Re: Developer Rules

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:49:25 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

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?

[...]

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

One thing I've observed in comments from highly successful people in
the entertainment business (whether they were game developers, music
artists/producers/composers, filmmakers, actors or comics working on
new characters or reading a script... whatever) is that they almost
always describe some moment where they knew a certain product of their
efforts (whether that's a game title, a musical track, a film, a
character, etc.) was something special.

When you spend enough time on your craft to get good at it, you're
simultaneously good enough to recognize work that stands out beyond
your normal work output and that will appeal to others.  Nobody can
necessarily predict with any accuracy what will or won't go viral on
social media these days, but most of the forms of entertainment I
listed above cannot rely on viral media gimmicks to sustain anyones
career or company anyway, so that point is moot.

So...  when game developers/designers/directors see that a title is
turning into something special, they should extend the enjoyment to
the extent it is still enjoyable (without "jumping the shark").  When
they realize the current project is turning into something mediocre or
forgettable, it's best to cut bait, make it a shorter title and charge
accordingly.

One of the things I think is fundamentally wrong with gaming is that
the entire way funding and marketing works, there is very little
incentive for "special" games to materialize in the first place. These
teams sit down and say "okay we're going to make this or that and we
will target X number hours of playtime and spend Y number of dollars
on R&D" etc.  The decisions and deadlines are decided long before they
have created enough of a viable product to get a feel for how it's
going to turn out.

So to his suggestion #1 I say: people don't finish crap games but they
will finish good ones, so make the total play time proportional to how
good the game is turning out initially and plan around that.  As far
as suggestion #2, technology alone will not make a crap game fun to
play or a crap movie fun to watch or make poorly written music sound
any better, so tech advancement should never be the end goal.  Focus
on delivering on fun factor and consider tech advancements to be icing
on the cake when you can find ways to meaningfully add them to the
mix.  Don't add "new and shiny" just for the marketing rights of
saying "this game has some new and shiny in it".