|
5. Maybe The World Isn't
Ready For A Co-Op Only Game Yet
It's conventional wisdom in the industry
that games that only have multiplayer
don't sell. MMO designers try to make sure that a player can solo the entire
game; shooters and RTSes have
single-player campaigns; Valve includes Half-Life,
their single-player game, and Team
Fortress 2, their multiplayer, in a single package; and so on.
Although we gave a nod to the single-player with our bot and
uber modes, for the most part, we willfully ignored that conventional wisdom,
hoping the sacred cow would make good steaks -- surely, we thought, Xbox Live
Arcade, where most of its users are already hardcore and wired, is a place
where the no-multiplayer-only rule can be broken.
Well, we can tell from the leaderboards that this isn't the
case -- far more people are playing single-player than online.
It's surprising,
since online co-op is often the number one feature hardcore gamers ask for. In
our own belated, informal polling we've discovered that most people don't play co-op
Xbox games over the internet.
Of potential players, some don't play online at all; some don't have
headsets; some are perfectly willing to deathmatch with strangers but playing
co-op with a stranger "feels weird"; with XBLA online populations
being what they are, it can take several minutes for someone to show up for a
match, and people don't want to wait that long.
Some can't talk their friends
into playing; some have friends they would play with, but finding time in their
busy schedules is tough. It's as if most
gamers are a little... schizoid.
What Went Right
1. Creative Team Building
Schizoid was entirely self-funded; Bill and I were the only people
who put money into the game. So how did we hire the rest of the team? An
advantage that we had, that most young game developers starting independent
studios don't, was that because we'd been in the industry so long, at various
companies, we knew people who could help us.
Thus Bill's friends, Richard Garfield and Skaff Elias of
Magic: The Gathering fame, were willing to come on as designers, and really
help develop my embryonic idea into something good. Thus James Chao and Greg
Taylor, old associates from Treyarch and my Spider-Man
days, were able to come on and do art and programming.
It made me glad that
we'd spent so long in the industry, paying our dues, before we struck off to do
our own thing. For the most part, the guys on the team agreed to be paid
entirely from the back-end, in royalties... which sounds a lot like paying
everyone in lottery tickets, but they'd seen the prototype and were excited
about its potential.
One problem was these friends were from all over: we were in Washington; Brian Luizetti, our musician, and James Chao,
were in California; Greg Taylor
was in Tokyo! So we did the "distributed development"
thing, using a cheap subversion and bugzilla hosting service to centralize, so
we wouldn't have to deal with maintaining our own servers.
Interns and friends
would also pitch in a week here, a week there, to hammer in a few nails or
touch-up some paint. As a result we were able to create the game very, very
cheaply: our only expenses were equipment, localization, insurance, and the
much-lower-than-standard wages for a part-time coder... and time. Lots and lots
of time.
2. XNA Game Studio (The
Good)
If it wasn't for XNA Game
Studio making it so easy to get a prototype up-and-running and in front of
people, Schizoid would never have
happened. XNA Game Studio wasn't the first prototyping environment I tried -- I
was playing with different programming languages, partly for fun, partly to see
if I could find a good prototyping language.
I had spent a day working on Schizoid with PyGame and was confounded by a strange timing bug I
never did understand when I decided to give XNA Game Studio a whirl. And I was
hooked. The XNA Game Studio API is profoundly well-designed: the simplicity of PyGame with the power of
DirectX.
The underlying philosophy seems
to be: make what most users want to do easy, and if there's the rare user who
needs something special, different, or under-the-hood, make that available as
well. Their gamepad API is a great
example -- getting it up and running with a nice dead zone only takes a couple
of lines of code.
Much later in the project, when we decided we wanted to do
our own, custom thing with the deadzone, that option was available to us. Schizoid was up-and-running in a day. A
few days later, I had something I was ready to show to Bill Dugan, my business
partner.
XNA Game Studio was so easy to use that we didn't have to write a single
tool to make the game: Richard and Skaff typed the level designs straight into
C# files as structure data; our
musician, Brian Luizetti, worked in XACT; James Chao described the way his creatures would chain and animate using
delegates and functions; and Bill,
ostensibly the producer, did most of our audio programming! Finally, C#
integrates with NUnit, so we were easily able to do test driven development as
well. Oh, and did I mention the short build times? The short, short build times meant I didn't
have time to read blogs anymore.
|
For a game that had so much going for it (developer sympathy, PR, originality, etc), I'm sorry to say it was really disappointing in so many ways. I'd be curious to know how much external opinion you looked for, and how much you listened to it, because some of these issues look like the kind that would should up quickly in a focus group (even an informal one).
Hm, I'm a little puzzled by some of these comments, some of which I have never seen before - your ship has almost no inertia (the turning of the ship is just an animation), and the enemies most definitely collide. The color scheme choice is fundamental to the gameplay, so a rainbow of enemy colors is out, unless we redesign the gameplay for 6-headed aliens.
With the medals system, you don't have to replay a level you've already completed, if you have "golded" the level - you just skip right past. As far as focus groups go, we did lots of end-user testing. The skipping-right-past is a result of this feedback - our first pass at the checkpoint system was basic, 10-level checkpoints with no skipping if you golded the levels, and people found it too frustrating; we ended up with what we've got in there now. I happen to think it's great because you can make steady progress in a chamber that you're stuck in without even working at the difficult level, by working on prior levels to try and gold them, which will set you up in all future games to start the difficult level with more lives.
One issue we have in Schizoid that we might possibly have picked up from focus tests: I think many players think that dying is bad in Schizoid, whereas usually it's not a big deal. You've got a 10-life pool and if you lose 8 lives or whatever, it won't matter at all if you hit a checkpoint. The loss is forgotten and irrelevant, immediately. But when the player dies in our game, we show off a giant dazzling explosion and vibrate the controller and we shake the screen a little bit (because, you know, big dazzling explosions are cool) - and I wonder if some players are getting frustrated if they die 5 times in a row, when really they are quite possibly doing really well. That might have been a question we might have thought to specifically ask users - "You just died. What's your impression of how much this is going to impact your next few minutes playing the game?"
Bill Dugan
President
Torpex Games
Jamie's write-up explains the fundamental problem with a game like Schizoid and it's heavy coop focus very well. I say problem only in the sense that it isn't a game that has the mass appeal that most "normal" games tend to. Doesn't seem like there's a really good solution, the game is just meant to be played a certain way. Most games these days seem to eschew doing their particular thing well and instead try to do everything; 20 hours of singleplayer, 20 multiplayer modes, etc. Maybe it's just my particular gaming habits but I like games that are stripped down to just the fun gameplay and aren't wrapped up in a whole lot of junk just to get to experience the raw mechanics. Schizoid does this very well and that's why I'll keep coming back to it again and again.
Also I work in Bellevue so if you guys ever need some user feedback/testing, I'd be all over it.
thanks for the response. The detail about the importance of death is quite interesting, but it's not just about the visuals: dying in a level means no gold medal and one less life to reach the checkpoint. Why not just save progress after each level? The other bits about inertia and collision, well, I guess I think the game would be much better with NO inertia at all and wider collision detection between enemies so they don't pile up as much as they do (which also contributes to the pixel-perfect issue).
Anyway, outside of specifics, the question is: Do you think you went too hardcore with the game? If so, do you regret it?
BTW, I have an explanation on my website http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3796/postmortem_torpex_games_schizoid.php for the chain of design decisions that led us to the checkpoints + gold system. It's a system that requires you to master some levels to progress, but you get to choose which levels you master and which ones you cheese your way through.
-Jamie
http://www.gamedevblog.com/2008/09/schizoid-post-mortem.html
The points about TCR are also well taken. We underestimated how much work these required, and quite frankly, some decisions by Microsoft left us scratching our heads. If we must have leaderboards accessible everywhere, why did they not build a basic one into the blades (like achievements?). If we have to worry about load times from memory cards, HD, *and* DVD, how is this less work for a low-budget title?
I liked Schizoid, but in the end, finding a friend who also likes it, and can play when I can, proved tough. Here's a thought: Maybe if Microsoft allows gifting, you can coax them to sell the game in pairs! Now that would work!