 |
 |
|
If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these Think Services sites:
 Game Career Guide (for student game developers.)
 Indie Games (for independent game players/developers.)
 Finger Gaming (news, reviews, and analysis on iPhone and iPod Touch games.)
 GamerBytes (for the latest console digital download news.)
 Worlds In Motion (discussing the business of online worlds.)
 Game Set Watch (the Group's alt.game weblog.) |
|
|
|
| |
GCG: Shred Nebula Releases Design Documents
by Jill Duffy
|
|
| |
|
September 3, 2008
|
| |
In a world where such precious papers as design documents are kept under lock and key (or rather, NDA) as trade secrets, it’s almost unprecedented for game developers to make them public.
But CrunchTime Games CEO James Goddard has decided to openly release two official documents that were key in getting his studio’s Shred Nebula accepted for publication on Xbox Live Arcade.
Creating these two papers is crucial to the acceptance of any game to XBLA by Microsoft, and by sharing CrunchTime’s pitch paper and a manuscript required by Microsoft called "60 seconds of gameplay," Goddard hopes to educate aspiring developers and students in the XBLA pitch process.
Why? He’s not only CrunchTime’s founder and CEO, but he’s also a professor of game development at the University of Advancing Technology. Because of his position as a teacher, he has a unique interest in sharing knowledge with the up-and-coming generation of game developers. And as the company’s founder and CEO, Goddard says he’s free to treat its IP and internal documents however he pleases.
Gamasutra sister site GameCareerGuide.com has made PDFs of the two papers openly available (the pitch/design document and "60 seconds" essay for Shred Nebula can be downloaded directly from this site).
The pitch document is officially what allowed Microsoft to give the game the green light. The "60 Seconds of Gameplay Essay" is a separate document that Microsoft requires of all its published games, whether developed in-house or out. In it, the authors must describe, step-by-step what the player does, sees, hears, and feels during a full 60 seconds of gameplay, which can be taken from any point in the game.
"[O]ur game is done; there is no reason to keep these secret at the expense of helping our future developers and sharing some design know-how within our industry," Goddard said in a prepared statement.
"CrunchTime Games, Inc., is very excited to offer this reference to the vast communities of aspiring developers, students, educators, and peer in the industry, showing how we tackled the task of pitching Shred Nebula [which was tentatively titled R.I.P. ROCKET, and often referred to as such in the documentation] back in 2006. We hope this open sharing sets a standard for others in the industry," he said.
GameCareerGuide editor Jill Duffy spoke to Goddard on the phone a few days before the game’s release. He stressed to her that the purpose of making the documents publicly available was to promote more openness and sharing among game developers, but particularly between the industry and academia.
In his 17 years creating video games, Goddard has worked on numerous pieces of documentation for games, the kind that can make or break a game’s ability to get published.
"I personally have created many detailed design documents and high-end pitches for the games I have worked on over the last 17 years as a lead designer, director, and character gameplay programmer -- all of which are stuck under an NDA blanket and therefore hidden away from those who could greatly benefit from the experience," he said.
"It is my [pleasure] to finally release this kind of documentation from our game Shred Nebula for Xbox LIVE Arcade."
Goddard said the inspiration for his take on the "60 Seconds" essay came from comic books and storyboards. He used screenshots to illustrate what was occurring on screen, then annotated the images with text descriptions. It’s a technique he calls "visual game design" that he has adapted over the years, and which reflects some interactions he had early on in his career with the Japanese game industry.
The team at CrunchTime Games has only Goddard as an experienced game-making professional. The rest of the team that made Shred Nebula was first-time programmers and artists, many of whom were still students at the time. But Goddard says that no matter how much experience one has, writing a pitch document is perennially difficult.
"Doing a pitch for a new game idea never gets any easier. It does not matter how much experience you have or if it is your first game idea, selling a concept to others is tough," said Goddard.
"A major challenge for students and aspiring game developers is finding legitimate reference on how this process works by seeing real design docs from released games. The game industry is loaded with NDAs and other secretive philosophies that make it tough for us as an industry to a) help the future designers/developers have solid reference to learn from and b) strengthen the trade of 'planning/game design' and progress it as a technical art form through sharing and innovation."
|
| |
|
|
p.s.: 400K $ seems alot to me :)
I asked him for feedback, and he gave a few lessons and feedback to me after giving me a brief tour of these documents.
Later that year I ended up in his class, and got to go through a class that taught the lessons in these documents. I found the class a huge success and very informative. I learned a lot, and by following the guidelines and using these documents as a base, have got over the overwhelming issue of documenting a game.
I also find that I write less using his methods, and its visually more appealing to the eye.
Hope they are as helpful to you guys as they were to me.
The control scheme is very poor and it feels like the game is constantly fighting you. Forcing movement and firing direction onto a single analog stick while the right stick is only used once or twice every 5 minutes of gameplay doesn't make sense. Is there some amazing thing that the scanner can do? Is it grappling hook later in the game that allows you to swing around enemies or something equally neat? Forcing the player to constantly use the bumpers while totally neutering the right trigger was also a very strange decision.
That said, while I understand the need to pander to the risk-averse nature of publishing-type-suits, I find both documents amazingly condescending. Not only of the eventual player but also the intended reader. If this kind of writing is special (complete with spelling and grammatical errors), I'm amazed that more games aren't waltzing onto XBLA past suitably mollified business types.
All this from a game design lecturer to boot? I'm shocked...
"Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude"
I didn't find either paper patronizing the reader, or anyone else for that matter. The 60 seconds of gameplay that Microsoft requires is a very useful tool, its purpose is to display what the user feels and thinks while playing the game over 60 seconds.
This being said, it is hard for a developer/designer to comprehend what a player is to think and feel while playing the game. The intent may not always make it from the final document to a gold press of game. With that in mind, the 60 seconds document plays exactly like the Crimson Zone in the demo.
I am also guessing by your statements that you did not play past the demo to see that the weapons (yes multiple) that are associated with the right analog stick get upgraded 7 time. And yes the scanner does do more later on.
All that being said, the biggest issue I have with your post is your arrogant critique (that obviously has no depth of play) and ignoring what this article is trying to state. He released documents, to HELP students and other professionals in the industry. You completely try and discredit this because you could not get the controls. You slam and even call out with your statement, "All this from a game design lecturer..." with a post nothing better than a a forum "flame".
It is like saying you don't like the statue of liberty because the designer has a cheesy snow globe on his mantel.
This game was made by interns and as your refer to and graciously welcome on your websites forums, "the greenest of newbs". When you discredit this game, and the document you put everyone down that worked on it. It takes a team to make these documents and make them a reality.
Do us all a favor and don't discredit the industry professionals that are trying to help other generations of designers with your slanted opinions because you disliked the game.
Oh and as far as condescending goes, your site game.dev states, "it's what you wish you were doing". I have never had a wish I never attained and this is what I am doing now and I don't like being talked down to.
I don't doubt that the developers are proud of what they made and you're supportive of their accomplishment. But what's wrong with honest criticism of a control scheme or writing style? Everything was qualified with subjective information to make sure that said criticism was received as my own personal feelings, not as an appeal to authority or other unassailable point. Personally, I appreciate similar criticism and use it to make better games, no matter how endlessly forthcoming it may seem some days ;)
I'm glad that the scanner becomes useful in multiple ways later in the game, that a good thing! I'm also pleased to hear that the right-stick isn't as under-utilised as I'd thought. I didn't play further than the demo because I didn't enjoy the game enough to warrant a purchase, how is a player to know that these upgrades are available later in the game? I'd argue that it's not the player's responsibility to take it on faith that things get better further in...