|
Many game studios are crippled by the
amount of resources they require to keep operations going. I have seen
plenty of companies that operate "contract to contract" with
little hope of ever breaking out of the cycle. The studio growth required
by the increasingly resource intensive modern crop of games is many
times unsustainable. In fact, the problem seems to be getting worse.
According to a report by the BBC, "Back in 1982, the Japanese
company Namco produced Pac-Man for $100,000. Now, the average
PlayStation 3 title is estimated to cost $15m. Even after adjusting
for inflation, that is still a significant rise. While production costs
have tripled in recent years with the introduction of next-gen consoles,
sales and revenue have hardly changed."
Independent developers usually operate
with very limited initial resources. By operating without a loan of resources,
they create a development environment for themselves free from outside
influences or restrictions. The only obligations they hold are to themselves
as developers and the people who play and purchase their games.
Here are 9 methods independents are using to develop games with fewer
resources:
1.
Efficiency in Design
Design around getting the most bang
for your buck. Think of your game as an engine, where developer resources
are the fuel and the output is player value. Imagine how much developer
fuel the Counter-Strike engine required to output so many hours
of entertainment compared to how much fuel had to be poured into the
Halo engine to get a commensurate amount of entertainment.
The two
engines might not be on the same scale, but the efficiency in terms
of resources consumed is radically different.
Efficient design choices to utilize
could include:
Multiplayer
Making a single player epic saga with
hours and hours of linear consumable gameplay is not very efficient.
A well designed multiplayer game that simply gives players a set of
rules to play by can provide an infinite amount of gameplay for a fraction
of the time spent creating content, as well as dramatically increase
a game’s lifespan.
User Generated Content
If you don’t have the resources to
make large amounts of content yourself, why not give players the tools
to do it? An even better argument is that it is almost a certainty that
players will come up with things for your game that you would never
have created in a million years.
Line
Rider is a popular
flash sandbox type game started by Slovenian university student Boštjan
Čadež. In Line Rider, players draw a landscape which the player
character, a little man on a sled slides down. This is a pretty typical example of what an average
player might come up with after spending some time with the game.
It’s
not terribly exciting, but there is a group of people that when given
the chance to be creative, will initiate a nuclear arms race with others
in the community to see how far they can stretch the system they have
been given. Those people come up with things like this.
Garry’s
Mod is a $10 Source Engine
mod written by Garry Newman that unlocks low level functionality of
the engine for players to experiment with in real time. The "gameplay"
part of Garry’s Mod is exploring the creations of other users, many
of which have evolved into their own scripted games within Garry’s
Mod itself.
An example of this in action is this video of a player creating a robot out of Half-Life
2 props. That’s about what you might expect people to do given
the power to animate pieces of the game. But then of course there are
those people who look at the tools you have given them, and take
things out of this world. Here is a list of other benefits your game could see by utilizing the player
base’s resources.
|
As an owner of an Independant company, I find the biggest challenge to be balancing budget and content within short project timelines.
I'm not saying that all developers are taking this road but we may quickly see the path that is commonly taken by big wig publishers like EA to "push pretty graphics and people care less about the game play". I'm not stressing at all that a game with "all looks and no brains" will win Game of the Year but we see this trend every time another eyegasmic game comes out and gets an 8/10 score where it otherwise would have gotten a 5/10.
I'm only pleading that developers tread lightly and don't look to Big Brother for examples on how to tailor this young industry. If independent games grow to the production level of current AAA games then we may never again have the opportunity to see small upstarts creating successful products. There should be a real push on all ends to keep the Indie flavor alive and avoid put out "beautiful blond" games.
One thing I think you should have mentioned is that indie game developers should listen to the players more, especially about faults in the game. Too many times I've seen the attitude of "I'm a programmer, so I'm automatically a genius game designer" or "You don't know programming, therefore you couldn't possibly have anything worth listening to." I have tried playing dozens of indie games that suffered from fatal flaws, glaring omissions and obvious imbalance, and when I visit their websites I see many people commenting on these flaws in the forums, yet rarely do I ever see the indie game programmers address these issues. More often than not they just ignore everybody.
This is especially sad during beta testing. There have been several games that I participated in beta tests where all they were looking for was bug reports. Any and all comments about how to make the games more enjoyable were ignored. As a result they came out with well-programmed games that nobody played more than once.
And I can't tell you how many times game programmers have shut me down because I didn't use the right buzzwords or I suggested something that was different from the norm. I can see how this comes about, you work so hard on coding your brain defaults to a certain logic standard, I've seen this in artists and other people many times. But really, how can you come up with new and innovative games when you immediately shoot down concepts without even trying to think about the possibilities?
And as for asking for FPS from a racing game, that kind of off-kilter feedback comes with the territory, but if a large majority of your beta-testers and/or players ask for the same thing, then you should give it some thought. For instance, one game I beta tested a player suggested they replace all their confusing stats with just three main ones with subcategories that would be introduced slowly as the players advance. Considering how the game was structured this made a lot of sense and would have made the game a _lot_ easier to play, so most of us testers agreed with the suggestion even though it would have changed things significantly. They said "No" quite firmly and stated that the game was supposed to have large pages of confusing numbers so the players could "explore" and "discover" strategies on their own. Most of us couldn't even figure out how to play the game completely, much less discover strategies, so we dropped out and the game didn't even make it out of beta.