In order to tap into new audiences for your games, it's necessary to experiment with your game's message, and mold that message to fit the interests of press and gamers alike, according to Kellee Santiago of Journey and Fl0wer developer thatgamecompany.
At a Gamasutra-attended Indie Games Summit lecture today at the Game Developers Conference in Cologne, Germany, Santiago discussed how developers can forge new audiences for their games, even when past experiences do not lend themselves well to predicting the future of your games.
Santiago started by explaining that her company's original idea of how to be innovative and reach the hearts of gamers did not turn out to be as simple as it first seemed.
She described how she originally had a firm belief that the way to innovate a genre was to find a new message that worked with it, and then build all the usual features of the genres on top of that.
Using the racing genre as an example, Santiago explained that the core idea could be that the player should want to care or even love their car, and that focus on really caring about the vehicle would then see all the usual mechanics added into the mix, such as racing and speed.
However, she soon found that it was "pretty difficult" to tackle games from this angle, as it technically then became a "checkbox war" between developers, as each attempted to tack on to the original concept as many extra features as possible.
Instead, thatcgamecompany soon came to the conclusion that finding an idea and making it the central focus of the game was key. "Begin with the intent of your content and make it your guide," she said, be that immersion, sound et al.
Santiago explained that music, imagery and story arc are some of the most important elements to consider when trying to gauge how to pick up new ranges of gamers. She suggested that developers "make gamers aware of your journey" through varying highs and lows in the storyline.
She was keen to stress, however, that altering the original message is completely reasonable, and in fact sometimes necessary. She used thatgamecompany's upcoming PlayStation 3 title Journey as an example, explaining that originally the studio was molding the game around the phrase, "Together we can move the mountain."
However, as development progressed, the team realized the game was moving in a slightly different direction than was originally laid out. Hence, it altered the statement of focus to, "We all walk the path. Each journey is different."
She said this was especially important when it came to gauging the reaction from the press. If the press is picking up on certain key phrases and vocabulary from your upcoming game, keep note of this and consider focusing on this element in the future. Early interviews are especially great for "testbed" vocabulary, she concluded.
Shouldn't this be prefaced, "If you are trying to make an art game..." I'm sorry, I know this is terrible of me and I think that what ThatGameCompany is doing is really interesting work. But man every time I hear them try to explain their games or inspirations it all comes across as very ether and pretentious.
Like I said, I definitely have respect for what they are doing but sometimes I think the pomp and circumstance is a little far reaching. I am hoping that once ThatGameCompany is done burning their bras that things mellow down to an acceptable median.
I feel the same way. As unique and promising as ThatGameCompany are, their games largely consist of doing practically nothing. I've had just as much (if not more) fun playing games with no message whatsoever as I have playing Flower.
She does make a point. Listen carefully at how the average person describes the things they love. It tends to go beyond the "bullet point" and frequent use of hyperbole is used.
"I practically sleep with my iPhone"
"I'd rather die than not have my morning Starbuck's coffee."
"I love my Mac!"
Ok, maybe i'm pushing it with the Starbucks comment ;)
Make your players fall in love with your game. Design them around an emotional hook that they can easily describe how profound their experience is with it. At the end of the day, the things in our lives that leave a lasting impression are the ones that connect with us in a deep and meaningful way. Sometimes this requires crafting a concise message that also becomes the touchstone for the development team.
"I just works" - this is what Steve Jobs says every time they do a product presentation. A Clear, concise message that guides their development principles.
The litmus test is to see how your players communicate the game to others, ideally these would be players who do not possess the same vocabulary as someone who is game development. Do they go by a bullet point feature list or do they begin to describe an emotional connection to their experience.
This isn't the realm of fringe "art" developers as you mentioned but the cornerstone of many indispensable products. We design for the irrational and emotional human.
I agree, but I also think that there is a difference between "designing around a message" and "designing for an emotional connection". Sure we'd all like players to be connected to our games, but there is a huge collection of CoD fans out there who are connected to blowing someone's face off. Or the the Madden fan who's only game on the shelf is last years copy while he waits for the next season.
I think that there is a broad audience out there looking to connect with games, and I don't disagree with the general message that is trying to be conveyed but not all games need to have some kind of deep philosophical message that is driving the narrative. It would float over the heads of most 15 year old kids with a head mic and a dragon breath shotgun.
I mean, is Plants vs Zombies some kind of social commentary against Big Oil, or perhaps human kind encroaching on wildlife? Maybe, maybe not, and I don't know how many gamers would feel more connected if they knew the truth.
I guess my point is that it's important that we have both kinds of experiences because some people like sushi and other just want their steak and potatoes.
I don't think this is an argument between deep vs. shallow experiences. It's really about what your starting point is when you are developing a product. Game development can be nebulous. Sometimes starting off with a message allows you to conceptualize the end product from a consumer point of view. The ideal message is supposed to give you a wide opening, giving you room to explore within constraints.
Once you've created your message bowl you begin to fill it with your bullets/features. The message is the human metric to evaluate your features on. "Does this satisfy the message we want the game to convey?" If yes then it stays in the game, if not then we either remove it from the feature list or (as Kellee said) re-evaluate the message. The biggest benefit of the message approach is that it gives you flexibility to pivot.
The message defines the experience, the features support the definition. This keeps you from losing the forrest for the trees.
Some nice tidbits from George Fan about Plants vs. Zombies:
"We knew we wanted to significantly change up the gameplay for the sequel [Insaniquarium]," Fan said, "and [we were] leaning toward it to being more defense-oriented than the first Insaniquarium. During that time I was also playing a lot of tower defense games in Warcraft III, and realized that they had this innate appeal that made me think of fond childhood memories like building forts out of sofa cushions and watching Swiss Family Robinson. I really wanted to capture that appeal, and once I realized that plants and zombies made a much better theme for this game than fish and aliens, I shifted from creating a sequel into creating a whole new game." (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/03/george-fan-how-insaniquarium- 2-became -plants-vs-zombies.ars)
Even things that seem meaningless have meaningful origins and a well crafted message (PvZ - childhood memories of building forts). Maybe this is one of the reasons why PvZ is such a runaway hit.
It's hard to tell what she's saying from this summary alone. But I think her first piece of advice is sound. Indie developers cannot just take existing genres and "add something on top". You can't compete with large studios that way. You need to gut out the genre a bit to have a chance at new markets.
My take-away from this article is "focus". What is your player going to feel as he/she plays through your game? Designing from intents essentially equates to extrapolating a future user experience based on what the designer's ideal vision, then working towards that ideal.
Like I said, I definitely have respect for what they are doing but sometimes I think the pomp and circumstance is a little far reaching. I am hoping that once ThatGameCompany is done burning their bras that things mellow down to an acceptable median.
"I practically sleep with my iPhone"
"I'd rather die than not have my morning Starbuck's coffee."
"I love my Mac!"
Ok, maybe i'm pushing it with the Starbucks comment ;)
Make your players fall in love with your game. Design them around an emotional hook that they can easily describe how profound their experience is with it. At the end of the day, the things in our lives that leave a lasting impression are the ones that connect with us in a deep and meaningful way. Sometimes this requires crafting a concise message that also becomes the touchstone for the development team.
"I just works" - this is what Steve Jobs says every time they do a product presentation. A Clear, concise message that guides their development principles.
The litmus test is to see how your players communicate the game to others, ideally these would be players who do not possess the same vocabulary as someone who is game development. Do they go by a bullet point feature list or do they begin to describe an emotional connection to their experience.
This isn't the realm of fringe "art" developers as you mentioned but the cornerstone of many indispensable products. We design for the irrational and emotional human.
I think that there is a broad audience out there looking to connect with games, and I don't disagree with the general message that is trying to be conveyed but not all games need to have some kind of deep philosophical message that is driving the narrative. It would float over the heads of most 15 year old kids with a head mic and a dragon breath shotgun.
I mean, is Plants vs Zombies some kind of social commentary against Big Oil, or perhaps human kind encroaching on wildlife? Maybe, maybe not, and I don't know how many gamers would feel more connected if they knew the truth.
I guess my point is that it's important that we have both kinds of experiences because some people like sushi and other just want their steak and potatoes.
Once you've created your message bowl you begin to fill it with your bullets/features. The message is the human metric to evaluate your features on. "Does this satisfy the message we want the game to convey?" If yes then it stays in the game, if not then we either remove it from the feature list or (as Kellee said) re-evaluate the message. The biggest benefit of the message approach is that it gives you flexibility to pivot.
The message defines the experience, the features support the definition. This keeps you from losing the forrest for the trees.
Some nice tidbits from George Fan about Plants vs. Zombies:
"We knew we wanted to significantly change up the gameplay for the sequel [Insaniquarium]," Fan said, "and [we were] leaning toward it to being more defense-oriented than the first Insaniquarium. During that time I was also playing a lot of tower defense games in Warcraft III, and realized that they had this innate appeal that made me think of fond childhood memories like building forts out of sofa cushions and watching Swiss Family Robinson. I really wanted to capture that appeal, and once I realized that plants and zombies made a much better theme for this game than fish and aliens, I shifted from creating a sequel into creating a whole new game." (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/03/george-fan-how-insaniquarium- 2-became
-plants-vs-zombies.ars)
Even things that seem meaningless have meaningful origins and a well crafted message (PvZ - childhood memories of building forts). Maybe this is one of the reasons why PvZ is such a runaway hit.