Archive for category game industry

NLGD: Festival of Games 2010 – 3 Highlights

Developing for women is hardcore

Ard Bonewald from GameHouse held a great talk about designing games for casual players and gave us a top 5 with tips for doing that. Although the talk was very generalizing, he could prove his approach was working because he had his game company running based on it!

  1. Girls think games are bad for you.
    Make her feel less guilty! Make the game play quick (<3 min.) and make it safe to stop at any point. What helps is when the game offers meaningful entertainment, like brain training.
  2. Girls are powered by emotion.
    Make it a interesting game, emotion is in the details. Make it personal!
  3. Girls play games at the hardcore difficulty.
    Girls don’t read tutorials. Let them play the game, not the controls. Players can remember 5 things at max.
  4. Girls don’t like losing or are afraid of failing.
    Failing makes it too personal, as if they have failed instead of just failed at the game. The game should be emotionally safe and encourage rather than punish them.
  5. Girls can not be captured on a list.
    Don’t try to generalize them, they are all unique. Make them feel this!

Prototyping, rapid iterating and design goodness

Kellee Santiago from thatgamecompany gave a fantastic talk about the company and their approach on creating games. thatgamecompany is trying to push the boundairies of games, trying to show emotions in games that have yet been successful in the medium. It surprised me that they used about the same vision and goal approach I talked about earlier. With their games, they wanted to create an emotional shelter. Sometimes, hard fun is your enemy. They often lie close to emotions that are already explored in games, such as frustration and high tension.

Flower, their 2nd PSN title, had a huge amount of prototypes, as game development at thatgamecompany is based on rapid iteration and play testing. Most prototypes of Flower did not ‘feel’ the way they wanted the game to feel. Most of the times, the prototypes were completely abandoned, but the eventual game ended up using all the things they learned by creating those prototypes.

“Find the magic, execute the magic.”

“You don’t want to bet anything you don’t want to lose.”

Kellee notes that the iterative game development process does not really fit in the game industry, while it is the ideal process; it has difficulties with deadlines. This makes the planning and coordination a challenging task, in which estimates of wandering game designers and expensive iterations prove themselves difficult to plan.

Her presentation contained some very good advise for starting studios:

  • Find your project scope upfront.
  • Define the quality of each prototype.
  • Define the quality of each iteration on the game.
  • Wandering is OKAY.

The thing that ‘surprised’ and relieved me the most was the fact that everyone at thatgamecompany was able to create his own prototypes and was able to program or script themselves.

The New Gamemaker

Alan Yu, vise president of ngmoco, gave a very insightful presentation about creating games for the iPhone throughout the years, and gave hints and tips on how the next generation of game makers is going to survive.

He and his company realized that the only way to become and stay successful was to connect or merge business with game design. Basically, there are 3 ways of making money with free iPhone apps:

  • Direct subsidy, e.g. buy 1, get 1 free.
  • 3rd party ads.
  • Premium content.

When the core compulsion loop of the game is limited or regulated, you create an environment in which people want to continue. This is where the money comes in.

Creating games for the iPhone takes less longer that traditional games and the market is moving too fast to hire specialists. For game developers, this means that they have to be fast and flexible. Shipping games is very important; creating a lot of small games means you have had a lot of opportunities to fail & proceed successfully.

And the rest…

The starting presentation of Toru Iwatani was fun to watch, but did not bring us any new insights on game development. Masaya Matsuura was creating a cool music rhythm game which he talked about. And David Perry talked about his history of games and how he thinks his company Gaikai will change the way people play games.

Till next year!

, , , ,

No Comments

Some pitfalls on game development

Lately, some general game development pitfalls caught my eye and I decided to combine them to one post.

Please comment on missing pitfalls!

Entering production without something fun.
It appears that in practice, games that are not already fun before they go into production have a really hard time to find the fun at all during production. Beside the fact that working on a not -yet- fun game is bad for the morale of the team, visions of the game are almost never the same for each team member, resulting in unclear goals and uncertain artist and programming work. Having a fun vertical slice of the game that captures the core of the game early in the process greatly enhances the production because everybody knows where the project is going and can work on fine-tuning that feeling, instead of continuously trying to find that fun factor.

Start big, end up small.
3 core mechanics, 25 levels, 20 skins, 4 environments and a 6-player co-op campaign to start with, end up with 1 mechanic, 3 levels and no multiplayer. Unfortunately, this happens a lot in practice and is a very demotivating, economical and time consuming issue. Starting with something small and ‘finishing’ it long before the final deadline will not only be very motivating, it will also increase the chance on ‘happy accidents’ and remove a lot of stress from you and your team.

Peer reviews not taken seriously.
Designers can often have the habit of not playing each others work, being too focussed on their own work and neglecting to play the work of others. A peer review is something that should be structurally integrated in the process, as it will lead to sharing ideas and a healthy environment for constructive critique, after which the designer responsible for the work can iterate on his work.

Starting too late with play testing.
Doing play tests early in the game development process means a more stable version at the end of the process. It helps to set your focus on what is important and what has to be changed and will eventually lead to better end results.

Not enough games played.
Teams, but mostly the game designers, are expected to already have a strong knowledge of games, what works and what does not with the genre you are currently working on. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. Devoting time to play games with your team can greatly enhance the ability to express ideas or come up with new ones.

Too much importance on design documentation.
A designer can try to imagine how the game would play, but more often there are too many interactive elements that can have a huge impact on the eventual game play and the overall ‘fun’. The only way to prove your theory is to actually see it in action. A lot of great ideas are discovered through experiments and ‘happy accidents,’ but unfortunately, these are discovered quite late in the process and often treated as correcting previous errors, as designers are expected to get it right the first time. Try to test more than to write!

Not taking advantage of placeholders.
Team members, particularly artists and animators, generally prefer working on final assets than low-quality ones that will have to be replaced later. Unfortunately, this often means that the designer has to wait to test his features, resulting in a slow-down of the design process. By extensively using placeholders, the design process doesn’t just speed up, the designer can focus more on the game play than the decoration.

Not keeping design documentation up-to-date.
When documentation is not kept up-to-date, people lose faith in it and at some point they will stop using it as reference. When the main goal of design documentation is cross-department communication, this is a disaster and the design documents are seen as ‘worthless’ by the rest of the team. Although time consuming, design documentation is important because of its ability to keep all the information together and to leave few room left for wrong interpretations.
Also, design documents do not have to be bibles. Don’t try to make them as such – try including as much as visuals as possible, as images can really say a thousand words.

No external play testing.
Unless the game designer is able to erase all experience with games from his memory and think like a casual gamer, you will need external playtesting in order to test your ideas. You would be suprised how intuitive your ‘most-intuitive-interface-ever’ would be according to a 45 year old mother. But also for the hardcore audience, original features that work perfectly might not be that straightforward for your hardcore audience. And what about difficulty and feedback? If you know the drill and the underlying system, you play the game very differently from a new player.

, , ,

1 Comment

What games are worth to players

A few months ago, the makers of World of Goo did an experiment. They gave away their game for any amount of money that you would pay for it. The result were fantastic:

http://2dboy.com/2009/10/19/birthday-sale-results/

The first thing I realized when I read through the results was that people are currently paying money for games they have not played before. And that is somehow strange, because how can we know its value when we have no idea of how much it will entertain us? I find it a dangerous thought that the amount of money that you have to pay resembles the amount of joy you will have from the game. And even worse is the way we think about a game that we have already bought, see http://goo.gl/eBqX for the reasoning. So not only are we probably paying way to much for games, we think about them much better when we pay a high price.

The second thing that crossed my mind was Runescape. They have a pretty good pay-model which would let people play the game, let them see what their fun is worth – and if they like it, they can pay for it and receive even more fun!

What is interesting about the World of Goo experiment is that they ask the player how much they think the game is worth BEFORE they have played it. So this experiment is all about expectations. And this simple thing is what all games have to cope with. It seems very interesting to do some more research into expectations and how to raise them. Ain’t that what marketing is all about?

An interesting next step would be to ask a player how much a game is worth after he has played it. How should that work? Interesting thought.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Internship at W!games!

What you hear is correct! I got an internship at W!games, a company at the heart of Amsterdam (awesome links huh?). So far, they have released 1 game (My Horse & Me), but they are up for more good! (and better!) Anyway, how did I eventually end up there?

It all started with the idea of going to Japan and the UK, but when I found out I would not be able to go there, I looked here, back home, for companies I could go. The first one I found was Ronimo, a small company in Utrecht that has recently published their first Wii game Swords & Soldiers. I came in contact with a designer there thanks to a former teacher which got me his email adres. After sending my cover letter and resume, I had a intake with two of Ronimo’s designers. The conversation did not go that well; I said a lot of things that were not appropriate and they did not see any potential in me. I did not now exactly where companies were looking for and how to sell myself, how to communicate my skills. So… The next day they declined me. Bummer… Next!

The second company I tried to apply for was Guerrilla Games, possibly one of the biggest dutch development studios. They worked on several big titles such as Killzone and Killzone 2 and are a pool of experience. I heard from a lot of classmates that they sent emails months ago without any response so I had to figure out a way to get in. I contacted a teacher who also happened to be a former Guerrilla employee and he gave me an email address from a senior designer there. I sent my cover letter and resume and I was invited for a chat with the guy. When I got at the building the company residents in, I had to go though all kinds of security measures before I could enter, it was almost a bunker! The chat with that designer went really good and he gave me an assignment, making a FC2 map in 3 days. You can find the result here. I turned the map in and waited 2 whole weeks for the response: the map was excellent and it showed some good thinking and design process. But 3 days later he still declined me by saying that “It’s a time pressure issue. With my increasing workload I won’t have the time to devote to you.” and nothing more than that. Dammit.

And that lead me to W!games. I forgot that I signed up months ago at W!games to be a playtester and it surprised me that I got an email from them asking me to come by. The testing was really fun and afterwards I asked the designer who was leading the test how they thought of internships. They were up for it and I had to send my covering letter and resume to him. Yes!!! They looked into it and by some miscommunication I got an email back from the lead artist that there was no spot for me in the designers team. Argh! The day after I went there for my 3rd playtest session and told this to the designers there, who were surprised because that’s not what they talked about in their team meeting. After a few days and an apology they invited me for a chat. The chat went really good and… I got accepted the week after. W!games, here I come! And hell yeah, I’m excited!

During this journey I learned a lot about myself, what I want to become, how I communicate my skills, how the game industry works and that networking is king. I can’t stop saying that last thing, it’s full of awesomeness.

, , , ,

No Comments

NLGD Festival of Games 09 – Highlights

The dutch Festival of Games this 2009 had quite some interesting keynotes. Here are the highlights of the most interesting keynotes and what I learned from these… and others!

NOTE: I haven’t been to all presentations because most of them run simultaneously, therefore I might have missed some interesting ones… Hmpf!

Evert Hoogendoorn – Exploring games as Performance
During this presentation, Evert told us about his vision of games: games are not only about fun, games are about aesthetics, about exploration, curiosity, social needs, etc. Players can even be your game, where the behavior of a player can be seen as the input. What this means is that theater performances can also be games, and what Evert shows us next are some examples of performances as games: an hotel where people book a room that has a roof with a mirror in which you can see other people, looking at you and staring at other people, with no idea of who is an actor, with people climbing over the walls going from room to room… Or another example where a few players go out to the streets and try to connect two objects with people, holding hands, where random people from the streets have to close the line in order to get those objects connected.

These examples show that performances can be a game. Evert ends by saying that analyzing human behavior can learn us how to create these aesthetics and make fantastic performances; as games!

Jeremy Bernstein – Procedural Rhetoric
Although the name of his presentation is rather unknown and confusing (it refers to games as persuasive coded models with a set of potential outcomes), the point he was making in his presentation was rather clear: mechanics can create emotions. He talked about Battlestar Galactica, the board game, which had mechanics that created strong emotions for him and the people he played with. With mechanics like lack of resources, not knowing who your ally or enemy is, being in the minority AND having to sacrifice human lives even though there are already so few of them, the game created feelings such as despair and paranoia. In Left4Dead, mechanics such as lack of ammo and lack of health and being able to give these resources to each other created a feeling of dependency. In Dead Space, a player needs to pull his weapon before he can shoot, and because Dead Space is a horror game and enemies can surprise you any second, you keep your gun constantly pulled and this results in a player feeling more tension than any other shooter. Other examples Jeremy named included mechanics that created feelings such as hope, pressure, fear, etc.

He ended his presentation by asking us, “Can we create mechanics that make us feel Love? Joy? Etc.” and we all knew his answer was ‘YES!’, but how, that remains the question…

Jonathan Samel Baskin – From Branded Games to Games as Brand
Jonathan began his presentation with his view of brands and advergames. Brands are broken: people don’t believe in the lies and stereotypes brands are trying to tell us and advergames aren’t going to help that because they tell us the same story with the same low persuasion. So why not brands as games? No manuals – games to learn how to use their products. No more static profiles – more interactivity between brand information and its users. A brand as a game easily has a story that makes the users think of the brand and let the brand make sense, e.g. a tie with a blue label costs more than a tie with a red label. Games can make people loyal, e.g. ‘collect Douwe Egberts points for rewards’. Gamers can make people learn about terms and rules that so far almost nobody is reading, e.g. games can let people understand differences in insurances, for example.

Jonathan ends by almost begging us to pick this up, because “Tomorrow’s brands will be games!”

Elan Lee – Playing with Reality
Elan starts by stating games are like a magnet: they can pull, push or charge people. When you consider these three things in your game design, you can create games that would appeal to almost anyone. The following movie explains what Elan means exactly with pull, push and charge.

The rest of his presentation is mainly about his successful games and how they eventually worked out. The only design tip he gave was that rewarding players randomly and in public is the best reward you can give your player. During the question round, Elan admitted that not all of his games and experiments worked, but for game designers it is all about not giving up. Charging people is mainly done by making a catching game in which people have the space to be creative but also giving you input on things that did not work in your game. You never know where your game ends.

Elan ends with showing us his favorite video on the entire Internet. This is a metaphor for how we game designers should never stop trying.

…and the rest

One thing I noticed at the Festival of Games 09 was the developers trend of finding and making new input devises to expand the gaming market. Small game companies such as Soepel, Monobanda, Monodomo and Fourcelabs showed new ways of interacting with their systems. Other keynotes such as Adrian Hon’s keynote about stories in games were highly biased and not very informative, Adrian saying that people don’t know what good stories are and mixing stories and interaction is hard (oh really?). He did have some good points of how to improve the stories in our games: not letting the technical barrier influence your story, not letting the players make the story (because it’s (almost) never going to be ‘the best’), getting the interface out of the way to let the player focus more, etc.

A more scientific keynote was about what causes eye strain. The conclusion was that you can reduce eye strain by using colors that appear a lot in nature, use less busy images (images with a high spacial frequency), avoid flickering, do not use high contrast and avoid repetitive patterns. What was also interesting was the research about text and readability, where the speaker showed us that some fonts read much faster than others because of the amount of vertical space they use, and that text with a colored filter is read 25% faster because of the contrast between the characters and the background. Game designers can use this information and apply it to their games to make the eyes less busy and let the experience of the game be more the way you want it.

A few keynotes were about the game industry, but they all concluded something like this: The game industry is changing and it’s audience is growing rapidly. The companies that are already big are going to get bigger and there are going to be even more smaller companies then ever before. If your company has a good business model and you have a small core team, your company is totally going to rock!

Japan also sent some people to the Netherlands, with a guy from the latest Naruto development team explaining why his game was so awesome and how well they though of everything and stuff… In Japanese. And 70% of their team are artists. And a very friendly guy from a university in Japan where they train their students to be production slaves. And yeah, ‘design’ is not what they study there, it’s just art or programming.

And then there was this guy from Jagex, saying something like ‘we’re just doing stuff and we’ll see how it all works out for us‘. And some guys from Little Chicken actually hacking some game during their presentation, screaming for better ways to protect our flash games.

And the project fair and career fair… Some universities still don’t know how to make good games… That IPhone app built in 15 weeks? (Whahahahahaha)

And I got free lunch every day. How awesome!

I had a fantastic time and it was definitely worth the investment! See you at FoG2010!

, , , , , ,

1 Comment

Casual vs. Hardcore

Everyone knows that there are two kind of players, hardcore and casual gamers, and that there is a clear difference between these groups… Or not? What is the difference between these groups and what separates them? And more importantly, what does this ‘gap’ do with your design process?

Although I do not know the true history of this characterization, I believe the roots of this ‘problem’ come from old video games. These old games were designed so that the computer would be able to run it, the focus was completely off the people who would play the game. These games had difficult interfaces with many options and very abstract visuals. A ‘normal’ person wouldn’t pick one of these up for a 10 minute play session, if you wanted to play a game, you had a whole lot of research to do before you could actually play. This created a technical threshold which kept a lot of players away from playing video games.

I believe the gap between casual and hardcore gamers is a usability problem and has to do with two things. The first problem that occurs is dedication; is the player dedicated enough to  go through all the different assets of your game? This is not question you can particularly design your game around, but is still the biggest reason for many, many designers to create very simple games with just a few assets any person would understand in a matter of minutes. The second problem is knowledge and experience: a ‘hardcore’ gamer simply knows much more systems, mechanics and rules that apply to games than a ‘casual’ player. What follows is that designers tend to make games for the people who are already familiar with the systems they design, leaving out the people who are not so familiar with them and not making it easy for them to pick it up and play.

With the Nintendo Wii and DS, the technical threshold is much, much lower than it used to. For this generation of games, we will have to work hard to close the gap between casual and hardcore gamers by creating games that do not require a lot of dedication and even less knowledge and experience with games. Maybe all game designers should become usability experts too?

, , , ,

1 Comment

Imagine a world without play

No humor, no movies, no sports, no fantasy, no games, …

I can see the importance of games in this world. It’s much bigger than we realise… This is probably why the ‘gamer-generation’ is growing so rapidly, playing is something we have been doing for generations and is something we are now evolving in. Feel the responsibility!

, , ,

No Comments

Play – part 3

This article continues from Play – part 2 – Yes, I’ve still not figured out what every game is and isn’t!

Where were we? Right, I stated the following:

Not everything you play is a game, only play of which it’s purpose is fun.

After my previous articles, I got a pretty clear idea about the value and importance of fun. But… I also know how little I can tell about fun. I know what fun is, but I´m not the neurologist that could let you understands what fun is.

For now, I´m going to split ´play´ in two different types. Play in the context of a game, with it purpose being fun, and play in the context of… something else with a purpose being more serious: yes, I see these as totally different things. If I look back at one of my examples, the Flight Simulator, one way you could play it was with its purpose being fun and the other was training your mental skills for flying a plane. There is a term for that ‘something else’, a games with its purpose not being fun and untill now I have sworn to not use it: Serious games.

So, what do I find so weird about the term ‘serious games’?

Let’s take advergames as an example. These games are known by the industry as serious games because they seem to have another purpose then fun. But if you look closely, the purpose of these advergames is still fun, and by having fun the company or developer can use the game to advertise. The developer or company is practicly being serious in a fun game! The industry just doesn’t know what a serious game is… This is why I find it dangerous to name a game as such.

So, what is a serious game then? Let’s put all pieces together:

A serious game is a challenge with it’s purpose being not fun where a player interacts with objects with properties that lead to a quantifiable outcome.

Note that a player can still have fun in a serious game, depending on the player’s personal purpose of playing the game.

After a second thought, this can’t be all. According to Randy Smith, a game designer who writes articles for the Edge, serious games are games in which we would be confronted with all the consequences of your action, whether they are positive, negative or neutral. And I think he has a very good point. You could say that in any ‘not-serious game’, you imagine yourself as being someone or something else. If you can’t be someone or something else in a game, you are probably playing a serious game.

Would people play games where they had to face all the consequences of their actions? Are there any serious games so far?

Enough to think about for now. The final part!

, ,

No Comments

Foreign internship

At the beginning of this school year I was determined to go to Japan to work as a Game Designer as part of my internship. This seemed very reasonable for me as it would the biggest experience in my life.  I quickly found out that going to Japan was going to be something I wouldn’t be good enough for: You need an outstanding portfolio, a level 2 japanese language diploma and huge motivation, and I needed to get all this in no more than 6 months. This was not possible for me since I had other things on my mind than just Japan, leave the fact that I still had to go to school every day!

When that idea faded, I still wanted to go to a foreign counrty. At that time I was reading alot in the Edge, an independent gaming magazine in the UK, and people who have also read the Edge will have noticed that it’s constantly promoting the UK game industry. My interest in the UK’s game industry grew and in January I decided to select a few companies I would love to get the chance to work.

I quickly fell in love with one of them: Media Molecule, the maker of LittleBigPlanet. I made my portfolio ( http://www.adriaandejongh.nl/ ) with a good friend of mine and added works to it that were specifically created for Media Molecule. I wrote a covering letter and my CV and sent the email… Believe it or not, but they responded in 31 minutes. Not good. I got a standard email back saying they didn’t have a spot for me, so I decided to send them another email highlighting the facts they don’t have to pay me, I don’t need much assistance and that my course at the Utrecht School of the Arts is of University degree. About 3 days later I got a personal email back explaining that they did not have the time and resources to hire me as a trainee.

Now, let me compare the Dutch game industry and the game industry in the UK. In the Netherlands, most small and medium game companies always take internships, they are a big part of the industry in the Netherlands. In the UK, most game companies, wether they are small, medium or large, don’t take internships. I wonder why that is. The current recession, the financial global crisis? Or is it the aiming for higher quality? I don’t know.

After Media Molecule declined me, my search went on and I sent at least 9 more covering letters to different game companies such as Frontier Developments, Lionhead Studios and Splash Damage. All of them weren’t as fast as Media Molecule, it took at least a week before I even got 1 message back. Now, 5 weeks later, I still haven’t had any response from 4 of them. It’s a shame how most of UK’s game companies deal with students and the outside world. They can take they example out of Media Molecule… 31 minutes, that’s a world record!

Now, It’s probably not going to be the UK. The game industry in the UK isn’t doing so good. As I am writing this, I have found 3 Dutch game companies where I could possibly go. I contacted one last night and got a response early this morning. Yeah, I still have to get used to the difference… Lets see how this goes. Crossing fingers!

, , , ,

1 Comment