Posts Tagged games
The audience alike
Posted by Adriaan in game design on May 2, 2010
Why are we making games for an audience? Can’t we make games for ourselves?
What if a demographic group, for which we have so many trouble creating awesome games, would make games just for themselves? A female group of game designers, artist and programmers that would create a game for just them – what would come out? As far as I know, this has never been tried before, I guess the game industry still remains a men’s world. But beside the female games discussion, what if a group of people that all love kite surfing would make a game to do just that? Or people with a dog fetish? Oh, I don’t want to think about that…
Anyway, if such group would make a game they love, a game in which they can share their love for the subject with others, where the fun of that group is transfered to any player, wouldn’t that be the ultimate hit? Hell yes!!!
I have a close to home example, one that shows that this theory can indeed apply. This years Global Game Jam, I participated with a team of which most members work or have worked at W!games, a game studio in Amsterdam. We all knew what it took to make a game and went into the project with the mindset to create a super awesome game. We threw in all the elements that the game we wanted to create would have and came to a concept really fast… All in all, it was the best process I had ever participated in, it went excellent. In the end, we had a game that was not far from the exact thing we had in mind and we all loved it. Because it was only created in 48 hours, we did not have the time to make it very accessible for other players, but after a few games, every player would get it and like it. Those players are the audience alike.
Games as brand
Posted by Adriaan in Uncategorized on February 7, 2010
How can we combine the boring parts of other disciplines, work fields and such, with games to make them more fun – and a more complete experience? This is a question who came from Jonathan Samel Baskin who held a presentation about this subject at the NLGD Festival of Games in 2009. He had the opinion that people don’t believe in the lies and stereotypes of brands anymore. He thinks that if we turn our brands into games and use all the powerful elements games nowadays use, brands would make more sense and tell costumers their true story. And I think he has a point.
Games are very strong if it comes to binding costumers (or players) to their experience and maybe even better at creating memorable experiences. Almost nobody reads through policies and terms of use – a game with these simple lines of text at its core would surely make these important aspects much more present.
Why can’t brands be more game-like? Why can’t, for instance, people ‘fight’ for their products? Why are brand products often not related to each other in terms of the relation between the product and the costumer? Why don’t brands have achievements and why are costumers not rewarded with titles when they achieve them? Why is there no interaction between the costumers who bought certain products from a brand? I could instantly think of a dozen examples of how to turn a brand into a MMRPG!
I can not imagine the examples I called have not been tried, but I haven’t found any game or brand yet that has become successful in it.
Please comment, this is presumably a very interesting topic.
What games are worth to players
Posted by Adriaan in game industry on January 18, 2010
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.
NLGD Festival of Games 09 – Highlights
Posted by Adriaan in game design, game industry on June 23, 2009
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!
Games are only fun when they are built
Posted by Adriaan in game design on June 16, 2009
I’ve been so ignorant! I should fill the rest of this entry with prototypes, since all the ideas in my head aren’t fun!
prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype prototype……
Play – what is a game?
Posted by Adriaan in game design on April 8, 2009
Play pt.1, Play pt.2 and Play pt.3 have been real eye-openers for me, and even while I can still discuss about these definitions for ages, I’m going to come to a conclusion in this article.
Where I stopped last was where I said that ‘serious games’ were games with it’s purpose not being ‘fun’, games in which you could not imagine being someone else and games where the consequences would affect real life. So what are examples of serious game? Anything obvious?
Learning games you (have most likely) played when you were 14 years old: you would write down a word on one side of a piece of paper and the same word in another language on the other side, with which you could test yourself by only showing one side of the paper. Or maybe even more simple: put your hand on the words in your book and test yourself. It’s the same principle as hide and seek, but then with words and a different purpose: you find a word and then try to remember it… the next time you play the game you should remember the word and if you don’t, you will have to remember it for the next time.
And what about Russian Roulette? That definitely has real life consequences! And as for digital games, I’m redirecting you to Globetrotter XL on Kongregate: it’s purpose being ‘to improve your geographic skills’ – and hell it works, it is fun and you learn from it – a serious game. Serious games are there, they are just hard to find because the big mass doesn’t know what they are!
What have I learned?
A game is not what defines play, play is what defines a game.
A game is a challenge with its purpose being ‘fun’ where a player interacts with objects with properties that lead to a quantifiable outcome.
The question is not how to make fun games serious, it’s how to make serious games fun.
A serious game is a challenge with its purpose being not ‘fun’ where a player interacts with objects with properties that lead to a quantifiable outcome and where the player can’t imagine being someone else.
So the next question is, how do I apply this to my game design? How can I make use of this definition to make great games? I guess… welcome to the wonderfull world of game designers!
A ‘tutorial’? Ha!
Posted by Adriaan in game design on April 6, 2009
I often notice that some developers just don’t get the meaning of a tutorial. At the very beginning of some games, they give you a whole manual of text that you have to go through before you can start playing. This is something almost no gamer is interested in and anyone would try to go through the text as quick as possible, something that could totally ruin the game experience.
Have you ever played a board game where you read the whole manual before you started to play?
(Video) games are interactive, which means that the player can have input and constantly receives feedback. Same goes for the game itself, the game gets input and gives feedback (or simply output). If you take away the input of the player by presenting him with a bunch of text, nothing else then a manual, you basicly ignore the fact that games are interactive! Also, as a designer you should note that a player does not want to learn the rules as quickly as posible, but he or she wants to play the game as quickly as possible!
A tutorial is all about learning. You want your player to know how to play your game before he or she starts to play. You want your player to master your game when he is playing it. As a game designer, you can design how your player learns to play your game. When presenting your player with different elements of your game while he is playing it, you have a tutorial.
So, INSERT * INTO _game WHERE _tutorial = ‘interactive’. I hate databases.
Feature: Kongregate
Posted by Adriaan in Uncategorized on March 23, 2009
We have all had times in which we were too busy to play games that took longer than 2 hours. Being in such period right now, I’ve found the perfect alternative: flash games. Of course, we all know of it’s existence and we have all played one before. But playing a lot of them AND have great fun, maybe as much fun as you would have in a 40-hour game, is something you would only be able to do at Kongregate.
http://www.kongregate.com/, at first meant as a portal to a flash-based card game called Kongre, has grown to be one of the biggest Flash portals in the world. How come? Why Kongregate and not any other flash portal?
First of all, Kongregate has wisely decided to make uploading attractive to flash developers. By giving players the opportunity to donate ‘kreds’, the developers could get easy money off people who loved playing their game. Although this option is not used so much on Kongregate, it’s the first thing developers would notice and find attractive. Another great thing Kongregate offers flash developers is ad revenue. By default, all developers receive 25% of the ad revenue, which can add up to 50%, generated from their games. The last thing Kongregate does for flash developers is award prizes to the top rated games every month, which can receive up to $1500.
With a perfect environment for flash developers and many games in the database, Kongregate has also managed to keep people playing all those games. The brilliant thing about Kongregate is that it made a game of playing games!
Every player on Kongregate starts at level 1. By playing and rating games and inviting friends to Kongregate you get points. The more points you have, the higher your level is. Almost every game with the Kongregate API integrated has at least 2 different achievements of different difficulty: an easy badge for 5 points, a medium for 15, a hard for 30 and an impossible badge (which in my experience is really impossible) for 60 points.
But it doesn’t stop with the points system. Kongregate chooses weekly and monthly featured games with special achievements which players can achieve to get a card for the game Kongre or win prizes such as an Xbox or a DVD player. Although most people don’t play the weekly featured games for the cards, the achievements are a good way to play divers and high quality games. For the monthly achievements, players will have to work hard to get a chance to win the prize, but still after you have won the achievement, the winner is picked at random for everyone who have won it.
Having not even spoken of all the innovative and potentional games, the ad revenue and kreds for the developers, the point system, the achievements, the features and the prizes, make Kongregate a very stable community that can not do anything else but grow. It is only a matter of time before they are the biggest flash community on the web.
You can find me on Kongregate here!

