|
3. Relationship with
Microsoft
Because we were using XNA Game Studio, Microsoft wanted to see
the game succeed as badly as we did, as proof that XNA Game Studio could be
used to create professional-caliber games. To that end, they did everything
they could to make the tools we were using good enough for our needs, and
helped us promote the game (like giving us a couple of minutes on the big stage
at GameFest).
The PR was fantastic, also:
considering we spent zero dollars on marketing, Schizoid was surprisingly high profile, using the "number of
Google hits" metric.
Part of the reason was because we brought on PR guy
Kirk Green (under similarly creative terms as the rest of the team) to get us
in front of websites and magazines, but the fact that we were "the first
professional XNA Game Studio Game" and Microsoft was promoting us as well
was huge.
4. Art-Illuminated
Design
With our first rough draft proof-of-concept with its
"programmer art", we had no idea what the theme of the game would be --
it was entirely abstract, with various symbols for heroes and enemies.
James
took that, and played it, and created enemies that fit the gameplay: egglayers are like cockroaches with sacs of
eggs; the creatures that move around
randomly are like clusters of eyes, looking in all directions; creatures that fire bullets in all directions
look like bursting flowers; creatures
that inexorably wriggle toward you, but get hung up on walls, look like
lobsters.
From that organic, petri-dish universe it seemed clear we'd
need curvy walls, and fortunately we had another friend, Chip Brown from Adobe,
a master with Bezier curves, who was willing to make that happen, and make them
animatable. The end result is a game that's much less "rectangle-y"
or "Cartesian" than most arcade games; there are very few hard angles in Schizoid.
5. The Art of the
Start
Bill and I both read Guy
Kawasaki's The Art of the Start, and it occurs to me that the story of Schizoid and Torpex is a great example
of his chapter one. We were making meaning: "We're going to change the
world!" So many startups say this
that it's become a cliché, but we believed it.
There's never been a game quite like Schizoid -- it may have elements reminiscent of other games but by
putting them together in a new way to make the Ultimate Teamwork game we did
something really new, and that inspired us: "We're creating what could be
a new genre! A game one simply must
play!" We had a mantra:
"Co-op!"
We had gotten going: we started making a game instead of
making design documents. Our business
model, bone simple, as Kawasaki
says it should be: sell it on XBLA. And
our lists of milestones and tasks: a schedule made using the techniques from
Mike Cohn's Agile Estimating and Planning. (Kawasaki
enthusiasts know we should also have had a list of assumptions. We didn't... not
written down, anyway.)
It's a powerful formula. Did we actually change the world?
It's too early to tell, but I'm not sure it matters. What matters is the
process. I think these elements, taken together, are why people joined up with
us on faith, why we made it onto the XBLA platform, why we're hearing such nice
testimonials, and why we're in the PAX 10. We've made a game we're really proud
of and still enjoy playing to this day.
|
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!