"If I forget about an idea after 4 or 5 months I know it was a good thing we never started it, but if after two years it's still there and you're still excited by it, then that's the time to start thinking about putting it into production."
- Game designer David Jones (Grand Theft Auto, Crackdown, Lemmings) shares his internal test for whether a game idea is good enough in a video interview for the Critical Path documentary.
A lot has changed over the years: as David points out, in the old days games could be turned around in under six months, with sparks of inspiration turned into playable products and quickly put onto store shelves to see if they worked. Today's designers have to think about the longevity of a product before committing valuable development time to it.
This raises an interesting question: are commercial games better now that the ideas behind them have to be so carefully scrutinized, or does real innovation come from throwing ideas at the wall and seeing which ones stick?
I don't think we have the luxury anymore of sitting on ideas for several years. With digital distribution and so many indie teams, if you have a good idea chances are someone has thought of something similar already and is actively developing it. I know I've had several ideas over the past two years and when I blinked I saw something very similar (and often times better) than what I had envisioned being released.
Does it matter that somebody has thought of it before? VVVVVV gets alot of praise while it's core gameplay mechanic was seen decades earlier in Metal Storm. It's all about the execution.
Besides, 2 years may be too long, but this is, in general, about letting your idea incubate for a while. It's about creating a cycle of comming up with a game idea, writing it down and letting it incubate while you work on something you thought of a while back.
These days people advocate creating a prototype with index cards and software like Unity. But it's not the definitive answer, some things you can't prototype in a day. Besides i see no reason not to cache your ideas as a first level filter and then prototype it when you're ready to work on it.
Pretty cool rule of thumb!
Also, I think the "old days" he mentions are back again in a sense, if you're a developer of mobile or small PC games.
Frank, your question at the end is kind of interesting, but I think perhaps you've setup a bit of a false dichotomy? Clearly the production values of the best AAA games are better than 15 years ago, but it's also clear that there's little in the way of innovation and risk in that space. Which is "better" is a matter of opinion.
Like Randy said before, we can't wait several years to see if a game idea is always exciting to be developed.
As a passionate game designer since my childhood, i have always some old ideas. And some of these ideas give me chills but i don't think that without the reputation of Frank Cifaldi i can convince some editors.
However, if i come with a game concept similar to some blockbuster who has proven that money will flow into pockets, i think that editors gonna be more motivated to invest into production.
Maybe this is why the independent development is so hard while production is lighter, cheaper and based on new and original concept.
I strongly disagree with David's point. His method may work, but your game has no value if no-one is playing it. You risk falling into a trap of unconscious cognitive bias when judging your idea.
To test the validity of a game's design you should build it immediately. A 24 hour prototype is all it takes to see whether the game will sink or swim. Make it in a Jam, or rough it out in Unity. This stands for Interactive fiction right through to action plat-formers.
Some of the best indie games started as mind dumps by their developer. You should always pounce on a moment of creativity.
Great games require time to incubate, evolve and become more fun and more engaging. 2 years is about right and a lot of technology growth happens in the interim.
I think a good indication is an early alpha, I understand that requires more effort than a thought but If you want to play a broken, buggy alpha, that to me suggests the underlying game is pure engagement and fun for the user and all you really need to add is refinement.
A good example of this is Day Z, buggy and broken, visualy average and a clunky user experience hasn't put people off enjoying it. That right there, is a message that you're on to something.
I just made a Flash game based on an idea that I'd had for almost two years; and more people have played it than all my other games combined.
I wasn't able to think of a way to make a game out of it when i had the idea; so i just stuck it in my idea box and every now and then i would come back to it. Finally i came up with a completely new way to do it (never mind that its not exactly a game) and made a version of it in 2 days for a game jam. Part of its (relative) success is that its a Flash game this time and not a downloadable exe; but it never would've gotten so many plays if it wasn't an original idea.
The idea box (its a literal box filled with ideas scribbled on paper held together with paper clips) is filled with ideas that I thought were cool but forgot; and its also still got quite a few gems that i would love to do someday and never forgot. My two bigger projects (one soon to be released) are also ideas that I'd had for years and been wanting to make games out of.
I know a lot of big indie games were first born out of simple prototypes at a jam. Notch liked his prototype so much that he decided to work on it some more after the jam and it evolved into the very popular Minecraft that people love today.
Simple ideas can evolve into bigger ones.
You should be able to prototype those simple ideas in a relatively short time span from the beginning. If you like the simple prototype and there seems to be some interest from others, expand upon it and let it evolve, but try and keep it's core the main focus.
But if you just can't help yourself and happen to see new ideas start to change the core into something totally different. Then step back and make another simple prototype based off of that and start the process again.
Besides, 2 years may be too long, but this is, in general, about letting your idea incubate for a while. It's about creating a cycle of comming up with a game idea, writing it down and letting it incubate while you work on something you thought of a while back.
These days people advocate creating a prototype with index cards and software like Unity. But it's not the definitive answer, some things you can't prototype in a day. Besides i see no reason not to cache your ideas as a first level filter and then prototype it when you're ready to work on it.
I think great ideas have a lot of value, but ultimately it's not who does it first, but who does it best.
Besides, if you're a gamer wouldn't you be more interested in playing a game with elements that you ALREADY know you like?
Also, I think the "old days" he mentions are back again in a sense, if you're a developer of mobile or small PC games.
Frank, your question at the end is kind of interesting, but I think perhaps you've setup a bit of a false dichotomy? Clearly the production values of the best AAA games are better than 15 years ago, but it's also clear that there's little in the way of innovation and risk in that space. Which is "better" is a matter of opinion.
As a passionate game designer since my childhood, i have always some old ideas. And some of these ideas give me chills but i don't think that without the reputation of Frank Cifaldi i can convince some editors.
However, if i come with a game concept similar to some blockbuster who has proven that money will flow into pockets, i think that editors gonna be more motivated to invest into production.
Maybe this is why the independent development is so hard while production is lighter, cheaper and based on new and original concept.
To test the validity of a game's design you should build it immediately. A 24 hour prototype is all it takes to see whether the game will sink or swim. Make it in a Jam, or rough it out in Unity. This stands for Interactive fiction right through to action plat-formers.
Some of the best indie games started as mind dumps by their developer. You should always pounce on a moment of creativity.
Hopefully you're overflowing with ideas, and have a year or two's worth of ideas you might like to try...
A good example of this is Day Z, buggy and broken, visualy average and a clunky user experience hasn't put people off enjoying it. That right there, is a message that you're on to something.
I just made a Flash game based on an idea that I'd had for almost two years; and more people have played it than all my other games combined.
I wasn't able to think of a way to make a game out of it when i had the idea; so i just stuck it in my idea box and every now and then i would come back to it. Finally i came up with a completely new way to do it (never mind that its not exactly a game) and made a version of it in 2 days for a game jam. Part of its (relative) success is that its a Flash game this time and not a downloadable exe; but it never would've gotten so many plays if it wasn't an original idea.
The idea box (its a literal box filled with ideas scribbled on paper held together with paper clips) is filled with ideas that I thought were cool but forgot; and its also still got quite a few gems that i would love to do someday and never forgot. My two bigger projects (one soon to be released) are also ideas that I'd had for years and been wanting to make games out of.
Simple ideas can evolve into bigger ones.
You should be able to prototype those simple ideas in a relatively short time span from the beginning. If you like the simple prototype and there seems to be some interest from others, expand upon it and let it evolve, but try and keep it's core the main focus.
But if you just can't help yourself and happen to see new ideas start to change the core into something totally different. Then step back and make another simple prototype based off of that and start the process again.
It should be, and is a process.