Category: Game Design

Since so many people seem to be surprised that Spore, a game that mixes all sorts of game genres into one game, didn’t create the ultimate experience for each of those sub-games, and Will Wright’s recent interview with MTV in which he claims that Spore was meant to be a casual game:

“I’d say that’s quite accurate,” Wright told me. “We were very focused, if anything, on making a game for more casual players. “Spore” has more depth than, let’s say, “The Sims” did. But we looked at the Metacritic scores for “Sims 2?, which was around 90, and something like “Half-Life“, which was 97, and we decided — quite a while back — that we would rather have the Metacritic and sales of “Sims 2? than the Metacritic and sales of “Half-Life.”

And one way of getting there is to present a narrower range of options than a hardcore player might be expecting?

“Yes,” he said. “Part of this, in some sense was: can we teach a “Sims” player to play an RTS [or Real Time Strategy game]? … I think the complexity we ended up with was toward that group.”

So reducing the range of options is one way to make a game more casual, but what options are we talking about? I think there are two ways in which you can look at a game’s complexity: input complexity and rules complexity.

With input complexity, the available interface options are limited. For a complex input scheme, look at NetHack. There is a command for drinking, and one for eating. One for putting on armor, and one for equipping weapons, and one for putting on a ring, and entirely different commands for taking them all off again! Attacking can use any number of commands to kick, throw, fire an arrow, zap a wand, or swinging your weapon. NetHack is definitely NOT a casual game, but look at FastCrawl for a more accessible game. Instead of requiring the player to know every function of every button, key, or icon, you limit the interface. Technically Tetris can be played with three functions: move left, move right, and rotate piece. It’s not a mindless game, though. You can employ various strategies at various stages of the game. There is complexity, but it is hidden behind a simple interface. This combination makes it an accessible game, as the success of the GameBoy with children and adults alike can attest to. For another example of a simple interface, see Fishie Fishie. From the creator’s page:

Yesterday I played a game that had three different buttons for “jump”. Three! I mean, really, what’s happened to the world? How am I supposed to keep an eye on the kids, stay up to date with current affairs, and remember which button to press when I want to esape the toothy maw of an airborne crocodile? In protest I built Fishie Fishie, a game you play using exactly one button.

Rules complexity deals with what’s happening in the game itself. If you’ve ever played the Buffy the Vampire Slayer board game, you know what I mean when it comes to complexity. The interface is simple and familiar enough: roll dice, move players, attack other characters. But then you have to keep track of hit points, goals, who is a vampire when, and yes, the current phase of the moon! And if you’ve never played Dungeons and Dragons, just keep in mind that choosing your character’s class, alignment, feats, skills, and armor is what you do BEFORE you start playing. If you’re playing a cleric, trying to turn the undead will result in moans from the other players since play basically STOPS until you do all the complex calculations to figure out how many ghouls at what strength you turned or destroyed. Now compare these rules to the “0 player” Game of Life. There are only four rules, and yet the ways these rules interact, the dynamics of the game, are rich and complex.

Buffy could have taken a lesson from the card game Fluxx. In Fluxx, the rules change constantly as you play since played cards can add, change, or remove rules. Even though you would think it would be too complex and only appeal to the geeky, in my experience it seems that everyone loves it. I think a key part of it is that the rules aren’t hidden away in a manual but right there on the cards in front of you! You can walk away from the game to get a snack while the rest of the players take their turns, and when you get back you know exactly what the state of the game is just by checking the cards. An otherwise complex game made casually accessible by its interface!

Perhaps Buffy fails to appeal to playing fans not because it is too complex but because this complexity is hard to understand just by looking at the game. Every time you pull the game out of the closet, you have to re-remember the rules before you start, and usually that means someone has to read the instructions, if they still exist. Throughout the game, you have to periodically consult the instructions to clarify what to do in certain situations. With Fluxx, you can just start playing.

So can you make a complicated rule-set accessible by limiting the interface? Can you reduce the rules of the game to a handful and make an otherwise complex game easier to grok? It seems that if the rules are simple, the interface can also be simple, but if the rules are complex, the interface doesn’t have to be. If you believe that reducing complexity is key to making a game more casual-friendly, I believe you can still make otherwise hardcore games more accessible by making the interface intuitive and simple.

[tags] indie, casual game, game design [/tags]

Jay Barnson wrote Business Rules for Indies, in which he tries to apply Jack Welch’s “cardinal rule of business” to indie game developers.

Never let anyone come between you and your customers or your suppliers. Those relationships take too long to develop and are too valuable to lose.

While game portals are a good short term solution for developers who are trying to reach a large number of players and paying customers, they aren’t so good for the long term.

In business, finding a new customer willing to pay for your products is much harder and much more expensive than selling your products to existing customers, who have already shown a willingness to buy from you. But if you sell through a portal, you don’t have a customer. You get paid, but by the portal, as a cut of the sales. If you were to sell directly to your customers, however, you not only get the sale, but also a relationship with your customer.

If you sell a game through a portal for $20, you get paid a small percentage. The portal gets the lion’s share, but of course the portal is the one with all of the traffic and customers, and so you are essentially paying for the chance to sell greater quantities than you could on your own.

If you sell a game directly for $20, you get to keep the income. You might not get as many sales on your own, but what you do get in this situation is customer information. YOU know who is willing to buy the kind of games you make, and so YOU can sell them expansions, sequels, and affiliate products. You can address them in newsletters and tell them about new sales you’re offering. That $20 is just the start of how much that customer might buy from you over the lifetime of your business. You trade short-term financial gain for future profits.

The theory sounds all well and good, but with so much competition out there, how can you hope to get ANY attention unless you’re on a portal? And if you’re on a portal, you aren’t allowed access to customer information, and in some cases you aren’t even allowed to let your customers know who made your game! The portals have become the new form of publishers, which is what being indie was supposed to get you away from.

Dan Cook’s The Casual Games Manifesto addresses all of this and more, but the essence of the article is that you need to develop a relationship with your customers, whether they found you directly or through a portal. Can you integrate your games into a service that YOU and YOU alone provide? Then the portal becomes your access point to customers and not just a distribution channel.

The Casual Games Manifesto got me thinking about specific changes I can make to my business model. If I make one game, and it takes me three months or three years, I have to compete with all of the hundreds of games released in that time. But if I create a game tied to a service I provide, am I competing with the same games anymore? I think what might make such a change hard for indies is that providing a game service requires outsourcing or hiring others to build and manage it. Then again, are you doing this as a hobby that pays a little bit for your pizza and beer, or are you running a serious business?

Either way, don’t feel that you need to let the portals come between you and your customers. If you don’t want them to, you have options.

[tags] indie, business, portal, game development [/tags]