Experimental Game Dev Interviews — The First Game Dev Podcast Ever
RSS icon Home icon
  • How Would You Turn Your Game into an Electronic Sport…

    Posted on October 26th, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    Hey folks,

    Blizzcon happened this past weekend. Blizzard mentioned that they were not going to turn Diablo III into an Electronic Sport (E-Sport)

    For Indie/Experimental game developers…an interesting design question would be…how would you turn your game into an E-Sport?

    Here are a couple things mentioned by Blizzard a while back…on what’s needed for a game to become an Electronic Sport…
    Replay option
    Spectator option…so folks can watch what’s going on
    Referee Tools so that games can be moderated, etc…

    These are things that Starcraft has…that make it a compelling Electronic Sport…

    The question now is…how would you turn mobile/experimental/casual games into Electronic Sports that people like to play.

    In a way, the folks at the Game Show Network and their skill-based game designs…probably qualify as an Electronic Sport…but they may not have all the tools to make it a sport that draws in spectators/etc.

    What would you do to turn your game into an electronic sport? Do you think casual games can ever become an electronic sport?

  • Guest Post: Gameplay and Story

    Posted on October 19th, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    What are games? This is the sole question to begin to understand how games work. We are going to discuss the very basic design of video games. If you are new to video game design, this is where you should start.

    Video games, at their most basic, are divided into two sections based on their design: story and gameplay. In the very best games, these two work together to make a masterpiece. Gameplay should complement story, and story should complement gameplay (you’ll see what I mean in a moment). People discuss story-driven games and gameplay-driven games, but to make a game the best it can be, they should really be the same caliber. It’s time to stop thinking about gameplay and story, and time to start thinking of them as story-gameplay (no, I did not get this idea from Einstein).

    Gameplay is, well, you actually playing the game – how you are allowed to interact with the Metal Gearworld. This gameplay is also divided into two sections: actions and challenges. In Halo, the actions are running, shooting, jumping, crouching, reloading, etc. These actions are referred to as game mechanics, and you are able to do each one in the virtual world by doing something in the real world with the control. Often, each mechanic has its own button. You use these mechanics to complete challenges.

    A challenge in Halo is often a hoard of enemies. Challenges are often interwoven throughout the game. For example, let’s say your challenge is to rescue the princess. To do that, you need to get the sword, a subchallenge. To get the sword though, you need to kill the sword’s guardian, a subchallenge of a subchallenge. You accomplish these challenges throughout the game by using the mechanics. The relationship between the mechanics and challenges is what’s known as gameplay. That is pretty much the outline of every game: a series of challenges, or problems, which the player must complete.

    The second part of a video game is the story, which includes the story (the events that occur in the game), atmosphere, sounds, characters, and all things that either make the virtual world more immersive or gives weight to the challenges. Let’s say we’re designing a video game, and the player’s overlying challenge is to save the princess. But how does the designer make that the challenge? Do we just say in text, “You’re challenge is to save the princess.”? No! We let thegta mechanics and story story give you that objective organically. We can show a cutscene of you and the princess, when she is kidnapped and you are knocked unconscious. Characters of the village can be sobbing about their loss to you; the town may go into disarray, etc. The point is, you, through the character you play in the game, know that you have save the princess. If we just told you in text what your challenge was, you would feel no obligation to complete the challenge. The game wouldn’t be fun, because the game of interweaved challenges has turned into a list of things you have to do. Go from point A to point B, and you win the game. Nobody would ever go to point B just because you told them to. Through story, challenges should be organically produced and given to the player, who now has a reason to complete the challenges. He/she now wants to complete to the challenge because of the story – you’ve become attached to the characters, you want to save this interesting new world, you want to know what happens next or the answers to your questions about the story or world. The feelings the game gives you is also important – you want to continue to feel the power, achievement, etc. You also want to keep playing because the gameplay and process your mind plays in completing challenges, but the story on top of fun gameplay takes the game to a whole new level (no pun intended).

    So now about how gameplay and story complement each other. Basically, gameplay should progress the story. By accomplishing your goal, you are rewarded with story. By using the game alan wake gameplay and storymechanics to accomplish the challenge of saving the mayor who is inside a burning building, he may reward you, in the story, with a weapon, information, or something to get you closer to your larger challenges, like saving the princess. The weapons means new, fresh gameplay for you to enjoy, completion of the challenge makes you feel great, and you get to progress through the story which you’ve been immersed into.

    So, wrapping up, story and gameplay make up video games. Gameplay is the actions, goals, and how the two go together, and story is what gives weight to the goals. Gameplay opens up story, as story serves as a reward for gameplay. Story also gives reason for the games, so without story, the gameplay is not as fun or logical.

    I could go on forever, but I’ll stop there. It is a lot to process if you are new to game design, so for practice, go play your favorite game (action, action-adventure, or adventure game, although there are many more which use this formula), and examine the challenge structure at any point (know your main goal and all of the subgoals at any point in the game after the introduction). Also figure out what the mechanics are. Also, if you’re in for a challenge, try to figure out why you are playing the game and completing the challenges. What is it about the game that makes playing it so much fun? We’ll cover that someday.

    Have fun, and come back later for part 2.

    Dylan Woodbury lives with his family in Southern California. He runs http://dtwgames.com, a game design website that posts intriguing new articles every week, both beginner’s tutorials and theoretical ideas. He also has an interest in writing, and is planning his first novel. His primary goal is to change the world through video games.

  • Author of Lost Garden Blog Discusses Future Opportunities in Game Design

    Posted on October 18th, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    Daniel, author of LostGarden.com, discusses current and emerging game design opportunities

    You can download the podcast here…
    http://www.indiegamepod.com/podcasts/cc-lostgarden.mp3

    Or listen to it here…

    Read the rest of this entry »

  • The Design and Opportunities of Skill-Based Games

    Posted on October 9th, 2010 IndieGamePod 2 comments

    Davin, VP of Social Games for the Game Show Network, talks about the opportunities of skill-based games

    You can download the podcast here…
    http://www.indiegamepod.com/podcasts/cc-gsn.mp3

    Or listen to it here…

    Read the rest of this entry »

  • Has Anyone Made A Fun Game While Not Having Fun…

    Posted on September 17th, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    Hey folks,

    I’m trying to get a better understanding of the steps needed to make successful games…the last post was about how the game development shouldn’t be too long…or too short…both will lead to a “non-fun” game…

    Now the question is…has anyone made a fun game while in a boring/painful state of mind. Basically, what is your development process…are you having fun at every moment…are there moments of boredom when you’re creating the core gameplay?

    Here’s an interview on the show from an IGF Finalist…that talks about having fun while developing their game…the exact question about this issue is answered at position 400

    The games I’ve made that have resonated best with players…were games where the “fun design” was made in a high emotional state (any emotional state…as long as it was intense)…and the games that really didn’t do as well were made with the traditional linear software approach in a normal state of mind.

    Anyone want to add their development experience to this…have you made any fun games…what were the circumstances during the development of the “fun” part of the game…how have games that you enjoyed making turn out vs. games you didn’t enjoy making turn out…add your comments below 🙂

  • Ignoring Game Development To Make A Successful Game…

    Posted on September 14th, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    Hey folks,

    Here’s a pattern I’ve noticed…that some of the best/most popular indie games … most successful games have taken less then 2 weeks to make…and usually only a couple days. I’m talking about the core mechanics of the game…of course, the developers may have taken weeks/months afterward to polish the game.

    This includes games like Bejeweled, Minecraft, Pocket God, and even some very profitable social games. In fact, the guy that developed Steambirds…mentioned that the core gameplay for his successful game only took a few days to make.

    However, I’ve seen other situations where people “are in development”….and they may spend months or years to finish something … only to have the game flop. Basically, no one plays it or it’s not fun.

    I think it’s interesting to note that billion dollar companies like eBay, Facebook, etc…only took a few to several days to develop the core concept.

    I now have a clearer development philosophy…basically, set a time limit of only a few hours/days to finish a basic game. If I do not finish in that time, throw it away…because it’ll probably fail anyway. Also, you need to feel emotion while developing the game…you have to infuse some passion into the game anyway…maybe that’s why month-long/year-long games don’t work. Because over the course of that time…you are infusing logical energy into the development and that kills the potential of “fun” in the game.

    Btw, this development philosophy exempts sequels and clones…because if a company is making a sequel or clone that is a rehash or revision of the original idea….well…the original idea was already successful…the “fun” was found…and so making development an engineering issue is alright in that case.

    here’s the summary…
    when looking to do creative development…too much time or too little time will kill the chance of success…you need to find the right time…usually only a few days…and work with that. If it doesn’t work by then…kill it, move onto another prototype/mini-project…maybe revisit the idea again in a few months/years.

    Any thoughts on this development perspective 🙂

  • Indie Flash Developer Discusses The Changes He Made To Develop A Hit Game

    Posted on September 6th, 2010 IndieGamePod 2 comments

    Andy, developer of Steam Birds, talks about how he transformed a below-average flash game into a success

    You can download the podcast here…
    http://www.indiegamepod.com/podcasts/cc-steambirds.mp3

    Or listen to it here…

    [wp_youtube]9p6MwHRucuo[/wp_youtube]

    Read the rest of this entry »

  • Games As Art? How About Games As Utilities…

    Posted on September 2nd, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    Hey folks,

    As I attend various game conferences, I usually hear discussions about “games as art”…I’m not sure that’s the most important question. For games to be ubiquitous, they need to be utilities. I think the important questions to ask are…what mechanics/systems do we need to invent to turn games into utilities.

    When a game becomes a utility, it then jumps out of the consumption curves of movie content/mmos…where there is a huge uptake initially and then a taper off over time…and into the utility curves of things like Google or Facebook….services that have grown over time.

    We’ve already seen some innovations in ways to make games utilities…with services like FourSquare, Digg, and SCVNGR

    With a utility, the games success grows over time. Now the question is…what are mechanics/systems that we can reference to build these game utilities…
    Here’s an incomplete list…mostly borrowed from MMOs and Casual Games…

    a) The game utility needs to work within the normal habits/acitivities of people/teams. That means…these games are not diversions from everyday life…but either amplifiers or accelerators of everyday life. FourSquare amplifies your experience of visiting a specific place. When you check-in, you may get a badge, etc. Digg relates to ranking and organizing news.

    b) Badges/Achievements…this gives folks mini-missions/goals as they use the utility

    c) Persistence…this is something that helps to show people’s time investment in the utility. This can be in the form of points, rank, or other types of system-generated content/information that helps to communicate the player’s investment in the utility…like an archive of their posts, comments, or ratings by others.

    d) User-generated/Community-generated information streams…systems like Digg and FourSquare rely on users GENERATING content (rather than consuming it) … that content is added to the system to help make the game utility more valuable…for example, one player may create content relevant to other participants in the system.

    These are the obvious mechanics…there may be other new ones…there has to be…because right now, the current design spaces have not thoroughly identified the mechanics/systems that can modify current games and turn them into utilities. Once we discover/invent these mechanics, we can easily apply gaming to everyday activities like search, dating, news, etc….with the expectation that the games will grow over time, rather than decline and taper off.

    Any thoughts on other mechanics/systems that can turn games into utilities?

  • Requiring Higher Levels of Player Commitment AFTER Building Higher Levels of Player Interest

    Posted on August 6th, 2010 IndieGamePod No comments

    Hey folks,

    I’m looking at various games online and on cell phones. I think it’s interesting to note that some games with similar themes have widely different levels of success. I think part of it is because many game developers require the high levels of commitment before getting the player interested in the game.

    Sure successful games can require high levels of commitment…like, people are going to play StarCraft 2…and pay for it before checking it out.

    But for many indies, why should a player pay for the game before getting an idea of whether it’s fun. Additionally, why should they have to create a login/provide an e-mail address…before getting to play the game. These all provide friction that get in the way of fun.

    Here’s a design principle that I’ve seen work…
    Require higher levels of player commitment AFTER building higher levels of player interest.

    This means…developers keep things as lightweight as possible. Figure out the quickest and easiest way to get the player into a game…then once they show interest…like spending 10 minutes in a game…pop up a dialog that asks them to create an account, etc.

    If they spend a few hours in a game, ask them to upgrade, etc.

    Yes, there is no guarantee that they will register, etc. But now most people are so use to seeing login/register screens at the beginning of a game…that if you do the same…it’s not really indie…but cliche…and the game may even trigger a visceral “skip this” response.

    To recap…raise the level of commitment/engagement (getting an e-mail address, creating a login, buying the game, subscribing, etc.) after each corresponding stage the player shows higher levels of interest/commitment.

    Take care 🙂

  • What Is The Certainty Factor At Every Moment In Your Game…

    Posted on July 22nd, 2010 IndieGamePod 1 comment

    Hey,

    I’ve been watching various people play these social games. One thing that amazes me here is that there is very little opportunity to get confused. Once a person finishes one step, there is a prompt or dialog box that directs the player to do the next thing.

    These are “guided interactions” and work well with keeping the casual gamer engaged. At GDC this year, one panel discussed how one game did poorly, but then they had much better guided help in a follow-on game and the 2nd game did a lot better.

    I like to coin this term “Certainty Factor”…at every moment of these successful social games, the “Certainty Factor” is at 100%…that means, the player knows 100% for sure…what to do next.

    These social game designers leave nothing to chance…they know that without the prompts, most of the players would be lost…and either quit…because they do not know what to do next…or just move onto the next game.

    By making sure the “Certainty Factor” is at 100%, the people play the games much longer. Let’s say the player is done planting on their farm, then a nice dialog asks them to help their friend’s farm…and once they do that, another nice dialog may pop up to ask them to send gifts, etc.

    These are activities the player would not have thought about themselves…they’ve got 100 other real-life things to think about. The dialogs remind them as well as raise the “Certainty Factor”…so that the players know what to do next at that moment in the game.

    As Indie and Experimental game developers, on the edge of innovation, I think it is important to ask…”What is the Certainty Factor at this moment in the game”…make sure it is 100%…once that happens, you’ll be on your way to ensuring that people keep playing the game.

    If the “Certainty Factor” is below 100%…ask yourself, “What do I need to change/do to increase the Certainty Factor?” Should I add a dialog prompt? Should I have an arrow pointing at the next goal or place to go…should I have a hint pop up? Whatever is needed to make the Certainty Factor 100% helps.

    Also, keep in mind that you can also have the Certainty Factor go to 200%…how is that possible? Well, as a designer, you get to 100% by making the next step absolutely clear…and then you get 100% more for making sure the guidance/dialog you add to raise the Certainty Factor is both FUN and FUNNY. Laughter helps!

    In any case, what is the Certainty Factor at each moment in your game? Most of the non-successful games I’ve seen have a factor of usually 0% or even negative. What do you need to change to raise the “Certainty Factor” FOR EVERY MOMENT in your game?

    Feedback and clarifications welcome 🙂