An article I wrote for Gamasutra is now published. Here’s what it’s about:
Everybody in the gaming industry has a great idea for a game. The desire to see that idea become a reality is what brought many of us to this industry. Sadly, the quality of this idea – or even of the game itself – isn’t enough to guarantee a commercial success: critically acclaimed games like Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil have sold far fewer sales than they deserved.
How can you tell if a game has the potential to become a huge hit based only on its design? Marketing executives at major publishers have sophisticated tools to evaluate that kind of things, but you don’t need all that complexity to find the potential of your idea. With just a few questions, you can evaluate the marketability of your game. I compiled these questions in a simple test that you can use in 10 minutes.
I’d love to hear what you think about the article!
February 12th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
You made some good points and expressed them clearly, and the article is a good beginning as a writing and game development exercise. If there is an issue, I think, is that it’s still possible to miss the target in terms of product, marketing, and developer quality. Between goals and outcomes sits process. This comes from experience.
Must admit, I start to tune out when people start talking about how to be a critically acclaimed or huge selling title. Yes, one should be aware of these things but chasing them is a bit of a fools game. Success is a two edged sword and fickle. Better to keep an alert and relaxed approach. This way success is longer lasting and more robust.
Today, I took a brief look at Okami and Fahrenheit, analysing their graphics, gameplay, and underlying qualities. Both provided an opportunity for reflection. Okami is better executed, and Fahrenheit was more marketable, but both are useful as anything in the meta-game we call life. When has it ever been otherwise?
The moon and the pointing finger
are a single reality.
Aside from painted cakes,
there is no other way to satisfy hunger.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
You’re right about process, that’s why the title has the word “potential” in it. A design may have great potential, but it may fail to live to that potential along the way to becoming an actual game. On the other hand, a design with no potential is really hard to fix during production, so hopefully this article will help avoid that kind of problem.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:05 am
Indeed, what you say is correct. It is a good beginning but future articles could build on this by folding in an appreciation of the challenges and difficulties. This would give the overall lesson a firmer base and larger context which people might otherwise miss. This would help protect against the dangers of a one hit wonder and strengthen the resilience of the developing grassroots.
It’s a bit of a stretch with Okami or Fahrenheit but a case can be made that Okami is a one hit wonder, from Capcom closing down Clover Studio, and David Cage’s studio, Quantic Dream, is stubbornly holding on but weak, brittle, and can’t take many blows. Personally, I think, Grand Theft Auto 3 is the least resilient, and Psyconauts the sharper play. Again, I’m stretching a point but looking at a game in only one way is a dangerous business: you can miss things.
I think, this is where a lot of developers fall down. Most games, development, and developers lack a reflective quality. They’re so busy focused on hitting targets they take their eye of the business of crafting, and heave a sigh of relief when they tick all the boxes and it can be thrown out the door. This spirit of haste infects the design, development, and communication, making for less satisfaction.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am
As I say in the article, it’s based on the idea that you’re making a good game. There are lots of factors that can affect the success of a game outside of its base potential, of course. I could have talked more about this, but it would have weakened the article’s focus.
February 13th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
I can see what you’re saying, here, but I’m playing a different game, so won’t buy into the focus thing. I didn’t with Scott Miller, and Scott’s dropped a hint that his design goals are expanding, for people who were paying attention. Your article, like 3D Realms previous games, are fine but only to a point.
Range and flexibility are useful characteristics to develop as a person. It allows you to see and act upon multiple angles as situations change, such as with technology, creativity, and market factors. The same is true with conversation, negotiation, and job interviews. Focus is useful but only in context.
The true test of the principles you discuss in your article is in their use. If they are true, then they must also apply to the article. Listening to your own advice is hard but I have an eat my own dog food policy. The advantage it gives me is it encourages reflection, improvement, and better outcomes.
February 13th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I was talking about the focus of the article, not myself. Obviously I consider a lot more than just sales potential when designing a game.
And I’d say the principles in the article apply to the article itself: it’s been reported on in many sites, including Wired, Slashdot, Joystiq, Kotaku and Digg. The article talks about how to make popular things, and the article itself is popular, so I guess that demonstrates the principles pretty well
February 13th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I’m strictly a gamer, not a developer.
Thought the article was interesting and wondering how much you can apply it to making movies. I always felt that both games and film are a strange mix of technical know how, artistry and business. In movies, you have those that are concerned with technique and art (directors, editors,costumers) and those that are concerned with budget, profit margins, etc (producers, studio execs) and often the final product is a compromise between the various positions.
Taking a look at this year’s Oscar nominated pictures, I see at least three films (The Departed, Letters from Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine) that are basically familiar genre pictures (Gangster film, War Film, Family/Road Trip film) and therefore can easily appeal to a wide audience and their basic stories can be summed up easily. Viscerally, they stand out, even in just a 30 second trailer and whether it’s their casts, their directors, their visuals, or their subtle twists of genre, they create buzz not only critically, but among audiences as well.
Ah well, maybe my film/game comparison isn’t perfect but it does lead me to believe that there should probably be more sharing among film and game makers.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Thought so. You have too much yang.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Matthew, everything is order and balance, which means that fundamental lessons between books, movies, and games can be shuffled around at will. Something as simple as a developer article, story, or anecdote is all about structure and tone. What something is and how it relates is a bit of a mantra of mine but it’s a gateway to seeing this.
While game vision and developer experience may be poor, the key points Pierre raises are basic structure of a sort, and are useful checks on desire for design and marketing. In the struggle between structure and desire excessive competition gets in the way, and that’s a character issue Pierre is a bit slow in developing. Some maturity needed, here.
On the issue of competition, the Hollywoodisation of the industry and whining at the bottom are just another issue of structure and tone. Here, a poor system and ambition clash together to form a poor quality outcome at an industry level. This is driven, largely, by unchecked competition, or desire. The only way to win is not to play. Quite simple, really.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
You’re quite right Matthew, there’s a lot in common between popular movies and popular games. Of course my article was written with games in mind, but it’s based on principles that apply to games, movies and even cars. Usually, in projects that involve both art and commerce you get the best results by considering both sides right from the start, rather than by focusing on one side only. The movies you cite are good examples of that.
And Charles… I’ll be honest and say that I have a hard time following what you’re saying. Can you please use less flowery prose and express your ideas more simply and directly? Being concise is a virtue when writing.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Nothing wrong with my comments. They might be a bit dense and indirect, but that’s an issue of style not content. As with your own article, it’s a matter of how it’s read.
Your first paragraph repeats exactly the same thing I said, my second paragraph goes into the dynamic between structure and balance, and my third paragraph focuses on quality.
Both of us are correct but different. Same pond, different fish. Like Raph Koster’s book, your article lacks balance, as you lack balance. Your last paragraph is a clue.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Too much Yang all over I think.
“We’ll see which of us is the more successful in ten years.”
“Then why am I wiping the floor with your ass? KAPOWWW.”
February 14th, 2007 at 4:47 am
The Zen master Shunryu Suzuki said:
He was talking about Zen meditation, but, as if often the case with Zen pronouncements, the comment fits many situations.
A failure can be an opportunity — to learn, to clarify vision or perception of a situation. Peter Senge quotes Edwin Land, founder of Polaroid, as saying “A mistake is an event, the full benefit of which has not yet been turned to your advantage.” The key is to recognize the opportunity to learn and to change.
February 14th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Why did this trend become a discussion of buddhist philosophy? All I’m saying Charles is that you’d make your point much better if you made sure your comments don’t all sound like zen riddles. I’d like to answer to your posts, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say in half of them. Yes this is about writing style, but style matters. You’d convince more people of your point of view if you communicated it more efficiently. I’m not the first one to tell you this.
This is highly off-topic. Any further discussion unrelated to the article shall be deleted.
February 15th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Ya know, bloggers can do their own thing. They don’t really have to reply to comments on their blog.
Including this one, of course
As for the article, most of it is good wisdom, but I’m kind of skeptic about 2.3 “Is the target market large?”
Essentially, large markets are already well-served and there’s inherently more competition in them, so that can kind of counter the gain you have by serving a larger market. Sometimes, targetting the smaller market is actually less risky since there’s less competition there.
For instance, the target market for PS1 RPGs was fairly big in the late ’90s, and the target market for N64 RPGs was pretty small. So there was a truckload of PS1 RPGs and… none on N64. THQ / Imagineer saw this and released the mediocre Quest 64, which sold very decently precisely because nobody else did N64 RPGs, and I suspect it would have been a flop if Imagineer decided to release it on PS1. Boom, we have a reversal of the “target the largest market” rule.
There’s also the whole business theory about how sharply focusing your public brand is a good thing (as opposed to trying to cater to everyone at once), but others have written much more eloquently than I could on the subject.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:26 am
“The universe is the unity of all things. If we attain this unity and identify ourselves with it, then the members of our body are but so much dust and dirt, while life and death, end and beginning, are but as the succession of day and night, which cannot disturb our inner peace. How much less shall we be troubled by worldly gain and loss, good-luck and bad-luck!”
Chuang-tzu.
What does this mean? Don’t get your panties in a twist over size of market or brand focus. Some analyst or sales guy may say different but they don’t always have a good view of things. Rules for this that and the other until something changes and they’re screwed.
The market I’m aiming for is as big or small as you want to make it. The same for the AAA and barrel scraping budgets. Then there’s the forum waffle. I listen to everything and ignore everything. I’ve seen and heard it all before. Better to be like smoke
That’s Daoism, by the way. Gonna give me another rule?
February 15th, 2007 at 11:09 am
You’re right Thelo that it can be a lot harder to compete in a large, crowded market. If it’s easier to be distinctive by targeting a smaller market, then it can be a good trade. On the other hand, sometimes you’re still better to target the bigger market, so I had to include this to be complete. Basically, if you can’t answer “yes” to all the questions, you should choose carefully which questions you’re best answering “no” to.
February 15th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
So, we have more rules behind the rules? This is starting to get complicated. Bad habit you’ve got, Pierre. It leads to snags, growing complexity, and bad judgement. Perhaps some rules behind the rules behind the rules would help out?
As with the marketers you criticise in your opening paragraph, you’re beginning to slide down the slippery slope. The same is true with finance, law making, and anything else. This drive for unnecessary complexity is a habit. How you think and feel matters.
This is what post 13 addresses. Read it again.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I must say I’m not very found of 10 minutes approaches to success. Quick success promises always bring a shiver of mistrust in my brain.
While your article has good intentions and brings a quick and efficient reflection, it seems to be targeted to a very small segment of the game business (the blockbusters).
2.2: “Is the game based on something the market already knows and loves?” You could answer “yes” to 2.2 alone and it could already guarantee a huge commercial success (lot of sucky licensed games out there). Who can pay for huge licenses? Big players like Ubisoft and EA. You can also build your own IP but it takes time and money and requires taking risks (you can’t answer yes to this question for the first game of a serie). So this leaves almost everyone out but the big players.
In other cases, if you are targeting a niche market, some questions might be totally futile. If you are doing an adventure game or a MUD for example, what would be the purpose of having a gameplay that stands out when a story that stands out would have a much greater chance of succeeding.
Which brings me to think that genre oriented questions would be required for different cases. Or maybe a simple question like “does your game includes the features your target players want to have?”.
While I understand the use of this little quiz, I feel it is really over simplifying a field that is extremely broad and diverse. There is surely a way of making it even more useful for different cases, for it to become an actual dev tool. Asking yourself the right questions before starting a project is crucial. But maybe the most crucial question to ask yourself is “am I asking myself the RIGHT questions for this particular project?”.
Besides, the design is really just one part of the development, everything can be screwed or saved during production and iterations.
April 16th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Actually, I think the test applies much beyond blockbusters and is applicable even to small projects. I’d go further that this test is especially important to small projects who don’t have the money to get a popular license and lots of marketing.
You’re right that the easiest way to base your game on something gamers already know and love is to buy the rights to a popular license. However, this is only one part of the test — not the most important, in my mind (although it’s the easiest and safest to use if you’ve got money, hence its popularity with publishers). The other questions are just as important and you can become successful even without a license. Diablo became a mega-hit without a license to back it up, for example.
There are also ways to satisfy question 2.2 without a popular license. The name of a famous designer or studio — such as Will Wright or Blizzard — links the game to something gamers already love. Basing your game on something already popular (I use the example of pirates in the article) also works, although not as powerfully. For another example, you could imagine making a criminal investigation game that would bank on the popularity of the CSI tv show.
As for questions that you consider as futile, I find it a bit amusing that the examples you give are for genres that are almost dead. It’s true that adventure games and MUDs seldom feature innovative gameplay, but they aren’t exactly thriving in the marketplace either.
Still, it’s true that games without much gameplay innovation have been succesful — usually because they observed other parts of my test — but overall I believe games with strong gameplay innovations are more successful than games without. Also note that the test is to check if a game has the potential for success, assuming it’s good — bad games almost always fail, whether their low quality comes from poor design or poor production.
You seem to embrace the popular fatalistic view that the key to commercial success is just having a big license, but I disagree. Gaming’s best-selling games were franchises created exclusively for gaming — just look at any list of the best-selling games of all times. Publishers love licenses because they’re safe: no matter the quality of the game, at least some fans of the license will buy it. Publishers like this safety, so they prefer to finance licensed games. Perhaps learning what makes original games sell could help make their development safer…
April 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Hi! Thanks for your answer.
In no way am I suggesting that only licenses can succeed. However it’s true that some games can sell solely on the brand.
Success is a very relative concept. If you have a team of two developing for 6 months, selling 5,000 copies could easily mean making a nice profit. I feel sorry that you ditch my examples as there is a lot of niche markets that may not be thriving on the shelves, but are still making a living for some passionate people.
I think it’s important to put things in perspective, I didnt intend on reducing your article. You did a good job, I hope you get to write more of them.
Cheers!
April 16th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
A lot of such small games are made for the love of the craft rather than for money. Few indie projects are profitable — believe me, I’ve tried. Getting those 5000 sales is harder than you think…
If you’re making games for the art itself and don’t care about profit, then by all means ignore my article — it’s not for you. If you intend to make money from your project, I think my article covers important things to consider.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Check out this book: The Design of Everyday Things (Donald E. Norman). It is a more general version of your article.
August 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I have. Great book