Developer Rules

GamesIndustry.biz recently had a series of short conferences where
developers/publishers could advise each other on various rules for
running a successful games business. It dealt with issues ranging from
how AI can help (or hinder) development, how to avoid mass layoffs,
and how to learn to 'fail fast' to avoid pumping scarce resources into
products that ultimately won't succeed in the market.*


But I was most interested in this one, by Shawn Layden of Playstation
Studios, on how to make games faster and cheaper. His four rules were
succinct and somewhat obvious, but I think some of them are reflective
of a much-needed shift in attitude.


Specifically, he says:
1) Most gamers don't see the end of your game. So
   design fewer levels, make your games shorter.
2) The tech advancement in games is not getting
   noticed by the majority of your players, so ask
   yourself: is this worth the investment?
3) Try AI and develop tools to do some of the heavy
   lifting, and don't just throw people at the
   problem.
4) Be disciplined and strict on what you can deliver
   and when. Don't spend too long on an idea if it's
   not working.


It's really the first two concepts that I find most noteworthy.

The idea of 'making your games shorter' runs contrary to pretty much
everything we've seen in the last twenty years, when the almost
universal goal was to make the game bigger... not only larger than
your last product, but bigger than your competitors. More weapons,
more story, more mechanics, larger worlds... just more of everything.

I've complained about this a lot recently, but I don't think I'm alone
in saying that these gigantic modern games are, frankly, too
exhausting to play. I look at a new game, see it's open world, and
think not, "hey! Cool! Neat!" but, "Oh god, it's going to take me 100
hours just to get through the core game (more for side-quests and DLC)
and I just don't want to invest that much time into a single product.
Is there anything else I can play?"

So seeing a publisher suggest that, hey, maybe scaling it back a bit
would be beneficial to the hobby is a welcome relief.


Similarly, item 2 on the list -stop chasing tech!- is equally welcome,
although it's less revelatory. I think by this point most developers
have, if not stepped off the tech treadmill, at least slowed it down.
Fewer games are boasting about their Super Exciting Realistic
Graphics, or Ultra Fidelity Physics Engine or whatever the latest
trend is. In part this is because technology has -at least for the
time- plateaued at 'good enough' even as game development costs have
skyrocketed.

There's little need -and fewer resources- to eke out the ever-tinier
advantages you might get chasing after tech's latest darling. "Just
use what we already have, maybe learning a few new tricks to make
better use of the existing tech, and focus on
gameplay/level-design/story" seems to becoming the common mantra. But
even if it isn't an epiphany, still I'm glad to hear somebody say it.

(the other two items on the list are fairly common sense, less novel
and generally not particularly interesting to talk about. So I won't.)


What do you think: do the first two suggestions reflect a sea-change
in the industry? And if so, are they /welcome/ sea changes?






----------  
* read the full summary here
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/everything-we-learned-from-gi-sprint