July Monthly Round-up (the finale) posted on GT [Archive] - Indiegamer Developer Discussion Boards

cyrus_zuo

08-01-2007, 10:46 AM

Could do... could do... the roundup definitely needs replacing.

There will be a new article of what is new next month...it just won't be a panel :).

Actually, since most of the panel members (2/3) were pinch-hitters for the month, Cas and John are really the only members of the panel left, which leaves more of a dynamic duo than a panel. (though since they combined to review the 10 games, and their opinions weren't contrasted, I guess it isn't quite a full duo either)

If keeping a panel together from month to month were easier it would have been a reason to keep the article running in its current format instead of changing to a different format.

Waiting for reviews to come in from panel members many days after the deadlines and emailing members multiple times without response while wondering if the games were going to be reviewed is time-consuming and stressful. I also fretted over the consistency of the reviews. (for example - no member of the panel played the full version of more than one game this month...because they choose not to register the full version, that leaves me feeling uncomfortable and I'm sure the developers of said games were quite disappointed). Adding to the stress was the need to find new panel members on a consistent basis, which became an increasingly large time drain.

I guess the summary is that the panel part of the article isn't stopping because I sent the panel away ;).

princec

08-01-2007, 11:03 AM

Yeah, sorry about holding you up this month, actually had even more important things to do!

WRT full games or demos... the way I reviewed the games it made no difference really to the score or the writeup, though games that were crippled in demos would possibly come off worse by a point or two. But then that's just what the general public are going to think too.

Cas :)

Pyabo

08-01-2007, 12:00 PM

I'm also sorry to see the panel go, but I know it was a lot of work... thanks for all the time and effort over the past three years, Russ!

Loved Derek's comments. Harsh, but funny.

Derek Yu

08-01-2007, 01:13 PM

I also fretted over the consistency of the reviews. (for example - no member of the panel played the full version of more than one game this month...because they choose not to register the full version, that leaves me feeling uncomfortable and I'm sure the developers of said games were quite disappointed).

I just wanted to mention that I played the full version of every game except for Alice Greenfingers and Turret Wars, whose "full version" links were not working properly for me. And I don't think my opinion of AG and TW would have changed much, anyway, unless the full versions were completely different games.

For the other games, either the links worked, or I already owned the game, or I thought it was worth it to purchase the game myself.

Anyway, it was quite fun. Thanks very much for the opportunity, guys! I'm sure people were expecting the Apocalypse. ;)

cyrus_zuo

08-01-2007, 05:01 PM

I just wanted to mention that I played the full version of every game except for Alice Greenfingers and Turret Wars, whose "full version" links were not working properly for me. And I don't think my opinion of AG and TW would have changed much, anyway, unless the full versions were completely different games.

For the other games, either the links worked, or I already owned the game, or I thought it was worth it to purchase the game myself.

Anyway, it was quite fun. Thanks very much for the opportunity, guys! I'm sure people were expecting the Apocalypse. ;)

Glad you enjoyed it, it was fun to have some variety.

On the topic of playing some games for a very short time before reviewing them, I would say I don't totally agree with that approach. I think that not reviewing the full game or just getting a limited look at the game before doing a review leaves the review wanting in perspective. The review then becomes more of a first impression than a review.

To me, as a reader, it feels as though the response/opinion has been made too hastily without considering the material that the opinion is passed on. I would liken it to reviewing a movie after the first 15 minutes. Sure you might get the review right, but putting 2 hours into watching the movie I'm convinced will improve your rightness ratio dramatically because without more exposure you are likely ignorant to some of, or perhaps most of the source material.

I've always wanted to give every game the benefit of the doubt and give them a chance to show me the love and care they put in the game. Sometimes, especially with indie authors, I find that I have to get to know the game pretty well before I can honestly score it (see last month (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showpost.php?p=135338&postcount=21)). I want to be sure I've fully "considered it" (borrowing from Mona Lisa Smile) before I've decided to disregard it.

Certainly my approach isn't the same that many take, and in the future, I think the round-up will be more of a first impression, but I've always loved those reviews that show the reviewer took that deeper look. I give more significance to their dismissal or acclaim.

For me it's a deeper societal issue. I am disappointed with the number of snap responses that occur without taking the time to fully evaluate the material being responded to. How easy is it to respond to an article, blog post, news, idea, opinion or anything in the government without taking the time to know what you are responding to? From my musings around the Internet I believe the majority of people take more time in their responses to an article than they do actually reading the article. In my mind it creates a rather shallow society with tremendous amounts of information, but it's lacking in understanding.

...hmmm...I'm rambling pretty far off course, so let's bring it back to game reviews. I can appreciate different approaches and think they bring in different pieces of value. The full reviews on GT are aimed to give more depth and the round-up to provide more of a quick look, so I think you nailed that. The only piece of me that is wanting, is the piece that believes there is more to the game(s) than was realized and thinks it's worth the time to discover it. :)

Derek Yu

08-01-2007, 05:45 PM

I agree that some games require deeper playthrough to fully grasp the breadth of what the game offers. As an example, I started Fallout a few years back, but didn't get very far before I stopped. That game throws you in the pool and offers you so many options (options which can severely inhibit what you can do later on in the game if you make the "wrong" decisions), and it was too overwhelming. It was only fairly recently that I went back and beat it and really understood why the game was a classic.

That said, I knew there was something special the first time I played, and I could see that there was something I was just scratching the surface of.

But then, that's a very different game from Alice Greenfingers or Turret Wars, which I found to be much more superficial games. Whether or not you like casual games, you can't argue that. The same comparison could be made between Immortal Defense and those games, also.

In ID, it's obvious from the start that the developers took the time to really think not only about "turret defense" games and how to make the most of that style of gameplay, but also how to make it a compelling and human experience. Nothing is wasted in that game, there are no upgrades for the sake of having upgrades. I think you could make an Alice Greenfingers game that was compelling. But then you're not making a game that's simple and cute for people to play... you're questioning things that your demographic will not care to think about. Am I wrong about this? Cliffski's comment seems to validate my statement.

So basically, what I'm trying to say in too many words is that, if the game digs deep, then I'm willing to dig deep. Otherwise, I'll take it for what it is: something simple that is meant to distract. Which is fine, but then it really has to be fun for me at least within the few few hours of play.

I did consider e-mailing you for new links for AG and TW, but after looking carefully at the feature list for the full games, I didn't think it was necessary to bother you or the developers with it. It was really obvious to me that the full versions were not going to change my opinion of the game. i.e. the basic game mechanics and structure of the games were flawed (in my opinion), and no amounts of new upgrades or levels was going to change that.

Also, there is the serious issue of how much time is available to play all of these games. To really give the kind of in-depth review you're talking about, I think it would take at least a week per game. Even at half a week, it's pretty unreasonable for someone working full-time. And the format of the Round-up is not conducive to an in-depth review, either. There's not enough space to write one. (Not that I think that's a bad thing. I enjoy the fast pace of the Round-ups!)

But anyway, I spent a good amount of time on each game. I wouldn't put pen to paper unless I felt that I had a fair grasp of what each one was about. :)

HairyTroll

08-01-2007, 07:46 PM

To me, as a reader, it feels as though the response/opinion has been made too hastily without considering the material that the opinion is passed on. I would liken it to reviewing a movie after the first 15 minutes. Sure you might get the review right, but putting 2 hours into watching the movie I'm convinced will improve your rightness ratio dramatically because without more exposure you are likely ignorant to some of, or perhaps most of the source material.

But what does that mean though? After 90 minutes a reviewer can offer his opinion on a movie having seen it in its entirety. After 90 minutes a reviewer may have progressed less than 1% into a game.

cyrus_zuo

08-01-2007, 08:48 PM

Also, there is the serious issue of how much time is available to play all of these games. To really give the kind of in-depth review you're talking about, I think it would take at least a week per game. Even at half a week, it's pretty unreasonable for someone working full-time. And the format of the Round-up is not conducive to an in-depth review, either. There's not enough space to write one. (Not that I think that's a bad thing. I enjoy the fast pace of the Round-ups!)

Yeah...and I would agree that point for the round-up. It is a short time play type of approach to the round-up reviews. (and hopefully my last post didn't make it seem that I didn't agree with that point, if it did I apologize ;))

My point was that I think for the round-up it was probably fine, but I always worry that something may get missed. In the AG review, for example, from your AG review, I had understood that you quit right after getting the 5 pack of crates. That may have just been in humor, but it happens very early in the game (15-20 minutes in?). I thought it significant in this case because my own opinion of the game did a total flip-flop at around the game's 30 minute mark. Prior to that point I had thought it a pointless game of mindless clicking, but after that point I decided there was more to it.

I see AG as an open-ended play experience that allows players to choose how they want to play, and on that point, I think there is interest and maybe some innovation in the game. After I first played AG, 2 other people at work talked to me about how much they liked the game, but their descriptions of the game were entirely different from each other and from my own that I had written.

- One player described it as being in essence a trading sim.
- Another player described it as a game about layout design, where you try to create the best layout of crops, but that much of it is just making pretty gardens by placing things in interesting places (I suppose you could call it an architectural game?).
- Then of course there is the initial impression of clicking like mad and not seeming to accomplish anything.

For my part, when I first played, I clicked and clicked and clicked and thought, when does it stop?

Then I realized there is no time limit. There is no clock. The only thing driving me to click was me. There are no goals other than the goals I made for myself. At around the 30 minute mark you get the sprinkler, which means needing to water is a thing of the past and all the clicking that went with it similarly disappeared.

At that point, the game becomes whatever you want it to be, which I personally find interesting. Based on the review, I was worried you may have missed that moment as it appeared you hadn't played far enough in to reach. There was worry for the review, but on a more personal aside, I thought it was something that you might have found interesting yourself. If you didn't find that part of the game interesting and disagree with my thoughts on AG, well then hopefully, at a minimum, this post helps to explain some of the fretting I do about reviews ;).

Derek Yu

08-01-2007, 10:56 PM

That's an interesting take on it, Russ! It doesn't change my opinion, but it's an interesting angle. ;)

The sprinkler (which I did obtain) was not much different than the crate of 5 boxes for me, in that it made the game less tedious, yes, but that really just brings it closer to a baseline, instead of making it a marvelous game.

The idea of growing a garden and spending time and care to personalize it is an interesting one to me. I want to make it clear that I'm not going to write off anything because of its theme. But that feeling really got lost in the gameplay and overall presentation. The busywork is just part of it, and if you removed all of that, from the very beginning, it'd help a lot, certainly. But that's making a pretty serious change to the basic game mechanics. And then there are a lot of other reasons I dinged it, like I found the graphics and sound and music to be underwhelming. Competent in some areas and lacking in others. Her "oh!" exclamation every time I tried to do something I couldn't began to irritate me quickly, for example. Or the way you can't dig over a spot if an item is lying there. Why do I have to click to drop the shovel (can't be on soil, for whatever reason), then click to pick up the other item and click again to drop it (again, not on soil), then click to pick up the shovel again, and then click not once, but TWICE to dig? That's just lazy design... forcing the player to do all those actions because you don't want to think about how to make it easier for them. If I dig on a spot where there's an item, she could easily just pick it up and toss it to the side for me, so I can concentrate on digging and expanding my garden. Like I said, busywork!

The trading simulation aspect is also pretty superficial. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something, but it seems like you just check if the demand is high and if it is, you jack up the price... and if it's low, you lower it. But then it's hard to tell what an average price for a box of daisies would be, so I don't know... it might be more interesting if there were competing growers, and you could do things like flood the market with daisies because you know your opponent is selling them for exorbitant prices. That seems overly aggressive for this game, however.

princec

08-02-2007, 04:16 AM

If you haven't figured out everything you need to know about a game in 90 minutes it has totally failed to get across what it was trying to do. Most people play a game demo for less than 10 minutes before they decide it's a waste of their time. Most demos don't even last 90 minutes anyway! They're either 30 or 60 usually. By that time they need to show you everything you're going to get in the full game. I think the Roundup format was perfect for assessing this. I think Russ is just getting a bit confused as to what the roundup was all about :) No wonder he's canning it if it's competing with the full reviews section in his mind!

Cas :)

TimS

08-02-2007, 07:21 AM

Thanks for a long run of a good service, guys. (that extends to all reviewers going all the way back!). I'm hearing unconfirmed rumors that the real reason the panel is being shut down is some kind of shady illegal immigrant hiring scandal... but who knows.

-Tim

cyrus_zuo

08-02-2007, 09:08 AM

I think Russ is just getting a bit confused as to what the roundup was all about :) No wonder he's canning it if it's competing with the full reviews section in his mind!

Cas :)

That seems like a bit of a personal attack :confused:

It also seems to respond in a way that makes me unsure if my posts were understood. I believe I mentioned several times that playing for 60 minutes or less makes a lot of sense for the round-up. If that wasn't clear I apologize.

cyrus_zuo

08-02-2007, 09:16 AM

The sprinkler (which I did obtain) was not much different than the crate of 5 boxes for me, in that it made the game less tedious, yes, but that really just brings it closer to a baseline, instead of making it a marvelous game.

I cut the rest of the quote to save space.

Thanks for the response! I'm glad to hear how far in you got and sorry you didn't enjoy the game more.

Hopefully my explanation helped to show how I sometimes fret about reviews.

Often it comes from worrying, based on the review text or knowing what games weren't registered, that a game or two might not have been considered. I do, of course, expect a shortened play time with the games, but I worry that sometimes that busy schedules can lead to 15 minute play times, which I believe would do a disservice to the developer and to the readers.

Appreciate you taking the time to write :D .

cyrus_zuo

08-02-2007, 09:19 AM

I'm hearing unconfirmed rumors that the real reason the panel is being shut down is some kind of shady illegal immigrant hiring scandal... but who knows.

That's a falsehood that must be put down. I'd sick my lawyer on you...but, he's detained with the INS, I mean he's volunteering help IN Seattle. :)

KNau

08-02-2007, 09:20 AM

When I wrote reviews for Game Tunnel I had roughly a month to evaluate one game and occasionally that extra time was enough to win me over from what was initially a bad impression. As a result I've always seen the roundup as strictly a "first impression" style review because they don't have that luxury of time.

Although to be fair - pick any game on Big Fish, Real Arcade or Reflexive and if you've played it for 90 minutes then you've seen the whole game. Most of these games rely on one game mechanic, the addition of a new trophy or a new colored sprite at the 2 hour mark doesn't change the essence of the game itself and won't make a boring game suddenly good.

I feel bad for whoever gets drafted to do longform reviews of stuff like Alice Greenfingers or worse Mystery Case Files. There just isn't that much there to write about. Urban Legend and Kudos on the other hand are crying out for a longform review.

princec

08-02-2007, 09:32 AM

That seems like a bit of a personal attack :confused:

It also seems to respond in a way that makes me unsure if my posts were understood. I believe I mentioned several times that playing for 60 minutes or less makes a lot of sense for the round-up. If that wasn't clear I apologize.

Nah, sounds just like your time-o-the-month to me ;)

It's just that on the one hand, you're worried sometimes we played the demos and gave our impressions, and on the other hand you're fine with playing for 60 minutes. Mostly a demo is about that first 60 minutes anyway.

Cas :)

cyrus_zuo

08-02-2007, 09:47 AM

It's just that on the one hand, you're worried sometimes we played the demos and gave our impressions, and on the other hand you're fine with playing for 60 minutes. Mostly a demo is about that first 60 minutes anyway.

:) I think it's the Editor's job to be worried and make sure the articles are everything they could be, so I certainly think the stress is warranted and comes with the territory. I'd hate to read anything where the Editor didn't care what was written or how much care was put into the writing.

On the 15, 30, 60, 90 thing > OPEN QUESTION:

If the new article (replacement for Monthly round-up) were an article of first impressions on the new games, how long would you want the reviewer to play? 15 minutes, 30, 60, 90?

?

RinkuHero

08-02-2007, 09:50 AM

As long as they choose to, I'd have it be individualistic. I don't think it makes sense to tell a reviewer how long they should play a game, because different people have different attention spans. Readers would identify with the reviewer they're most similar to and come to trust that reviewer's opinion more than the others, as happened in EGM (I liked Sushi-X's opinion the most and found myself in agreement with it the most often).

princec

08-02-2007, 09:53 AM

As long as we wanted to :) I actually awarded 1 point to games which made me play longer than I strictly had to to get a review done.

Cas :)

Daniel

08-02-2007, 08:10 PM

Hi everyone,

Some interesting reading in this thread.
I'd like to thank for all kind comments on Alice Greenfingers, but also say that I respect the fact that some indies don't like the game at all.

Anyway, the actual reason I'm writing was to answer a question that Derek rasied....

Why do I have to .... click to pick up the shovel, and then click not once, but TWICE to dig? That's just lazy design... forcing the player to do all those actions because you don't want to think about how to make it easier for them.
I can assure you that extra click when carrying a shovel wasn't due to lazy design. In fact, that was one of the single most important decisions we made to the control scheme.

Lemme explain... So, you're standing there with the shovel in your hand, and you move the mouse pointer over to a patch of grass and click.
So, what's your intention? Did you mean for Alice to go there and dig? Or for her to go there and put down the shovel? How else would you command her to drop the shovel?
There's no way the game can figure out what you had in mind, so the game will throw you a "Dig or Drop" pop up. Once you've made your choice (in this case "Dig"), you can click nearby patches for as long as you want without being asked again as the game assumes your intention is to dig up a large piece of soil (you hardly never dig a single patch of soil in this game).

We found this solution to be both easy and semi-automatic, without having to go with the 2-button control scheme that was initially used (LMB = go/action, RMB = drop), but was dumped as casual gamers typically prefer 1-button control schemes. Plus, the 1-button control scheme made the game more Mac friendly.

Cheers,
Daniel

Derek Yu

08-02-2007, 10:05 PM

Hey, Daniel, I appreciate your addressing my concern! Although the drop/dig thing is just a smaller part of a bigger problem for me. But I understand your point about casual players preferring to use a single mouse button.

I think what was more irritating for me was not being able to put things on soil, or near other items. I see the potential problems there, like having a big pile of things that the user has trouble picking from, but I can think of some workarounds (like moving items automatically).

But if your demographic is casual players, then what you can do to make the game compelling for me is limited. :)

Promaginy

08-06-2007, 07:28 AM

On the 15, 30, 60, 90 thing > OPEN QUESTION:

If the new article (replacement for Monthly round-up) were an article of first impressions on the new games, how long would you want the reviewer to play? 15 minutes, 30, 60, 90?

In the spirit of disclosure, I think reviewers should say what % of the game was completed or how much time was spent. I personally commend you for doing the hard thing and getting rid of the Panel. You obviously are bothered by the inconsistency that can take place in short reviews. Part of the problem is that we have hard-core developers reviewing casual games or games they don't care for. The rules of journalism are not the same as the rules of good game design. ;)

As long as they choose to, I'd have it be individualistic. I don't think it makes sense to tell a reviewer how long they should play a game, because different people have different attention spans. Readers would identify with the reviewer they're most similar to and come to trust that reviewer's opinion more than the others, as happened in EGM (I liked Sushi-X's opinion the most and found myself in agreement with it the most often).

True, except that a reviewer should wear their biases and favorite games on their sleeves and how long they played the game. Reviewers like all good journalists would attract fans who would know what they want. The trick is for the reviewer to give readers what they want but not what they expect.

I am thinking that GT would be well served by having a stable of Reviewers who have a profile of what their favorite games are amongst other characteristics.

Escapee

08-06-2007, 07:28 PM

I'm a little surprised ( Just a little ) that the hot selling Greenfingers did poorly on the round up. Just another evidence that you cant convince a man to buy woman clothes. hehehe ..:D

arcadetown

08-08-2007, 11:12 AM

A testament to what was saying earlier in that what we here typically consider the best games are often the exact opposite of what users think. Users typically don't see past the "little minor flaws" that indies here will often look past. For example Devastation Zone Troopers scored very high in the roundup and I absolutely loved it (one of few I ever completed) but I believe it didn't put it's best foot forward immediately which is the minor flaw. Or Cake Mania which many here love to hate but obviously users disagree.

btw - bet the new single reviewer format will be less confusing for users and better received overall.

papillon

08-08-2007, 11:31 AM

I tried Cake Mania and found it the most boring thing imaginable, clearly I just don't get that particular genre. :)

cyrus_zuo

08-08-2007, 02:01 PM

btw - bet the new single reviewer format will be less confusing for users and better received overall.

Will be interesting to see. :)
There will again be 10 games...look for it around the end of the month :)

RinkuHero

08-08-2007, 02:08 PM

Promaginy

08-08-2007, 03:59 PM

RinkuHero

08-08-2007, 04:04 PM

There are plenty of simple games I love -- Blocksum, Chocolate Castle, fl0w, Echoes, I could go on -- I don't think I said that they're bad because they're simple.

cyrus_zuo

08-08-2007, 04:41 PM

I think it's more complex than users having different tastes than reviewers actually. Take Cake Mania or Alice Greenfingers: even though the games are bad, the games *look* interesting from their screenshots, so they would tend to get a lot of downloads, which leads to more sales even though their conversion rates might be lower than better games. So I don't think that users enjoy those games more than the games that tend to get top scores, it's more that those games have better marketing and look more interesting to download, which leads to higher sales because of the higher downloads.

This would perhaps be true if the conversion rates for the games mentioned were average. However, without revealing any number I can say that they are well above average. I believe that the download numbers for the first week of availability were within 10% of the average for games released on the same day of the week.

B/C the games have converted well over a long period of time to a large audience (which is another way of saying that they sell well) portals will continue to promote them...though notably, I don't think that the portals have to do much to promote the games that sell well. I think maybe that point itself is a point of interest. Indie developers (and people in general) believe that if you make a good product, it will be noticed.

Most of the portals would call the games mentioned good games because they, like cream, floated to the top of the sales charts without any real effort on the portal's part. People simply liked the games more than other games...and the popularity was maintained at a higher level over time than other games.

RinkuHero

08-08-2007, 04:47 PM

Hmm, good to know that their conversion rates are higher too. In that case, maybe it's just "theme/setting" that does it. A lot of people love gardening, and there's a dearth of gardening games, so people might buy it just because they love the idea of a farming/gardening game (regardless of whether the game itself is very good).

Regardless of what causes it though, I think it's best to just treat such things as mysterious, and not to say that just because the public buys a game that seems bad to us that that proves it's actually a good game (as Cliffski seemed to imply earlier on). There are a variety of reasons a game could sell well, and being good is only one of them.

cyrus_zuo

08-08-2007, 04:58 PM

There are a variety of reasons a game could sell well, and being good is only one of them.

I agree with that. (though not the gardening line...there have been plenty of "can't miss" gardening games like Plantasia that have not done well in the portals)

I have a healthy skepticism for the thought that what is good gets noticed. However, inside I think we want to believe that better products win out over better marketed products. Sometimes that is true, but computers to cars to movies to just about everything make me skeptical :).

arcadetown

08-08-2007, 04:59 PM

Promaginy

08-08-2007, 09:55 PM

There are plenty of simple games I love -- Blocksum, Chocolate Castle, fl0w, Echoes, I could go on -- I don't think I said that they're bad because they're simple.

You're right. You did not say that. I assumed that you said that Cake Mania or Alice Greenfingers are bad games because you agreed with others who thought that their gameplay is simplistic and they were just marketed well. I just would never post in a public forum that another game is bad - too me it's bad form. :cool:

Derek Yu

08-08-2007, 10:29 PM

Rule #1: what you and I think = delete, what users think = good. I've found very few top sellers are my cup of tea, but I simply don't matter. Cake Mania is really boring to me but users proved me flat out wrong. It's uber polished, great graphics, solid game play, ramping challenge, and super easy to learn. Great hallmarks of a casual game.

That basically sums up the attitude behind casual games that I find so reprehensible. At the point where that becomes you're number one rule, you're only making a game by the most technical definitions. You're not making anything you care about, you're just running a business. And in that case, why are you in indie games and not something more lucrative? Is it just to be in games, at any cost, even if you're not making games that appeal to you?

I'm actually extremely curious what kinds of games casual developers enjoy playing in their spare time? Are they playing Mario and Zelda? Or Gears of War? Or Warcraft? Or Shadow of the Colossus or Katamari Damacy? Or are they playing Bejewelled and Zuma and Alice Greenfingers?

How many casual game developers grew up playing Mario and Zelda but are making casual games instead... because they want to be in games but are afraid of developing something personally interesting to them?

mooktown

08-09-2007, 06:03 AM

Most of the portals would call the games mentioned good games because they, like cream, floated to the top of the sales charts without any real effort on the portal's part.

Don't forget, shit floats.

Dan MacDonald

08-09-2007, 06:45 AM

That basically sums up the attitude behind casual games that I find so reprehensible. At the point where that becomes you're number one rule, you're only making a game by the most technical definitions. You're not making anything you care about, you're just running a business. And in that case, why are you in indie games and not something more lucrative? Is it just to be in games, at any cost, even if you're not making games that appeal to you?

I'm actually extremely curious what kinds of games casual developers enjoy playing in their spare time? Are they playing Mario and Zelda? Or Gears of War? Or Warcraft? Or Shadow of the Colossus or Katamari Damacy? Or are they playing Bejewelled and Zuma and Alice Greenfingers?

How many casual game developers grew up playing Mario and Zelda but are making casual games instead... because they want to be in games but are afraid of developing something personally interesting to them?

I do know some developers actually do play casual games for their own personal entertainment ( I've poked and prodded them to try to get them to "fess up" but they insist) and not just to do "market research".

I know I am definitely one of those guys who'd much rather be playing shadow of the colossus or ninja gaiden and pursuing casual games was just lying to myself. I have to say, forgetting about the casual downloadable space has been a real breath of fresh air for me and that things are finally falling into place.

papillon

08-09-2007, 07:36 AM

I enjoy Zuma and Fizzball and things like that, but see no point in most of the "work" games or "pointless puzzle" games. I'd only play them if I were being rewarded with a great story for going through all the work and puzzles.

cyrus_zuo

08-09-2007, 08:58 AM

How many casual game developers grew up playing Mario and Zelda but are making casual games instead... because they want to be in games but are afraid of developing something personally interesting to them?
I don't know.

However, I do know a lot a casual games are made because people get older. Instead of focusing on what 'we' want, we look at trying to make games that our wives can play or that our families can play. Our interests tend to be a little less centered around violence and destruction, which further pushes towards what are considered more casual games (Ricochet Infinity and to a lesser extend Wik I think are both good examples)

I was back home earlier this month and it was cool to see my dad get into my brother's most recent game (it was a Hidden Object game). Certainly my dad had no interest when we did Dark Archon years ago, and that was fine, we did that game because we thought it was cool. However, it was very gratifying to see that my brother made something that my own family as well as our father enjoyed.

So I think there is a certain part of it that is wanting to share what you enjoy with those around you and searching for what they might play. Another part is changing perspectives over time.

I would also add that I enjoyed Alice Greenfingers (Cake Mania not so much). I didn't enjoy Alice Greenfingers like I enjoyed Mr. Robot or Zelda: The Twilight Princess, but I found it a fun diversion. I really like the multiplayer in Big Kahuna Reef 2 and am always up to play against good players. For most of the casual games, however, I don't tend to come back to them after I've played them the first time, so it is a bit different. I play a big breadth, but I wouldn't say I put a lot of time into most of the games. (Indie games, except for the stand-outs, receive essentially the same treatment...but I think that is due to doing so many monthly panels ;))

wazoo

08-09-2007, 11:43 AM

How many casual game developers grew up playing Mario and Zelda but are making casual games instead... because they want to be in games but are afraid of developing something personally interesting to them?

Obviously I wouldn't dare try to speak for everyone, but money is the root of all the "issues" around casual gaming and/or casual business and/or even creativity within indie gaming.

Let's face it, if money were no object then we wouldn't be having this discussion; we'd be beheading every other AAA company out there in the online market.

Let's sum up some of my own personal "challenges":

1. Right now indie game development is my hobby until I can turn it into my job. As such, I have a very small window of actual productivity each day. Even smaller if I'm wasting my time messing with f'n Windows drivers, video drivers, patches, and antivirus software run amok and other stuff that computers-are-supposed-to-help-us-do-but-don't.

(Yes I've tried out Linux and Mac, but I still gravitate to Windows.)

2. Proving to my wife that my time spent away from her is actually productive time and not just banging my electronic mistress.

3. Why would I want to spend 5-7 years making a game that only 10 people *might* download? Could be the game of *my* dreams, but rather useless when trying to accomplish #2 and also turn my hobby into my fulltime business.

It's a frighteningly tough balance. I want to create freakingly good and fun games to be proud of, but I also want some money coming in the door in order to spend more time on them. Can't I strive towards the "middle ground" between the piss poor casual game retreads on one extreme and some of the artsy fartsy Indie titles that habit the other extreme?

I realize this is all bordering on "whining" but whatever. I'm fairly certain my 3 challenges strike a familiar chord among other indies.

stanchat

08-09-2007, 12:11 PM

2. Proving to my wife that my time spent away from her is actually productive time and not just banging my electronic mistress.

I'm glad someone else is having this problem also. My wife thinks i'm using Poser to create 3D porn sometimes. Have to admit that some of those Poser 3D babes are hot!! :D

KNau

08-09-2007, 05:24 PM

Derek Yu

08-10-2007, 12:09 AM

It's a frighteningly tough balance. I want to create freakingly good and fun games to be proud of, but I also want some money coming in the door in order to spend more time on them. Can't I strive towards the "middle ground" between the piss poor casual game retreads on one extreme and some of the artsy fartsy Indie titles that habit the other extreme?

Right there is a great thing you just said. But my firm belief is that if you start with money as your root objective, then that middle ground is slowly going to start sloughing off toward the "piss poor casual game retreads" zone. It's just inevitable, because the more concerned you are about who's going to like your game, the less risks you're going to take. You're going to dumb things down to the lowest common denominator.

Why not start with passion / creativity as the root and let the money side come from that?

And KNau said it: some casual games make it, but most don't. The market shifts this way and that. It's perhaps MORE risky than making a personal game, for a few reasons:

1. At least if you make a game you personally really enjoy, you have your demographic nailed. Otherwise, all you can do is study market data and hope it's still valid when your game ships.

2. You make a casual game, you gotta pray, pray, pray that someone didn't come up with the same incremental innovations you did.

However, I do know a lot a casual games are made because people get older. Instead of focusing on what 'we' want, we look at trying to make games that our wives can play or that our families can play. Our interests tend to be a little less centered around violence and destruction, which further pushes towards what are considered more casual games (Ricochet Infinity and to a lesser extend Wik I think are both good examples)

I think that's awesome. I know I'm always happy to get to share my games with my family and friends. But you're making an assumption that to make a good, non-violent game, it has to be casual, which isn't at all true. There are no rules about how to make a game.

Also, my mom plays a lot of Solitaire. But really... it's just a way for her to distract herself and she enjoys it, but it's not something that I would say improves her life visibly. I find a lot of casual games to be like that: distracting but not redeeming. I'd love for my mom to find a game that's as easy to pick up as Solitaire and play, but moves her or makes her think hard in some way. (What's cool is that she totally gets Aquaria and is interested in the way we developed the character. Granted, she's my mom, she loves me unconditionally, but still...)

And yeah, those with wives (or husbands or whatever) who are jealous of the time spent on the computer... why not get her involved in the process? I'm sure she would appreciate hearing about it. The problem is that it'd be hard to make cloning a casual game sound in any way passionate or interesting! ;)

"Yeah honey, I'm trying to decide whether using one or two mouse buttons will generate more money for this game where you match colored things together."

or

"Yeah honey, this guy made this game where you match colored things, and he made a million bucks. So I'm going to do the same thing, but mine's different because I'm setting it in Ancient Greece. I know you don't like me being on the computer, but hey, I'm sure to make at least a few bucks from it at least, right?"

But I'll bet if you worked on something you really loved yourself, she would get it... and probably really respect the fact that you're spending free time doing so. I mean, I hope she would, being your wife and all. And hey, she's a woman and a part of roughly half the population of gamers (if statistics are to be trusted)! Why not talk with her about what would interest her in a game?

Wife and mistress together at the same time! Perfect!

But yeah, I really feel that, in the end, a lot of problems are solved if you follow the simple rule that you always make a game you love and you work hard to share that feeling with others. There's no such thing as a sure bet, but at least this way you can do something to really be proud of. And there's the chance that you touch someone in a meaningful way as well.

mooktown

08-10-2007, 12:37 AM

But I'll bet if you worked on something you really loved yourself, she would get it... and probably really respect the fact that you're spending free time doing so.

Not all creators of casual games hate them dude, as I've moved through my twenties and into my thirties I've found myself preferring the experiences I get from sharing casual games (on wii, ds & pc) with the wife as opposed to playing hardcore games that I would of played in the past.

There are plenty of poor hardcore games out there and its not because they were made by developers that prefer casual games! ;)

I think that poor casual games come more from a lack of ability than love for the genre.

Chris Evans

08-10-2007, 01:34 AM

The problem with "I'm going to make my casual game so I can get rich and then work on my passion projects" is that it just doesn't happen.

Making a Mystery Case Files clone is no less risky than making your passion project. The are plenty of people going broke trying to make casual games. I haven't seen any evidence that one strategy works better than the other.

In 2003 - 2004 when Bejeweled clones were all the rage, it may have been less risky since the average production quality was still low enough that you could churn out match-3s in 2-4 months with minimal expenses. But yes I totally agree that today attempting a AAA casual game is probably just as risky as doing a passion project.

For example the recently released Jungo had an awesome trailer leading up to the release (even if it was a bit over the top for a match-3). The game itself had excellent graphics and a lovely soundtrack. Yet according to games-sales-chart.com, the game fell completely flat (http://www.game-sales-charts.com/cms/index.php?option=com_dbquery&Itemid=33&task=ExecuteQuery&qid=20&cqo_game=Jungo) on the major portals when it was released last month. The portal market really is cutthroat right now.

I personally enjoyed the characters, visuals and especially the soundtrack in Jungo but I would love to see that level of polish and production quality on a more "Indie"-type game even if it was in a smaller scope.

At least if you make a game you personally really enjoy, you have your demographic nailed. Otherwise, all you can do is study market data and hope it's still valid when your game ships.

I think this is very important. Some of the larger developers/portals have access to large focus groups and QA testers. They can pick their brains and constantly go back and forth until they know their game mechanic meshes with their target audience.

A lot of smaller developers don't have these resources so they try to analyze broad/vague market data and trends, and anecdotal evidence. Some try getting a few of their family members involved, but it still doesn't come close to having access to a continuous batch of fresh focus testers and dedicated QA team. I think this is why a lot of small 1-2 man developer shops struggle to create games for a foreign demographic. Not only do they not personally understand the market segment but they have no real way of getting proper feedback from that audience until it's too late.

Just about all the major successful casual game developers have stated how they constantly get player feedback with each design iteration. They're not getting feedback from a bunch of jaded hardcore gamers, they're getting constant feedback from their target audience.

If you don't inherently understand the casual audience and don't have access to a large pool of focus testers, then IMO you have no business making a casual game. In that case you really should be creating something closer to your heart and for an audience you understand. That will be less risky and chances are you'll end up making a far better game.

mooktown

08-10-2007, 05:06 AM

I'm surprised to hear that about Jungo as its level of polish is so high and the game is very enjoyable. Do you think that signals the end of the age of adjacent-tile-swappers? :eek:

wazoo

08-10-2007, 06:53 AM

But yeah, I really feel that, in the end, a lot of problems are solved if you follow the simple rule that you always make a game you love and you work hard to share that feeling with others. There's no such thing as a sure bet, but at least this way you can do something to really be proud of. And there's the chance that you touch someone in a meaningful way as well.

Amen brother.

And I think in today's shifting market, and from just general postings around here and sites like TIGSource, I get the impression that titles you're passionate about creating have a tendency to last longer in the market than the portal spam which may hit top of the charts for a few months, then drop like a rock.

Games like Aveyond and such *hopefully* will have a much longer staying power. *cross fingers*

True it's a gamble no matter which path you take, so in the end I do try to drift more towards personal creative satisfaction vs. "dumbing down" for a wider appeal.

But I'll bet if you worked on something you really loved yourself, she would get it... and probably really respect the fact that you're spending free time doing so. I mean, I hope she would, being your wife and all..-

Definitely. Which is actually a driving factor for trying to stay as "Agile" as possible during development. If she can see something tangible as opposed to a bunch of boring engine code and/or object optimization routines (blech), it does make my "work time" much less stressfull and it becomes a more positive feedback cycle; a happy wife is a happy life right? :P

I'm glad someone else is having this problem also. My wife thinks i'm using Poser to create 3D porn sometimes. Have to admit that some of those Poser 3D babes are hot!!

yeah baby!...I mean *cough* watchu talkin' 'bout Willis? ;)

cliffski

08-10-2007, 07:26 AM

I'm glad someone else is having this problem also. My wife thinks i'm using Poser to create 3D porn sometimes. Have to admit that some of those Poser 3D babes are hot!! :D

Don't get me started. If you want a spandex pair of panties for a stick-thin teenage girl, poser has 100 to choose from. If you want a baseball cap, or a face texture for someone over 21, forget about it.
If any artist wants to make money selling poser content, make some real world content that's not centered around young girls in bondage gear with elf ears. You will make a fortune.

papillon

08-10-2007, 08:31 AM

And yeah, those with wives (or husbands or whatever) who are jealous of the time spent on the computer... why not get her involved in the process? I'm sure she would appreciate hearing about it. The problem is that it'd be hard to make cloning a casual game sound in any way passionate or interesting!

... trying to get my husband involved in the design process is always a fail because he immediately comes up with an idea for an exciting full-3d adventure/fps/base-strategy hybrid with a non-linear plotline and tons of locations and full physics models and... :)

"Why won't you ever make one of MY ideas???"

cyrus_zuo

08-10-2007, 12:13 PM

Right there is a great thing you just said. But my firm belief is that if you start with money as your root objective, then that middle ground is slowly going to start sloughing off toward the "piss poor casual game retreads" zone. It's just inevitable, because the more concerned you are about who's going to like your game, the less risks you're going to take. You're going to dumb things down to the lowest common denominator.

Why not start with passion / creativity as the root and let the money side come from that?

And KNau said it: some casual games make it, but most don't. The market shifts this way and that. It's perhaps MORE risky than making a personal game, for a few reasons:

1. At least if you make a game you personally really enjoy, you have your demographic nailed. Otherwise, all you can do is study market data and hope it's still valid when your game ships.

2. You make a casual game, you gotta pray, pray, pray that someone didn't come up with the same incremental innovations you did.

I think this is a misconception. The people who are stating that there is no money in derivative products either aren't making them or aren't selling them and thereby lack the perspective necessary to discuss the matter, or all the games they make are low quality and derivative or original, their games wouldn't sell.

There is money in making a Hidden Object game, that's why people do it. And then do it again and again. I'd love to talk numbers because there is a 100:1 factor here that unless you've been a part of you don't believe is possible. People think of casual games the wrong way. It's consumable entertainment, it doesn't satiate. Those looking for something more weighty don't typically look to games, or if they do, they look mainstream. Downloadable games are more like French Fries. You can give them to the public every day of the week and they still want more. They'll eat them from every different store, and while they'll notice that some Fries are better than others, some have cheese or real potatoes, they buy fairly indiscriminately.

Unoriginal Seek and Find games don't sell as well as the more original ones, but they still sell tens of thousands of copies. The more original ones sell in the hundreds of thousands of copies range. (BFG is nice enough to put numbers in their press releases) Point is, and since my brother has made one I've got personal data to agree with the point, there is a LOT of money in casual games.

Not all the games make it...obviously, but the percentage of hits isn't bad by any means. It would be interesting to do a comparison of indie to casual on the financial side, I don't think anyone has done one.

Notably, there is plenty of risk involved, it is like the stock market, it does require trying to figure out what will still be popular in 12 months or if you should try something more original. From watching sales daily on Reflexive my personal impression, of the casual games market, is that the more original game the higher the chance for big money and the higher the chance for no money.

I don't really want to turn this into YET ANOTHER thread talking about Indie vs Casual, but I did want to point out that I think the argument that derivative is a money loser I believe to be quite incorrect. I'd like to see numbers to prove me wrong, because the numbers I do have access to are overwhelming. (and notably...I prefer indie to casual...typically...I don't prefer angry to happy)

But I'll bet if you worked on something you really loved yourself, she would get it... and probably really respect the fact that you're spending free time doing so. I mean, I hope she would, being your wife and all. And hey, she's a woman and a part of roughly half the population of gamers (if statistics are to be trusted)! Why not talk with her about what would interest her in a game?

Wife and mistress together at the same time! Perfect!

But yeah, I really feel that, in the end, a lot of problems are solved if you follow the simple rule that you always make a game you love and you work hard to share that feeling with others. There's no such thing as a sure bet, but at least this way you can do something to really be proud of. And there's the chance that you touch someone in a meaningful way as well.
As an aside, if I talk to her, and follow her interest, am I indie?

I think from the last thought that you are looking at Serious games (i.e. the ones that are intended to go beyond simple diversions) as the definition of Indie.

My wife doesn't like serious games. She doesn't like adventure, RPG, action or most everything else I've shown her. She did play the breakout game we did. She gives me feedback on every graphic I do, and website layout. However, there has been a big difference between what she gives feedback on, and what she will play on her own. When Michael Welch made DX-Ball he mentioned that it was finally a game his wife would play. My wife played the puzzle game we made and enjoyed it, and the breakout game. I couldn't get her to do anything more than look at Dark Archon, she didn't want to touch the mouse to play it. I tend to think of casual as approachable and simple fun, the arcade of our days. I liked going to arcades and playing a bunch of games for a short time. Console gaming is quite different, and I like it too, but it doesn't replace my enjoyment of simple fun mechanics.

But the flip-side, and where I think most of the indie vs casual vs ??? discussion comes in is the assumption that people making casual games don't love what they are doing. That creates a division, which sets people on un-equal footing.

I'm working on a casual game right now. It was my idea, I thought it would be fun. I enjoy the game and love getting in new images and builds to see how it is progressing, give feedback and dream up new ideas (my design is being outsourced-notice I didn't call it Indie ;)). When the game is released I hope other people will enjoy it. My wife has really been excited about it and has hand-painted shirts of the main character. I'm having fun and doing something I enjoy. It doesn't have any deeper meaning that people smiling and enjoying what they are playing...and it doesn't need too. If it accomplishes that, or even if it doesn't, I'll be ever proud of it :).

...and maybe making someone smile is touching them in a meaningful way?

Derek Yu

08-10-2007, 07:18 PM

... trying to get my husband involved in the design process is always a fail because he immediately comes up with an idea for an exciting full-3d adventure/fps/base-strategy hybrid with a non-linear plotline and tons of locations and full physics models and... :)

"Why won't you ever make one of MY ideas???"

hahaha :D

I think this is a misconception. The people who are stating that there is no money in derivative products either aren't making them or aren't selling them and thereby lack the perspective necessary to discuss the matter, or all the games they make are low quality and derivative or original, their games wouldn't sell.

If I implied that I thought there was no money in casual gaming, then my apologies! There's lots of money to be made there, and I understand the draw, I just don't agree with the principles. And I'm suggesting that there's money to be made in making personal games, too, and I'm also suggesting there's more risk involved than people think in making derivative products over original ones.

I'm working on a casual game right now. It was my idea, I thought it would be fun. I enjoy the game and love getting in new images and builds to see how it is progressing, give feedback and dream up new ideas (my design is being outsourced-notice I didn't call it Indie ). When the game is released I hope other people will enjoy it. My wife has really been excited about it and has hand-painted shirts of the main character. I'm having fun and doing something I enjoy. It doesn't have any deeper meaning that people smiling and enjoying what they are playing...and it doesn't need too. If it accomplishes that, or even if it doesn't, I'll be ever proud of it.

Well, you don't need any other reason to make a game, no matter what type of game it is! I honestly think that's great. I'm just trying to convince people who DON'T want to make a casual game, but are considering making one simply because they think there's less risk involved, that they should just do what they want. It's not a small amount of people that are probably in that situation.

If you love casual games and that's what you play and what you want to make, then more power to you. But for the others...

And by the way, I have nothing against simple games, and no, I don't believe (nor would I want) that every game should be like Tolstoy. Obviously a lot of the games I enjoy are simple ones. But being simple and being personal are not mutually exclusive. Many (emphasis) casual games seem to come from a place where money is the main objective and I have issue with that. I don't mind that games like that exist, but I will work my hardest to make sure that they do not drown out the games that are made with real integrity. Because while games in the first category may expand gaming as an industry, games in the second category will expand gaming as a means of personal expression.

By the way, when you say a factor of 100:1 regarding Hidden Object Games, what factor are you talking about? If you mean successes versus failures, then you're right, I don't believe you! You will have to show me real statistics on that. ;)

cyrus_zuo

08-11-2007, 05:13 PM

By the way, when you say a factor of 100:1 regarding Hidden Object Games, what factor are you talking about? If you mean successes versus failures, then you're right, I don't believe you! You will have to show me real statistics on that. ;)
I was talking money made on those vs money made on other games. Right now they are hot...let me PM you though :).

Escapee

08-12-2007, 09:36 PM

http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=11099&highlight=stone+destiny

From the developer of the stone of destiny ( Another Hidden object game )
We are not completely on the dark side yet.
I have a lot of ideas of original games in mind, so don't worry :)

Casual games sells better than indie, so I think it is better to have both type of game in developent in the same time. One for money, second for personal motivation.
In this few first days Stone of Destiny selled more copies than Master of Defense selled in last year:)Currently we are on the second place in Big Fish Top 10.

LOL :D

Alec

08-12-2007, 10:27 PM

It'd be cool to see more games that appeal to both "groups". That way everyone can get excited about them. It does seem like we're moving towards a time when games are accepted by a wider range of people; it makes sense to design games with a large variety of players in consideration.

But that's not an excuse to be unimaginative. It should actually be inspiration to come up with games that have a great spirit of creativity.

cyrus_zuo

08-13-2007, 10:37 AM

It baffles me today that anyone looks for games that are linear and long, games that ask you to care what happens next. After 20 years of it not happening, people who make or love those games think they can be a dominant form. Don't those games always disappoint? The fluke is that anyone buys "Final Fantasy." The aberration is that anyone invests three hours--let alone 30--into an adventure game.

This has been a tough idea for me to accept. I always wanted my games to be adventures, an interesting interactive series of events. I crave Zeldas and Metroids and games that can be as rich and lasting as novels. But recently I realized that almost any such game I play lets me down.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/08/13/vs-mode-on-short-session-games-round-1-fight.aspx

Level Up is an increasingly good daily read for those interested...this one happened to talk around easily approachable games (another term for casual).
I thought the points interesting in light of the conversation in this thread :).

lennard

08-13-2007, 12:04 PM

I find myself increasingly distracted by Texas Hold'em 5 player sit'n'go tournaments that can be played < 30 minutes. Players are always to be had online and working my bankroll has become a suitable substitute for finding a bigger flaming axe.

TH is actually a brilliant game design in that no player is ever truly out of the game. The power of doubling up means that any player can theoretically come back.

I have four game designs in mind for when I finish Font Fiend and two of them have mechanics inspired by hidden information and gambling with your game played to date.

Alec

08-14-2007, 01:19 AM

It seems like people are thinking there's a debate between whether short simple games are better than longer games or vice versa. There's room for both types to exist and have a healthy audience. I don't see why one would ever be automatically better than the other; games depend on a lot more factors than just length/complexity to measure how "good" or "popular" they'll be.

Personally, I think what's at the core of the debate is that some people are in this primarily to make money, and will do whatever it takes to ensure they do, without consideration for things like 'originality' or 'creativity'. To me, that's the depressing part.

Its like when you see a match-N game that is essentially a themed skin of a previous game. Some people are just out to resell something that's already out there, and they demand to be patted on the back for it. It tarnishes the indie scene when games like that are celebrated as the top shining achievements of all indiedom. It basically says to the world "Yeah, we suck, but come on!"

Ultimately, that "debate" has no resolution, because the people who are making games primarily to make money and the people who are making them because they want to be creative will never be able to see eye to eye on how to approach the development process.

Nikos Beck

08-14-2007, 07:17 AM

Ultimately, that "debate" has no resolution, because the people who are making games primarily to make money and the people who are making them because they want to be creative will never be able to see eye to eye on how to approach the development process.

I agree that those can be on opposing sides and people on the extremes will rarely agree. There are plenty of cheap knock-offs and quirky originals as evidence. Very occasonally, the rants and flames will yield a nugget of valuable knowledge.

There is a middle ground; I want to make money and be creative but build on a popular game style. So, I have a match-three mechanic but to achieve a goal (kind of like Lego Chic Boutique) that has a strong theme where the matching mechanic and using the match results make sense. And, I want to make money.

Promaginy

08-14-2007, 08:13 PM

I am looking forward to see more of those games which are epic in scope and setting (fantasy, sci-fi, adventure) but are accessible and easy to play. Give me more Aveyond & Cute Knight! Part of the problem with people of my generation is that time is very limited. I can't spend the dozens of hours I used to in a bunch of games (though I would love to :p). I think that is one of the reasons why casual games have taken off so much.

I have issue with that. I don't mind that games like that exist, but I will work my hardest to make sure that they do not drown out the games that are made with real integrity. Because while games in the first category may expand gaming as an industry, games in the second category will expand gaming as a means of personal expression.

Would you agree with me that very little personal expression is found in a Baldur's Gate or StarCraft rip-off? Just because the setting is more epic and the gameplay mechanic is more complex does not mean that they represent personal expression.

If you mean that games must possess some kind of message, what should that message be for it to represent your ideal of personal expression?

Alec

08-17-2007, 01:02 AM

Nothing wrong with making money, or running a business of course. I was just referring to cases where money concerns become such a focus that they win out over making something that the creator's themselves might actually enjoy.

i.e. when games try to copy market trends, or start the design simply by saying "make it like THAT game but marginally different"

It seems like some designers only put in the minimum effort to get to the finish line, when that's actually less likely to make them stand out from the pack.

I get the impression that some people are releasing games they're ashamed of, just because they think its what people want to play, when they could be venturing into new territory and discovering their own style... possibly leading to even greater business opportunities in a new creative space that they've cleared for themselves.

Just the idea of people churning out games that they don't identify with to make a buck makes me feel sad, is all.

But to each their own, eh?

princec

08-17-2007, 02:19 AM

I don't think that anyone in here has made such a game and remained in business. No passion == crap games.

Cas :)

Alec

08-18-2007, 09:25 AM

I don't think that anyone in here has made such a game and remained in business. No passion == crap games.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that people here have no passion. I can't imagine anyone doing this if they didn't have some passion for games. (then again, I tend to have optimistic hopes of how people approach things that often turn out to be mistaken)

I'm also not trying to pretend that I have any idea that I know what is good for other people, I'm just expressing my own views on the matter.

As for personal expression... at the base level, if a developer is coming from place of passion/love for his/her game, then I think it'll be present in the final project in a tangible way. I get that feeling from both games that are polished and games that have major presentation flaws. I think that type of expression is a component to games that is often lacking in some very polished titles.

Ultimately, when a game is both well polished and has a healthy measure of that expression/passion to it, its hard to resist.

Would you agree with me that very little personal expression is found in a Baldur's Gate or StarCraft rip-off? Just because the setting is more epic and the gameplay mechanic is more complex does not mean that they represent personal expression.

I for one, would agree. Simplicity-Complexity is independent of expression. I think a good example is Everyday Shooter, which is a relatively simple game (compared to something like Baldur's Gate), but its very expressive.

In fact, it might even be that its easier for simpler games to have more personal expression, since they're often made by smaller teams and tend to focus on smaller situations.