Good game innovation/business articles...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141519.html

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141548.html

I like the way Blizzard apparently conducts business ;) It says when Blizzard explains their way of doing things (making fun gameplay first ... no matter how long that takes and then polishing the product) to EA ... the EA people can't fathom it ... instead relying on a pre-production illusion of polish to start hyping the game to it's pre-destined audience.

New & good gameplay takes quite a bit of time to make and have it all fit together. Of course that's a risk because you can't possibly know when it will fit together. Not so much of a risk if you're independent ... then it's mostly just your time if you've set yourself up properly.

You have to be capable of making good gameplay first. Which is often the part that EA gets wrong, insted relying on licenses with wordlwide recognition.

I think everyone tries for good gameplay first, whether they are capable or not depends on the skills of the teams making them.

Thats why it's best to make a good quality proof of concept demo before you work full steam ahead, and why you start withy a small team with strong core skills. So that you can adjust the gameplay, which should cover all areas that make the game fun including art.

To be honest, very few indie games have good gameplay, even if they are innovative, the innovation often becomes a gimmick that isn't enough to hold a game together and offer longevity.

With Bioware, more than half of the fun is in the story, Without that you typicaly have furious button mashing, stat building, and nothing to really hold it together.

The story is pretty much everything.

Look at Kotor 1, excellent game because of the story.

Kotor 2 was not that good, and admittedly rushed out the door as all the focus was on Jade Empire. Another fantastic game. But mostly because of the story.

Never Winter Nights was pretty much the same thing, and all relied heartily on graphics to keep the story alive and immerse the player. Whichever way you look at it, The story ultimately ends up being the core motivator of their gameplay.

A lot of EA games aren't actually that bad considering the way they make them. Though I guess they usually rely on some sort of proven gameplay ... so they are somewhat stale but usually fun based on the tried and true methods.

What strikes me as being funny though is that Blizzard games seem to be about the same ... funnily enough considering they say they focus on the gameplay first. Most Blizzard games are very polished but the gameplay isn't exactly new stuff ... although they do seem to feel a bit more inspired. Funny how that works ...

Right now I'm actually trying to think of games that feature some degree of mostly unproven gameplay. I think that most games today do rely on other games for inspiration ... it can't be helped. However, there are a few that do stuff which is off the wall, fun, and financially successful. Katamari Damacy was one of the lucky ones I suppose.

It's strange but what makes something a gimmick ... and what makes something a real valuable source of entertainment?



So a gimmick is considered innovative. Therefore any game that is innovative has a gimmick or could be considered gimmicky. Usually, gimmicky is referred to around here as something negative but really it's not ... well except for that first definition. But it's typically used to describe Nintendo's things around here ... and they always have a gimmick but usually the gimmick has a meaningful and wholly entertaining purpose.

All game's should strive to have some sort of gimmick but to also use that gimmick effectively to make good fullfilling gameplay.

Bingo!

Yeah, you just need the right chemistry between the people working on the game.

yeah, as long as that's not "sexual" chemistry :-o

I agree. If there was alot of that the game would never be created. Hehe.

Blizzard focusing on fun gameplay first - that's certainly news to me.

I love the way you think FlameDuck ... it's like no matter what I'm going to be shocked and awed ... and yet at the same time still kinda understand where you're coming from.

I think we'd need more women in the game industry to properly test this 'sexual' chemistry theory ;) It might have some surprising consequences and provide a new horizon 'for' ... 'play' ;P

Wow, this thread has really gone way off its original intercourse.

that was my fault, sorry ... boobs.

Actaully the Blizzard games I have played are good and I love Bioware games.

I didn't mean Gimmick to be negative, just that you need more to keep a game interesting for the long term.

I like a lot of indie game ideas, and "Gimmicks" but on their own they fall short. It's not always their fault, but if someone with more resources avaliable came along and took those gimmicks further you would have something truly original and exciting. It's just a shame that the person with the initial idea rarely pulls it off right first go. ANd it takes someone else to make it right.

*Giggle*



..Sorry.... I'm bored....


I actually think working no Gameplay first is a good thing- you can upgrade the visuals later once you know its fun.

I thought everyone started on gameplay first. THing is a character based game still needs a properly set up character to test with. POP would be nothing without the controls and interaction with the scenery just right, and that can't be determined without the character which is heavily integrated into the gameplay.

It really depends on the game. Something like AA or a racing game the art doesn't matter so much because its mostly about controls and flight/physics models.

But anything with a high degree of character control needs the character in order to get the gameplay to work out whats fun and what isn't.

I think its particularly hard for indies to make sophisticated games, simply because most work remotely. There is a huge difference between a core team working atr a central place of business where all the members that have to work on the game design and implementation located within the same room.

And a bunch of people trying to communicate over thousands of miles via email and text chat. an idea can be demonstrated so much easier in person when your team is scattered around you.

I honestly don't think I'll be able to work with anyone on a AA quality game without a proper working environmemt. There's allways a tendency for everyone to wander off and do their own thing without staying focused on the work at hand.

> I thought everyone started on gameplay first.

I can think of two old examples.

1 - The ET game for the Atari, that was a terrible game slapped onto a license...

2 - The Ghostbusters game for the C64?. There was an excellent game looking for a license (and they got it when Ghostbusters came along)

So sometimes they do think of gameplay first and sometimes they do not.

... it is obvious I think ... two facts...

... indies innovative ideas will rule the game world within the next years ...

... and after that we will save the world from a nuclear war too (although this last one isn't so interesting ... :)

Not entirely accurate, but David Crane had the right mindset around it's design...

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8Axfo8vcsb0J:zzap64.co.uk/cgi-bin/displayfeature.pl%3Ffeatureid%3D24+ghostbusters+activision+david+crane&hl=en