Game Development = Showbusiness

[BS-er]

I've come to realize more and more that game development is showbusiness.  I think a game has the best chance to succeed if that is reflected in all aspects.  In most any showbusiness production, you begin to lose attention and interest if a portion of it is slow and dreary, or low in quality, and it doesn't take long for the audience to tune out.  it is important to keep the show going strong and solid, right from the start.  It only takes a small amount of poor (or amateurish) quality, or overly-formulaic content, to mar the experience.

In game development, you also need to make sure that what you THINK is entertaining actually IS entertaining to the audience at large.  That is where continuous play-testing has its benefits.  It is  beneficial to continually seek out new, unexposed play-testers.  That's not always easy for an indie developer to do, but an effort should be made to do so regardless.

We'll never be able to please the entire audience, and it is probably counter-productive to try.  I wouldn't want to water anything down to try and appeal to the greatest majority.  My main point here is that a developer is generally too biased to determine if the content accomplishes its intended effect, and therefore should draw from plenty of external feedback in order to determine that the content is perceived as intended.

Anyway, these are a few realizations that I plan on applying to this and other projects.  They are my own opinions, and other opinions are welcome.

[Slaor]

That's true more and more mate, and unless you take a more abstract route in terms of overall design (vis. Darwinia) the gaming public expect it - s'y it's impractical for smaller independent teams to try and compete directly with big mainstream titles on their terms.

On the other hand, the big Hollywood style developers have boring non-gamer shareholders and accounts departments that must be gratified so mostly they cannot afford the risk factor of doing something too left field. They have to tap the mainstream media audience in order to get their sales after all - and consoles don't have as many buttons. As the video gaming public gets older we will more and more be looking for innovation and substance over shaders.

Indie development is about innovation and trying new directions. I think MAD already has that in spades. We can't compete with a $20M art budget in terms of raw variety and detail but the assets in development already go pretty close in terms of quality - and we get to create the game we want to be playing for the next 10 years rather than another generic Hollywood shooter

The challenge from the design end is not so much the functional stuff (which is of course a bit of a grind being about 3 generations beyond what BZ2 required) but the additional need to make environments that are rich enough in realistic detail and variety that the units don't look out of place. MADs overall design presents the usual hurdle in that regard, but also offers a few advantages if we are clever about what we do.

I think we can make something very cool indeed.

[Black Manatee]

A lot of this comes back to the question of balancing resources (including man-hours/workload) versus quality.  My opinions on this are doubtless shaped by the writing/publishing world (where Hollywood ultimately came to dominate the decision-making processes to an almost silly extent).  But regarding the "show-business" aspect and the concept of competing against the big-leaguers, I've seen many fellow writers/authors go too far to the opposite extreme: laboring over a novel or screenplay at such length that they ultimately never finish the project (or don't ever feel that it's "good enough" to submit).

Some famous author or painter, I can't remember which, talked about how a work of art or a novel or story is never really "finished" -- that you can always find room for improvement, and that artists and writers (and, doubtless, game designers) are never really satisfied with the end product.  That's where I think artificial deadlines like the IGF or other endpoints can be very helpful: you're given a finite amount of time in which to work, so your decisions about resource allocation, time, effort, level of realism, etc., are shaped and limited by those considerations.  Ironically, it's an "advantage" enjoyed by established developers: there's an expectation of a product being delivered by a certain date -- and so, a lot of decisions are already locked in.  I've found the same thing to be true when I've had multiple-book contracts, or short-story deadlines: the delivery dates really help to focus your mind and force you to take a realistic look at the amount of effort you can invest in the project.

It's a balance, of course, and it's obviously up to the three of you to decide where to draw the line.  But I'm just playing devil's advocate, here, pointing out how sometimes standards do need to be lower than we might like, and sometimes limitations and deadlines can serve a useful purpose.

[BS-er]

I believe in setting high standards.  In my view all the successful indies demonstrate very high standards and I won't be any different.  I think that is one of the things that sets them apart from not-so-successful indies.

But indie standards should not come from mainstream expectations.  I do establish my standards from the indie game development world.  They are quite different from mainstream, but they are very high nonetheless.

If it wasn't a matter of high standards, we'd be seeing a lot more indie startups making it.  High standards are pretty much the heat of this kitchen so to speak .  Everyone is free to make a game with lax standards, but they shouldn't plan on selling many copies.

Production standards should be largely based on the arena you are entering.  The indie world also has some wiggle room where some very novel and clever features will allow many to overlook weaknesses in art or other areas.

The main point of this thread has to do more with the standards of the audience.  Player's don't necessarily keep a checklist of standards in their brain as they try out a new game.  As I see it, there is sort of an "entertainment value" meter an everyone's brain, and they will stop playing a game when that meter is too low for too long.  The game must continually try to keep that meter as high as possible, using a variety of mechanisms.  Successful indie developers have found a way to do that with their successful titles.  That is the greatest overall standard that I will apply.  Through playtesting, I will be making sure that the "entertainment value" meter in the play-tester's brains is as high as possible, and at least as high as intended when developing the game.

[Black Manatee]

Yes, yes, I know -- we all believe in setting high standards, but when I bring up the "limitation" issue, or the "art vs entertainment" issue, y'all seem to think that I'm pushing for a demolition of all standards and a "let's throw some crap at the wall and see if it sticks" kind of approach. 

The main point of this thread has to do more with the standards of the audience.

I agree.  Here's a case in point: you all doubtless have kids or friends or nephews/nieces who are teenagers, right (not just who *think* they're teenagers!)?  The trend that I've been seeing, for the past several years, is more and more emphasis on entertainment value and--if anything--less interest in the bells and whistles and eye-candy aspect.  Castle Crashers and Alien Hominids are big hits, and they're basically 2D platformers that were done with very witty storylines and fun gameplay - almost what the art world would call "minimalist."  Other games are even more sparse -- like "N" and "N+", which I've seen kids play for, literally, days, though it's hardly much more sophisticated than the old "Asteroids."  The success of the "Watchmen" book (and many imitators) is another case in point, as is TF2, not to mention this really cool music-video that my son showed me the other day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMEhescEBaE (Flobots--Handlebars).

My point isn't so much that you have to reduce your standards; it's more an issue of "level of detail" and resolution -- the idea that, rather than trying to fight the ever-increasing demands of the form (higher resolution levels, more and more realistic shader mechanics, more involved production methods and pipelines), some folks are stepping back and setting their OWN limits and standards in terms of realism/detail/resolution.  I think it's quite possible to have really good art (and really compelling games) without getting too bent about having an incredible level of detail and realism--and fortunately, that's an area where indies can be particularly strong (by definition: because of their "indie -pendence").