• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Nuhaine

Innovation Vs Proven Concepts

16 posts in this topic

Your whole game doesn't need to be new. Even if it's only one part of your game which is new. For exemple, you have Limbo, it's just a basic platformer (you run, jump, resolve enigma, etc...) but the graphic tone, and atmoshpere are really unique.

I would associate innovative with Indie game dev, and old/refined with big production. But, there is the case of "Candy Crush", a game on mobile platform which is (oldyl) a very big success. But the concept is a very old and used one. (I even have the same type of game on my old phone which is something like 10 years old!)

But ot answer your question, I will say ; "both". Take some proven concept from there and there, mix, bring your own inspiration, mix again, and pray that this will become something cool ^^'


In short, don't just imitate, but absolutely be inspired!


I second :)
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marketing for indies, well, the popular rumour says its pointless to make good games. Because you won't be able to market them (as opposed to AAA titles where you have marketing budget and you can make standard games). You need to make viral games. Which means either excellent or pathetic, but never, ever good or mediocre ones smile.png

 

Very true! I began to research Marketing and study the different crowds of gamers for exactly this purpose. Games like popular Apps (Cookie Clicker, Mafia Wars) are examples of poor or simple concepts which went viral. I have been looking into these extensively, piecing them apart to find out what makes them popular or more desirable over other identical games for a good deal of time. It also takes a certain level of polish. A simple game might have a higher level of polish than a mediocre game. A mediocre game might become an excellent game with polish. However, going 'viral' is the primary way for it to be a marginal success.

 

I'm glad to see that creativity seems to be favored, and that my original method of reinventing an idea was the way to go. Thanks to both of you for the articles and information you linked, I found them quite enlightening on the subject. I find myself already doing many of the things Daniel Cook already suggests. I am not inspired by but one title, but many titles. Arguably, though, my greatest inspirations are derived from Mortal Online, and the Diablo franchise. Not just for the gameplay content, but the lessons they teach in design.

 

As to the last bit of the article, which you quoted, J. B. Adams, I have already made steps in that direction. I already pull mechanics from a multitude of games and then evolve them, without much of a foundation to start from. I have a few practice Game Design Documents where I have done so. I find most of my ideas turn out quite original, with the amount of work invested. However, I am always conscious of what crowd I am aiming for with my designs. Unfortunately, i'm not yet ready to make the leap and start a full-on-project yet. I still need to keep learning, and learn not just design, but finish learning other useful skills as well.

Edited by Nuhaine
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Innovation should be guided by market research, such as end-user surveys, reading, and beta testing, in my opinion.  This is not only my view but that of many of the leaders in game development organizations.

 

All successful game developers have at least one person in their organization who wants much more innovation. Looking at proven methods is part of the market research which is healthy to mitigate the passions for innovation which can potentially result in disaster for a company.  Just because there is a great innovation does not mean that it translates to better gameplay and fun for the end-user.  Market research helps greatly to find that balance.

 

In larger game development corporations, game designers represent only one category among others.  There may be several project managers each assigned to the development of a particular game, each game development having at least one game designer, lead programmers, lead artists, and lead testers.  Designers tend to have a more artistic mind and want to push the boundaries of innovation from a gameplay perspective while programmers must deal with the realities of time and budget constraints over them.

 

One must conclude that a system of checks and balances is healthy for a company to have in order to manage innovation compared to proven methods. Market research helps leaders of the company settle the issues, after all, and what the end-users like must be balanced with resources available.   Mostly reusing the same libraries with some customization, which is very efficient from a business viewpoint, must be balanced with the costs and risks of innovation.   Market research resolves many things like this.

Edited by 3Ddreamer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it better to favor an old mechanic or feature that has already been done frequently


It depends.
Do both.
(FAQ 52.)

Sometimes, for some features, go with the familiar and comfortable (don't use the "P" key for "jump"). Some part of your game has to be innovative.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Daniel Cook (of Spry Fox) suggests in his article "plagiarism as a moral choice" that remaining a plagiarist rather than evolving new innovations is "to waste your very limited time on this planet", and that to do so results in ending up as a "wage slave". I'd suggest a read of the full article, but the relevant advice summed up at the end is:
It's not that I disagree (I have no opinion on this subject) but I find it suspicious. I mean, sure, it all sounds great, but show me the game.

 

Do you have examples of these superb innovative games? Were these successful (I don't even ask for financial success, it could be by nother criterias). Would *I* (not some critics that write reviews) find such game FUN?

 

When I chek my list of favourite games, I don't see there so much ground breaking revolution... I like Civilization 4 (clone of Civ3, Civ2, Civ1, Empire), MasterOfOrion2 (pretty standard 4x genre), when I was younger I played tons of RPGs (all of them pretty much the same mechanic wise, even almost identical character stats and skills and spell names :D), recently I really enyoed Deponia (a 100% traditional, absolute traditional, point & click).

The only exception I can think of right now is Crepper World (althrough it's based on tower defence genre so I'm not sure if people would count it as that innovative).

 

As I see it, I enjoy MUCH more games that are traditional and polished and executed well, than super creative yet not so fun ones. And I hate it, I wanted to be the one who rewards creativity :D

 

 


Innovation should be guided by market research, such as end-user surveys, reading, and beta testing, in my opinion. This is not only my view but that of many of the leaders in game development organizations.
I disagree. Strongly. It's a suicide. I was doing it in the past and I almost got bankrupt. "Thou shall not make a game the way market research says, do it the way YOU feel is right instead". I don't know if this is an universal truth but surely it's my personal truth and I would first eat my keyboard before I make another game based on market research :)

 

And as for those "leaders in game development organizations", I wonder how many of those got bankrupt by now :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


3Ddreamer, on 05 Nov 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:


Innovation should be guided by market research, such as end-user surveys, reading, and beta testing, in my opinion. This is not only my view but that of many of the leaders in game development organizations.

I disagree. Strongly. It's a suicide. I was doing it in the past and I almost got bankrupt. "Thou shall not make a game the way market research says, do it the way YOU feel is right instead". I don't know if this is an universal truth but surely it's my personal truth and I would first eat my keyboard before I make another game based on market research

 

 

I feel that you misunderstood.    In my post there with the other comments I talked about checks and balances and just plain balance in general.   For a fact many a game development company went bankrupt because they did not pay attention to the likes and dislikes of the end-users, which is a risk that market research is supposed to help prevent as far as end-user issues if done right.  Problem is that many game devs either are incompetent with market research or they tend to ignore the realities which it reveals.  Any resource which informs the developer is a good thing if handled right and not bad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best course of action is to use marketing information based on the results of opinions about certain mechanics within the game, not the entire direction of the game itself. An example would be making a small crafting change which could upset or improve how crafting is perceived, such as making the UI easier, or making it more intuitive/less of a grind.

 

I'm not entirely sure if Marketing would be useful in the very beginning, as targeting a crowd using specific features based on results from now will be different from a year or more later when the industry standards or preferences have changed. It is certainly useful to see what the Developers should focus on, but I believe it would be something to keep in mind as opposed to a scripture one must have and then follow.. They may not realize something is clearly broken or being abused, but reports or opinions taken from the community can bring this to light. It is thus certainly helpful, but not entirely required until at least halfway into development.

 

This is why I would prefer to aim towards an audience, and cater to them, as opposed to catering to the market. I would still keep information on parts of my game, and use that information to change certain things that are receiving negative attention, or alter mechanics which may seem pointless or repetitive.

 

An example would be the current Dungeon Crawler I am writing up. It utilizes a crafting system where players defeat an enemy, which spawns a crafting table and materials as loot. The Crafting Table adds its own modifiers to the end result of crafting. One table might add '+10% Weapon Damage' to the result of what you craft with it. Some may be able to take more materials than others. Using this system I basically added Min-Maxing in a light way. However, I am conscious about having the Crafting Table be an interaction or an item. Would I force them to run by a mediocre crafting table with poor modifiers? Or would I allow them to pick it up and save it for later in case they need it. This decision could be influenced by users via polls, which would tell me what the users wanted out of this mechanic. It may even bring in new observations, the idea might be too redundant or too much of a hassle. I may have to remove the mechanic altogether to satisfy the user.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This is why I would prefer to aim towards an audience, and cater to them, as opposed to catering to the market. I would still keep information on parts of my game, and use that information to change certain things that are receiving negative attention, or alter mechanics which may seem pointless or repetitive.

 

Yes.  This is exactly the kind of things that market research is designed to assist.  The total scope of the gaming market is huge, with many segments showing trends and special tastes for game features. 

 

If I design a game for a certain genre, perhaps even unknowing for lack of awareness, but I market it for another segment of the gamers, then probability is that I under-achieve in launching the product.  For example, if I include with the game a bunch of settings options, I mean a lot of them, and they are very innovative, but the game actually targets mainly end-users in the 14-20 year range, then perhaps that age group will not have the attention span or interest to use the many configuration settings of the game.  In such a case, I likely wasted a lot of time, money, and resources in developing such features which the end-user target market doesn't like to use.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


but I'll leave it there to note that I actually agree with you! In the overwhelming majority of cases a well polished game will be more successful than one that is merely innovative. I would also agree with Daniel Cook's idea that we should continue to strive for better rather than settling for a successful clone of an existing game.
But then, I wonder about the definition of "strive for better". If incremental creativity is more fun to the player and results in a better game, then what's the point of going for grand leap creativity? What is "better" in this? Wouldn't making a more fun game be striving for better? Is creativite better just for the sake of creativity?

I don't know, it sounds to me a bit like art for the sake of art :)

 

Similarly, I would debate the "morality of plagiarism". Assuming it results in a better, more fun game (just an assumption), wouldn't it be actually more moral? Wouldn't making fun games be moral while making unfun (where the player is tricked into buying and wastes both money and time and regrets it) be actually immoral?

 

What comes first? The player (and his fun) or the creativity/originality?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there's any real benefit to outweigh the massive risk of "grand leap" rather than incremental innovation, and I think the games I chose as illustrations of innovative gameplay demonstrate that.

At the same time however, I'm not personally comfortable with having players pay good money for something with NO innovation, as although there may be proven fun to be had I feel like that's just re-packaging games they've already bought and paid for.


Through iterative design we can ensure our innovations aren't "losing the fun" at a reasonably minimised cost, and through basic market research and can ensure it's something there's at least some small market for. Polish is simply a matter of putting in enough time and effort and maintaining a standard. Given that, I say "why not both?; through incremental innovation we can continue to deliver new experiences to players whilst still maintaining the familiar from previous titles and offering a well polished experience.

(Posted from mobile. )
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should use 3 categories not 2.

1) Grand leap innovation

2) Incremental innovation

3) Clone

 

And then we could let the evil clone take all the blame while we could make the fun playable partial clones and name it an incremental innovation :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both indies and huge companies are limited.

 

Indie developers feel the need to be innovative, and without anything holding them back they'll try. Innovative results? Sporadic.

 

Big companies can push meaningless clone games with frugal DLC and varying enjoyability accepting bad press, and they hold their sponsors' hands and keep making whatever they're told is ok. Innovative results? Sporadic.

 

In both cases the central idea of any game might as well be one person's. Their rate of success is determined by a seemingly invisible acceptance quota decided by opinionated humans.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


is it better to favor an old mechanic or feature that has already been done frequently in design?

 

its best to favor whatever is best.

 

be it old, new, innovative, clone, whatever.

 

but it should be selected because its best, not because its innovative, or the "accepted way of doing things", or any other reason.

 

there can be an advantages to following familiar conventions (like WASD input). but these should only be considered as far as they go towards making that way of doing something the "best way" to do something,  IE don't pick conventional simply because its conventional. only choose it if the conventional way is the BEST way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0