistic for the video game industry but I accept and am excited to work to overcome the harsh realities. The other students that understand this are the ones I like talking to and enjoy working with.
Cyaz
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Human Body
Hey,
I came to the realization the other day that this is a great place to write about current projects. I am not allowed to talk about much of anything concerning LondonTown but I am also working on a project for one of my classes. The assignment was to write up a concept document for an original video game idea. The teacher had everyone in the class propose their ideas then the class voted on which ones they wanted to work on. Out of the 30 or so proposed ideas mine was chosen.
I had taken a class taught by this professor previously and wanted to design a game that actually fell into the scope of a student project. In the previous class I took we designed another game design a came up with that was supposed to be a AAA title and was unsatisfied with the outcome. For this project I designed a Flash based game that was within the scope of a student project. I really want to try and make this game after we finish the concept document.
Writing the concept document with 4 other people was really difficult for me. The idea was mine and letting go and accepting others input is very hard. I think that I did a good job letting everyone give their opinion and that everyone can point to something they contributed. I tried to just focus on maintaining the vision I had but letting the details be created by whoever had the best idea.
At first I think that some of the members of my group were not sure about how I was running things but as time went on I think they liked it. It is always interesting working in groups while in school because everyone has a different agenda. Some students want to get the best grades possible, some students are just there because they were told to be, and others fall somewhere in the middle. In order to properly lead a group you have to figure out how motivated each person is and what their skill set is. It is fun figuring it out and trying to make it work.
The next step in the project is to find other students to actually make the game. I would take on the producer and designer roles on it and would need to find a programming, sound, and art team. I think the game is within the scope of making within a semester. We'll see if I can get this project moving forward and I'll try and keep posting back on progress.
Cyaz
I came to the realization the other day that this is a great place to write about current projects. I am not allowed to talk about much of anything concerning LondonTown but I am also working on a project for one of my classes. The assignment was to write up a concept document for an original video game idea. The teacher had everyone in the class propose their ideas then the class voted on which ones they wanted to work on. Out of the 30 or so proposed ideas mine was chosen.
I had taken a class taught by this professor previously and wanted to design a game that actually fell into the scope of a student project. In the previous class I took we designed another game design a came up with that was supposed to be a AAA title and was unsatisfied with the outcome. For this project I designed a Flash based game that was within the scope of a student project. I really want to try and make this game after we finish the concept document.
Writing the concept document with 4 other people was really difficult for me. The idea was mine and letting go and accepting others input is very hard. I think that I did a good job letting everyone give their opinion and that everyone can point to something they contributed. I tried to just focus on maintaining the vision I had but letting the details be created by whoever had the best idea.
At first I think that some of the members of my group were not sure about how I was running things but as time went on I think they liked it. It is always interesting working in groups while in school because everyone has a different agenda. Some students want to get the best grades possible, some students are just there because they were told to be, and others fall somewhere in the middle. In order to properly lead a group you have to figure out how motivated each person is and what their skill set is. It is fun figuring it out and trying to make it work.
The next step in the project is to find other students to actually make the game. I would take on the producer and designer roles on it and would need to find a programming, sound, and art team. I think the game is within the scope of making within a semester. We'll see if I can get this project moving forward and I'll try and keep posting back on progress.
Cyaz
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
PC Gaming Rigs
Hey,
I believe that the biggest factor holding back PC gaming is the cost. Even a mediocre PC costs around $800. You can build a decent rig or get a pretty good deal on a custom made PC for around $1,500. Then there are the high end rigs that can cost upwards of $5,000. A PS3, the most expensive of the consoles from this generation, costs only $400 making it much more attractive to most consumers.
The thing about a console is that it really only lasts for the current generation. After the next generation comes out your console is no longer supported by the majority of developers. The good games are still good but you will never get anything new and the console has no other purpose than to play games. A PC does thousands of different things.
My gaming rig is around 5-6 years old. I have had one hard drive failure and I upgraded the ram and graphics card 2 summers ago for $200. When I bought the computer it cost $1,500 with a monitor. I already had speakers and I have purchased a new monitor for $500 3 years ago. So in total I have spent around $2,200 on a piece of equipment that I mainly use to play video games. This seems a little ridiculous considering I could spend significantly less and get basically the same experience.
Yet for some reason there are thousands of people out there that continue to play video games on their computers. Some exclusively play video games on their computers and some play on both consoles and computers. I am strong proponent of PC gaming but also have a strong respect for consoles. The PC gaming market lately has been struggling on though despite all the odds.
I think that the gaming rig has a certain allure to it, especially if you build it yourself. You start to feel attached to it and you can really customize it. Every PC you turn on is just slightly different while every console is almost completely identical. Having a fast PC is also a hobby similar to cars. Some people constantly mod and upgrade different parts to see how far they can push their machine.
I'm not really sure where I wanted this post to go when I started writing it. It kind of ended up being a short summary of PC gaming rigs without any real insights into anything. I guess my point was that PC gaming does exist regardless of any real rational reasoning. It will probably go on forever as a hobby but it could shrink to insignificance. MMOs right now are almost solely played on PCs but eventually they will be adapted for console play. RTS's and FPS have already made the transition.
That was more of a ramble than anything very insightful but my rambling thoughts count as thoughts too.
Cyaz
I believe that the biggest factor holding back PC gaming is the cost. Even a mediocre PC costs around $800. You can build a decent rig or get a pretty good deal on a custom made PC for around $1,500. Then there are the high end rigs that can cost upwards of $5,000. A PS3, the most expensive of the consoles from this generation, costs only $400 making it much more attractive to most consumers.
The thing about a console is that it really only lasts for the current generation. After the next generation comes out your console is no longer supported by the majority of developers. The good games are still good but you will never get anything new and the console has no other purpose than to play games. A PC does thousands of different things.
My gaming rig is around 5-6 years old. I have had one hard drive failure and I upgraded the ram and graphics card 2 summers ago for $200. When I bought the computer it cost $1,500 with a monitor. I already had speakers and I have purchased a new monitor for $500 3 years ago. So in total I have spent around $2,200 on a piece of equipment that I mainly use to play video games. This seems a little ridiculous considering I could spend significantly less and get basically the same experience.
Yet for some reason there are thousands of people out there that continue to play video games on their computers. Some exclusively play video games on their computers and some play on both consoles and computers. I am strong proponent of PC gaming but also have a strong respect for consoles. The PC gaming market lately has been struggling on though despite all the odds.
I think that the gaming rig has a certain allure to it, especially if you build it yourself. You start to feel attached to it and you can really customize it. Every PC you turn on is just slightly different while every console is almost completely identical. Having a fast PC is also a hobby similar to cars. Some people constantly mod and upgrade different parts to see how far they can push their machine.
I'm not really sure where I wanted this post to go when I started writing it. It kind of ended up being a short summary of PC gaming rigs without any real insights into anything. I guess my point was that PC gaming does exist regardless of any real rational reasoning. It will probably go on forever as a hobby but it could shrink to insignificance. MMOs right now are almost solely played on PCs but eventually they will be adapted for console play. RTS's and FPS have already made the transition.
That was more of a ramble than anything very insightful but my rambling thoughts count as thoughts too.
Cyaz
Monday, November 3, 2008
Response to Email and New Conclusions on Casual Gaming
Hey,
I never got around to writing a response to the emails and my last post on casual gamers due to being sick all week. Better late than never though.
I've read over my email, my previous post, and thought about all I learned during my internship and come up with some new ideas. In the emails I described the mass market and how people are starting to realize the existence of it. I still think that the idea of a mass market needs to be spread around and that we need to stop dividing the market solely between core and casual. By simply splitting the market between casual and core a divide is created that keeps gamers from trying to cross the divide. A core gamer will not play casual games because he gets the impression they are boring and a casual gamer will not play core games for fear they are too difficult. The mass market creates a middle ground that both groups can play in where they learn that the divide between the two is not as impassable as they originally believed.
The mass market meets the criteria I proposed in my older post. Mass market games give the same experience to both casual gamers as it does to core gamers. Guitar Hero is the best example of this. Both core gamers and casual gamers get the same experience out of the game, playing rock and roll as though they are on stage at a rock concert.
The time commitment of mass market games is completely up to the player. Players can play as long as they want and they will generally get the same experience. I don't agree anymore that time alone defines the difference between a casual gamer and a core gamer. They really are completely different markets. But they are not the only two markets. The mass market is where time commitment loses its affect on who plays. I believe that the mass market games is where the majority of the industry growth will come from in the next couple of years.
I don't know if that really was a response to the emails or just rambling but it is something.
Cyaz
I never got around to writing a response to the emails and my last post on casual gamers due to being sick all week. Better late than never though.
I've read over my email, my previous post, and thought about all I learned during my internship and come up with some new ideas. In the emails I described the mass market and how people are starting to realize the existence of it. I still think that the idea of a mass market needs to be spread around and that we need to stop dividing the market solely between core and casual. By simply splitting the market between casual and core a divide is created that keeps gamers from trying to cross the divide. A core gamer will not play casual games because he gets the impression they are boring and a casual gamer will not play core games for fear they are too difficult. The mass market creates a middle ground that both groups can play in where they learn that the divide between the two is not as impassable as they originally believed.
The mass market meets the criteria I proposed in my older post. Mass market games give the same experience to both casual gamers as it does to core gamers. Guitar Hero is the best example of this. Both core gamers and casual gamers get the same experience out of the game, playing rock and roll as though they are on stage at a rock concert.
The time commitment of mass market games is completely up to the player. Players can play as long as they want and they will generally get the same experience. I don't agree anymore that time alone defines the difference between a casual gamer and a core gamer. They really are completely different markets. But they are not the only two markets. The mass market is where time commitment loses its affect on who plays. I believe that the mass market games is where the majority of the industry growth will come from in the next couple of years.
I don't know if that really was a response to the emails or just rambling but it is something.
Cyaz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
