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
Thursday, November 20, 2008
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
Monday, October 27, 2008
Email Discussion on Casual Gamers
Hey,
Over the summer I received an email from someone who read the casual gamer post in my blog and wanted my opinion on casual gamers buying a gaming laptop. Here are the email transcripts.
------------------------------------
Hi Doug,
i am from germany and i am currently interested in thoughts and opinions related to gaming. I just read your article on casual gamers and i think you are absolutely right with what you said about the differences between casual and core gamers. That is why i would like to ask you whether you can tell your opinion on this topic:
Do you think that a casual gamer (in your definiton) would ever buy a "gamer laptop" (like the ones "alienware" sells)?
Your answer will be treated in strict confidence and will not be passed on to third parties. This is not for selling purposes.
Thank you very much for your help!
"Reader"
------------------------------------------
Hi "Reader",
I'm in total shock that someone else besides myself actually read my blog. I obviously have been slacking and haven't posted to it in a while. Right now I'm currently a production intern at a casual game company so I have a lot more knowledge then I did when I wrote that article. My opinion has changed a lot since then and I really should go and write some more posts now that I have some insider information.
To your question, I would say that a casual gamer would never buy a gamer laptop. The company I'm currently at has a goal of making sure their games will run on a computer 5 years old. This is because casual gamers are not technologically inclined and won't upgrade their computers until basic functions stop working. They have no need to have the newest and fastest graphics card because all they are really doing is word processing and checking their email.
I say all of this with the definition in mind that there is a three-way split in the video game industry consumer. There is the core gamer, generally male, who plays games 20 hours a week. There is the casual gamer who is, generally an older female, who plays games only a few hours a week. Then there is this new category that I have just learned about and agree with called the mass market consumer. This is where I would put consumers who like games like Guitar Hero or Rock Band but are not core or casual gamers. Clearly both of those games are not core AAA titles like Halo or Call of Duty, they are just as popular but they are not played solely by the core gamer. These mass market consumers are kind of the middle ground between core and casual gamers. The mass market consumer actually might buy a gamer laptop because they want to become more of a core gamer or are just interested in the technology.
From a completely personal standpoint, I would never buy a gamer laptop even as a core gamer. I know that laptops can now almost match desktop speeds but to get there you pay almost twice as much. I also don't plan on playing a core game while I'm traveling. I would rather have a solid desktop to play on that costs less and is faster. That is not to say that I don't own a laptop that is a little bit faster than is really needed but I would not buy a full on gamer laptop. I bought a laptop that is fast enough so that I could potentially play a game if I really felt the need to but it won't run well and might not run at all.
I rambled a little bit there but I think I answered your question.
------------------------
Hi Doug,
thank you very much for your help! Currently we are really trying to find a word for these gamers that are somewhere inbetween casual gamers and hardcore gamers. So your answer was a great help. So in the end your blog will have an influence on the video game industry!! Hope to read some more interesting things from you in the future.
I wish you the best
"Reader"
----------------------
I'll write a followup later this week more thoroughly discussing the video game markets. I'll also respond to my earlier post about casual gamers.
Cyaz
Monday, October 20, 2008
Improvement and Innovation
Hey,
The progression of video games has generally followed a very steady upward slope where games get more complex and more design elements are added as technology and player skill increases. People tend to complain that some new game is just like a game that came out the year before and that the game from the year before is just like the game the year before that. This is because games are normally between 60-80% improvement and 20% innovation. The creation of video games is no longer done by someone in their basement in their free time. It costs millions of dollars and oftentimes a large dedicated team. Doing something completely different is so rare because the cost of failure is so high.
Games with that type of balance have proven to be successful. Halo although innovative for the console and a good game was simply moving the first person shooter to the console. There is no huge innovation in the game play. The game is extremely successful though and has had 2 sequels. The developers simply made the first first person shooter to work on consoles. That was the innovation the rest is just improvement on the first person shooter genre.
Another example of a successful game like this is WoW. A lot of the game play is not new or innovative but it is better than its predecessors. Blizzard took what they knew worked in past games improved it and then put it in their game. They did innovate with instances, battlegrounds, etc too but a lot of the game is simply improvement.
The innovation in these games is just as important as the improvements. If the game only had improvements the game would be boring. The innovations do make the game but they shouldn't be the sole focus of the design.
The video game industry needs to study these unique cases of simple improvement and small innovation and learn to create it on a regular basis. Making a complete copycat where all the developers do is improve the last game is generally not successful. Making a game that is completely innovative and untested is also generally unsuccessful. That is not to say that they never succeed just that the chance of success is much less. I think that being able to tell these two types of games apart and specifically classify each aspect will help make better games.
Too often games are made that are copycats that are boring or innovations that players simply don't understand. A balance is necessary. Game design seems to be based on that balance.
Cyaz
The progression of video games has generally followed a very steady upward slope where games get more complex and more design elements are added as technology and player skill increases. People tend to complain that some new game is just like a game that came out the year before and that the game from the year before is just like the game the year before that. This is because games are normally between 60-80% improvement and 20% innovation. The creation of video games is no longer done by someone in their basement in their free time. It costs millions of dollars and oftentimes a large dedicated team. Doing something completely different is so rare because the cost of failure is so high.
Games with that type of balance have proven to be successful. Halo although innovative for the console and a good game was simply moving the first person shooter to the console. There is no huge innovation in the game play. The game is extremely successful though and has had 2 sequels. The developers simply made the first first person shooter to work on consoles. That was the innovation the rest is just improvement on the first person shooter genre.
Another example of a successful game like this is WoW. A lot of the game play is not new or innovative but it is better than its predecessors. Blizzard took what they knew worked in past games improved it and then put it in their game. They did innovate with instances, battlegrounds, etc too but a lot of the game is simply improvement.
The innovation in these games is just as important as the improvements. If the game only had improvements the game would be boring. The innovations do make the game but they shouldn't be the sole focus of the design.
The video game industry needs to study these unique cases of simple improvement and small innovation and learn to create it on a regular basis. Making a complete copycat where all the developers do is improve the last game is generally not successful. Making a game that is completely innovative and untested is also generally unsuccessful. That is not to say that they never succeed just that the chance of success is much less. I think that being able to tell these two types of games apart and specifically classify each aspect will help make better games.
Too often games are made that are copycats that are boring or innovations that players simply don't understand. A balance is necessary. Game design seems to be based on that balance.
Cyaz
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
New Start...etc
Hi,
I've been pretty bad at posting anything here and by pretty bad I mean not for several months. A lot has happened in that time and most of my old views about the video game industry I no longer agree with. That is the point of a blog though. To state my opinion on something at the time and get other people's comments. The comments part has not been happening so far but hopefully by actually posting I'll get some attention at some point. Anyways.....
Over the summer I managed to get an internship through a family friend at a casual video game company. It was the best learning experience I have ever had. Learning how to be a producer is incredibly hard to do while in school. It is very much a hands on kind of job and the only real way to learn while in school is to make games. Making games is exactly what I got to do.
I was ready to get an internship where all I did all day was follow a producer around and basically do busy work. This was not the case at all. I was a full assistant producer on a game. The producer I was working under tried very hard to give me an entire section that I could work on during the seven weeks that I was there. The game I was working on was in pre-production and all of the sound had yet to be worked out. By the end of the internship I had set up all of the sound for pre-production. The game I was working on was the first at the company to use voice over and I had to work with the 3rd party sound design studio and the game designers to gather all of the information necessary. I got an initial estimate for voice over and then added it into the schedule so that the producer could move forward with it after I left. I also did a preliminary revision of the sound request form adding in all the new sound effects we would need.
All of the sound work was only half the work I did over the summer but I it was the most significant. Near the end of my internship I realized that I had really worked on a making a video game and there was tangible evidence of the work I did. It was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had.
All of the work I did over the summer was a great learning experience but also just simply working in a video game company gave me insights that would have been impossible to get otherwise. That is one of the main reasons I want to start writing here again. This will be an exercise in seeing what I now think compared to before my internship and just a general way to track my thoughts. In the future my posts will hopefully be less about me and more about opinions about other people and the video game industry. We'll see what happens.
Cyaz
I've been pretty bad at posting anything here and by pretty bad I mean not for several months. A lot has happened in that time and most of my old views about the video game industry I no longer agree with. That is the point of a blog though. To state my opinion on something at the time and get other people's comments. The comments part has not been happening so far but hopefully by actually posting I'll get some attention at some point. Anyways.....
Over the summer I managed to get an internship through a family friend at a casual video game company. It was the best learning experience I have ever had. Learning how to be a producer is incredibly hard to do while in school. It is very much a hands on kind of job and the only real way to learn while in school is to make games. Making games is exactly what I got to do.
I was ready to get an internship where all I did all day was follow a producer around and basically do busy work. This was not the case at all. I was a full assistant producer on a game. The producer I was working under tried very hard to give me an entire section that I could work on during the seven weeks that I was there. The game I was working on was in pre-production and all of the sound had yet to be worked out. By the end of the internship I had set up all of the sound for pre-production. The game I was working on was the first at the company to use voice over and I had to work with the 3rd party sound design studio and the game designers to gather all of the information necessary. I got an initial estimate for voice over and then added it into the schedule so that the producer could move forward with it after I left. I also did a preliminary revision of the sound request form adding in all the new sound effects we would need.
All of the sound work was only half the work I did over the summer but I it was the most significant. Near the end of my internship I realized that I had really worked on a making a video game and there was tangible evidence of the work I did. It was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had.
All of the work I did over the summer was a great learning experience but also just simply working in a video game company gave me insights that would have been impossible to get otherwise. That is one of the main reasons I want to start writing here again. This will be an exercise in seeing what I now think compared to before my internship and just a general way to track my thoughts. In the future my posts will hopefully be less about me and more about opinions about other people and the video game industry. We'll see what happens.
Cyaz
Monday, February 4, 2008
Nintendo's Seal of Quality
There was a feature article posted on Gamasutra a couple of weeks ago that talked about Analyze This's opinion on whether or not Nintendo should bring back their seal of quality. Their opinion was that the seal of quality was really only created to stop piracy and ensure the game was suitable for the whole family. I agree that the seal of quality did those things but it also ensured that games made for the Nintendo were decent games. They would not let in games that they thought were bad. Nintendo forced companies to let them do a final review of their game and if they didn't like it Nintendo would tell them how to change their game. I'm not saying Nintendo should start such stringent monitoring of games that they allow on their system but they should do something if the publics opinion is that there are a lot of bad games. Even if the opinion is not correct Nintendo needs to do something besides putting out great 1st party titles which only makes the problem seem worse.
Cyaz
Cyaz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
