Want to make a game? Here’s how.

I get a lot of e-mail from people who want to get started in games but don’t know where to start. My usual response has been to make a mod. The problem with making mods these days though is that engine technology has gotten so good that it takes a lot more work and a lot more expertise to make something on a current engine. Making a mod for Doom took a lot less technical and artistic work than it does for Half-life II, and the next-gen will start to force mod authors to make programming-only mods. So what’s a great way to get started on your first game, so that it doesn’t take years and a team of 10+ to accomplish anything?

I think one great answer right now is the Popcap Games model. They’ve made some very fun “casual” games with a very tiny amount of technology. I’ve never gotten excited about casual games but the games Popcap are reaching a very wide audience and are genuinely fun. What gets me even more excited is that they’ve released their technology. For free. Just go to http://developer.popcap.com and you can download their framework and along with Visual Studio Express, you’ll be up in running in minutes with no money down. I’ve done a lot of game development over the past 10 years or so but I haven’t gotten this excited in a long time. You can open up Photoshop, scrawl an image, and 10 seconds later have it drawing on screen. Playing music and sound effects are a snap. Loading bars, options screens, animated sprites, it’s all as easy as possible and it will work on every damned computer out there with no extra downloads. This is game development at its simplest and purest and you will be spending almost all your time on actual creative work, that is, your gameplay, your aesthetic, your art, etc. Suddenly, making a complete game could take you days or weeks, not months or years. It’s a great way and fun way to learn, just make sure not to download Zuma or you’ll get nothing done…

Another great option is the Torque engine. The Torque engine is big step up from the Popcap development framework technology-wise (most notably adding cross-platform support and full-featured 3D and networking technology), but that means more work as a developer before you can get your first product done. It also costs $100 to download. One great aspect of the Torque engine is that much of your game can be written in their scripting language, which reduces the barrier to entry and makes it easier to debug and port your game for release.

One vital feature that both of these engines are missing is some sort of digital rights management (DRM) and/or e-commerce system. If you are making your game for the Windows platform only, the best DRM right now seems to be ActiveMark, though getting them to give you their tools can be quite a feat. There is also RegSoft and Paypal, though integration with your game is a little more difficult.

If you want to make your first game, I would recommend making some sort of puzzle or 2D action game using the Popcap technology. If you’ve done some game development before and want to make a more sophisticated 2D or 3D game, the Torque engine will not do you wrong.

So if you’ve been wanting to make a game, you have no more excuses. Get started today, you won’t regret it!

The Innovator’s Dilemma

In my ongoing quest to figure out how to make interesting new games that the market will still accept, I stumbled across a book called The Innovator’s Dilemma, by Clayton Christiansen. Using a case study from the computer disk drive industry, Christiansen shows how noteworthy and successful companies can suddenly be eclipsed by disruptive technologies. These disruptive technologies are generally smaller, cheaper, faster versions of existing technologies and often serve a much smaller market initially. That makes the book’s message alarming: successful companies still fail when listening to your customers, doing traditional market studies and everything else you’re “supposed” to do.

There are three main elements to his theory, which I will summarize here:

Sustaining vs. Disruptive technologies
Christiansen argues that most new technologies are higher improving versions of their ancestors, which he calls sustaining technologies. They can be discontinuous, radical or incremental in character, but they all imporove the performance of existing products along dimensions that mainstream customers in large markets value. Disruptive technologies, on the other hand, often have worse performance and serve smaller markets, but often have a few new features that new customers value. Products based on these technologies tend to be “cheaper, simpler, smaller and, frequently, more convenient to use.”.

Market Need vs. Technology Improvement
The main assumption here is that technologies improve faster than market demand. In an effort to give customers more of what they want, technology innovators “overshoot” their market, giving customers more than they need or are ultimately willing to pay for.

Disruptive Technologies vs. Rational Investments
This is the conclusion that companies arrive at that says that disruptive technologies are not a rational financial target. This is because disruptive technologies are cheaper and promise lower margins, not greater profits. Also, the markets for these technologies are often smaller or unproven, in relation to the markets that sustaining technologies already target. Finally, existing customers served by sustaining technologies often don’t want products based on disruptive technologies, so any customer interviews and research points towards sustainable instead.

So what does this mean for games? Personally, I think his theory has some similarities and shared conclusions with Blue Ocean Strategy. To me, it seems like our current “next-gen” technology, like the XBox 360 and AAA PC titles are in danger of giving players more than they are willing to pay for. That is, their budgets are too high for what players get. With the latest $10 million budgets, are players really getting twice as much value as they were a few years ago? If so, are player willing to pay $80-$100 for a game instead of $40-50? I think not.

I think that game companies need to start looking more seriously at “casual” games (though I hate that term and the games it currently represents) and start thinking about serving a much larger market with a much smaller level of technology and amount of content. I think that companies like EA and even Blizzard could be in danger blinding giving existing players more of what they want at escalating budgets, only to be blind-sided by smaller (but hopefully no less artistic or compelling) games that serve an untapped audience.

This is all very paraphrased and without examples, so I would recommend that you read the book if you want more detail on companies that have failed in the past or “proof”.

Orson Scott Card and Dani Bunten Berry

I just saw this article linked from Slashdot. It is a column written by the great science-fiction writer, Orson Scott Card. It was written for the venerable Compute! magazine, 23 years ago. What’s interesting is that back then, EA was known as an innovative game company. This was largely due to one reason: Dani Bunten Berry.

Dani Bunten Berry has always been my game design idol. Her rare GDC writings, lectures and assorted pieces of wisdom I’ve been able to find on the net have astounded me with their vision and relevance. If games today successfully accomplished some or any of her desired game attributes, gaming would be a much more vibrant and social space, and one that appealed to a much wider variety of people. For instance, she talks about multiplayer games with the “Norm effect”, which describes what happens when Normy walked into the Cheers bar. The regular yell “Norm!” when they see him, welcoming him back to their small bar community. A game that facilitates this would long keep its players coming back for more, as the social aspects of the game outlive the game mechanics (which can ultimately be mastered).

Dani invented the real-time strategy genre with Command HQ. She wowed us with her games and was the first famous transgender game designer. This was over 15 years ago, in a time where gays and transgenders had even more stigma than they do today. Between her amazing work at Ozark software and her tumultuous and ultimately satisfying personal life, she was a fearless master of life in every respect.

I’ll leave you with her famous GDC quote, on why she designs multiplayer online games:

“Art, animation, sound, music and people playing together! Who could ask for more in a medium! No one on their death bed ever said “I wish I had spent more time alone with my computer!” (Duh… it’s people!)”

I couldn’t agree more. We’re still trying to catch up with you, Dani. R.I.P.

Video game sell sheet

How do you summarize a game concept? How do you pitch it? How can you get an idea if your game concept is compelling, understandable and marketable? One useful answer to these questions is the sell sheet.

The sell sheet is a one-page high-level description of your game. It includes features, screenshots, system requirements, target audience and ship date. It’s basically what the back of the box looks like. I’ve found that if you can distill your game idea down to a unique, clear, enticing sell sheet, then you have a good chance your game is will be accepted by the market, as well as money sources like publishers and investors.

Here is an example sell sheet (MS Word format) that describes Natural Selection. This sell sheet was made after the game was, back when we were thinking of pitching NS as retail product.

Notes:

1. The screenshots section can be concept art, reference art from similar sources or photos. I generally take shots from films or similar subject matter that gives an idea of what the art style will look like.
2. The features section should be short, concise and word-smithed to death. My example here is probably too wordy. My guess is that most consumers will spend 5-10 seconds glancing at the back of a box and my guess is that publishers do the same. Put your best stuff first and choose your words carefully.
3. I’ve found that the sell sheet is often the best first step to take when conceiving of a new game idea. It’s quick to make and conveys your game idea quickly to stakeholders.

Please feel free to us this template as a starting point for your own project planning and pitching and post any thoughts or improvements here in the comment section.

Good luck!

Download sell sheet (MS Word format)

The Revolution will be Downloaded

There was a great panel at our local IGDA meeting last night. It was called “The Revolution will be Downloaded: Confessions of Five Casual Game Makers”. It was a 90 minute talk discussing why “hard-core” or traditional game developers should be interested in what is happening in the “casual” game space. I am summarizing (and editorializing) the results for you here.

Casual games are largely defined as having very accessible subject matter, are easy to learn and easy to play. They are playable by people who don’t have high-end computers or game systems and often are non-violent. The predominant business model for downloadable casual games is a free 60-minute trial with a $20 price point and yielding roughly 20 hours of game play (similar to the $1/hour of gameplay that hard-core games tend to have).

Some key aspects of successful casual games:

1. The game is a quick download. 15 megabytes seems to be a good number, but this size is growing ~70% per year.
2. The game is installable quickly. Players should be able to click all the defaults and the game should start up on its own.
3. The player should be able to grasp the key idea of the game and start having fun within 90 seconds.
4. They don’t use the right mouse button much or at all.
5. Generally non-violent.
6. Moving, aiming and timing can be used but not at the same time.
7. Can be played on the phone, while watching TV or carrying on a conversation.
8. Tend to be relaxing, not stressful or competitive.

Why should traditional game developers care about casual games?

1. Upwards of 45 million people check a casual game site every month. Unlike many traditional gamers, these people have credit cards and are perfectly willing to buy software they like.
2. These people are your parents, grandparents, girlfriends, etc. We always talk about reaching the mass market, but casual games are already doing this.
3. Because the cost of making a casual game is so much lower, it allows developers to bootstrap themselves and forge their own living without a publisher (at least in theory).

These are great positives, but visually, artistically, and technologically, and even interactively they aren’t as exciting or enriching as traditional electronic games. They often look crude and have shallow game experiences, if you can even call them that. They tend to be thin diversions at best. But the advantages are hard to deny. I want to affect as many people as possible.

Now for my editorializing. I believe that there’s a happy middle ground here. I think entertainment can be multi-tiered and that you should design for both the “casual” and sophisticated. Give your audience a show like Six Feet Under or Sopranos and some will just enjoy the violence, dialog and minute-to-minute interactions and some will read deeper and find the underlying depth, richness and messages. Games can do the same. Instead of either making immersive shooters for a hard-core audience or puzzle games for a casual audience, we can make medium-technology games that are easy to pick up and play yet have a long-term appeal and artistic messages.

What kinds of aspects would these games embody?

1. They have underlying messages and themes that are cohesively woven throughout the game.
2. They are a ~50 meg download and can use 3D acceleration, but can never require DirectX or another layer or download. They are roughly Google Earth technology.
3. They can be multiplayer and can take advantage of extensive back-end technology. The multiplayer should be seamless and player matching should take skill into account.
4. They should have non-competitive and competitive modes. Most players will only play the former, but advanced players will never grow bored with the competitive aspects. This lets a very wide range of players enjoy and talk about the game for long periods of time.
5. They can be immersive and have good production values, especially in audio.
6. They will tend to be non-violent but can have some conflict.
7. Ultimately, they are artistic experiences which teach you about yourself or the human condition.

Let’s not give people another “match 3” or puzzle game. They deserve better and we deserve to work on more interesting and important games. People are ready for rich experiences that transform them. Maybe they will start playing them on their coffee break or while they’re on the phone, but let’s show them that games can be so much more than diversions. Along the way, we can show the world that games are important and not just violent shoot-em-ups or mindless trash.

Games can be art, once we take them and our audience seriously.

Project Offset licenses tech

My aquaintances over at Project Offset have been shaking up the graphics technology field for a few months now. Project Offset is a small group of folks from S2Games, which NS fans might know of as being the authors of the other big FPS/RTS hybrid.

When I moved to San Francisco, Sam McGrath was just leaving S2 and we got together for dinner to discuss the future FPS. Because the number of people making FPS/RTS hybrids is still so small, it’s a good thing there wasn’t an earthquake, robbery or other disaster at the restaurant that night, or else the genre would’ve been set back many years. 🙂

They were in the same boat as Unknown Worlds: lots of ideas and a successful game, but not a lot of money. They’ve since released a few trailers showing their stunning technology and they’re building quite a buzz.

This week some ex-Blizzard folks (that I met many years ago in Boston and when I interviewed for WoW) announced that they are the first licensees of the Offset Engine. I’m very excited for both of them; it looks like a match made in heaven.

I thought it was impossible for a small team to compete on a technology level with the “big boys”, but it looks like the Offset team might just prove that wrong.