“That is the best looking iPhone game I’ve seen!”
Great compliment (until I explain that it’s a video of a PC game shown on the iPhone). Still, I’ve had a lot of excellent feedback from my recent trip to GDC (the Game Developer’s Conference), and now that I’m starting to get back into the swing of things I felt it time compile some of that feedback for this blog:
General Response:
The general response has been absolutely excellent. I’ve shown the short video segment to around 50 people from various positions in the game industry, and almost everyone liked the graphics, the physics, the gameplay, the alt worlds, etc. People really resonated with the physics side – a simple 2d game, but moving around the curve always got a “wow”. More so than the physics, the laser beam mapped to the 3d curve was even better received. Though there were a few comments regarding more special effects, the art style also resonated with people – something clean and simple but aesthetically attractive… more important though, something that really hasn’t been seen before – at least in this context. This sample really does confirm that I’m onto something – something that’s fun, unique, interesting, etc.
Publishing:
After talking to a couple of producers and various people connected to the distribution side of the industry, I think I’m on the right path. I started this project with the mind to build something interesting, which when finished I could take to get published. I was operating under the assumption that its less work and less risk for a company to publish something finished (be it a game or a manuscript) than to fund some bright eyed first time developer walking in saying “I’ve got this great idea, now give me money!” My assumption was whole heartedly confirmed by a number of very experienced individuals – and they all suggested that while this path is apparently more difficult, if I can pull it off its easier and more profitable in the long run.
I talked to a few people regarding how far I need to complete this game before pitching. I received a couple of mixed perspectives, but ultimately the father along the better – and when I do run the pitch, make sure that the 15 minute or so presentation is absolutely rock solid. More important than the level of polish though, I received some interesting advice on how to approach the construction of the game as well as the need for a more resolved concept:
Construction:
The advice I was given was to build the game as “ugly as possible”, focusing on the “fun”. The idea is that it is easier to re-skin an ugly but fun game than it is to rework a pretty game that just isn’t fun to play. While I do agree with this sentiment, an important part of my philosophy on this is that I want the art style to be central to the game (even if the interaction between lighting isn’t going to work out as I originally expected). I also think that the art adds to the character of a game, and that even in the prototype as is the art is critical to the positive reception thus far. I do agree with the sentiment that a fun game is better than a pretty game, but I don’t see why I couldn’t have both – especially when the majority of the buzz on the art side is based on sculptural form (critical to the gameplay) and automated processes like pureLIGHT.
Multiplayer:
Besides the comments on aesthetics vs fun, I also got some very pointed advice regarding the inclusion of multiplayer. To be honest, this is a debate I’ve been having with myself almost since this project began. I don’t like multiplayer. Sure, I love 4 player Left 4 Dead with my friends but 95% of my gaming time is on single player titles I can pick up and play whenever… I prefer my entertainment to be escapist, without having to deal with other people (either for fun or as an obligation – I truly don’t understand how people can put more hours into World of Warcraft than their actual day-job!).
I’m not looking at WOW scaled multiplayer though – I’m looking for something similar to that of Unreal Tournament; simple multiplayer with your friends, battling in an arena or working together against waves of enemies. Even the marble madness component of the game would potentially work quite well with cooperative play. On paper this sounds great – and to be honest, the question I’ve been asked above all others is “will it have multiplayer?”
I personally dislike netcode, but I feel that this is an area of Unreal that I have been avoiding. Eventually we may have to have a multiplayer project at work, and if this comes up I would really like to be better prepared (even the short bit of research I’ve put into the subject has already proved valuable). I feel that if I can pull off multiplayer for this project I will be a stronger programmer – and far more prepared both within Unreal and the games industry as a whole.
On the flipside, netcode is tedious, frustrating, and could potentially require more hours than the rest of the project combined. This is no small consideration, as if making this game took 2 or 3 times longer, it already stands a greater risk of not making it to completion (and that doesn’t even count the hit to moral working on something as frustrating as netcode). To complicate things further, if I want multiplayer support I really need to add it now – retrofitting this small prototype is already proving difficult, and I can see where retrofitting the final game would be nigh impossible. I know that things are a little more forgiving than this “now or never” picture, but I really do feel like I need to make a decision.
This is the debate I’ve been having on my own since the project began… the advice I received at GDC further complicates things. The one producer adamantly warned me that if I’m not passionate on multiplayer, “DO NOT ADD MULTIPLAYER”. He warns that if I did add multiplayer like this, I would risk burning out and dropping the project, risk doing a poor job on the execution, and risk making a game that actually works – as if I don’t like multiplayer, how can I possible build a multiplayer mode that is fun?
Joining the debate, I spoke to a few other people that warned me if I didn’t do multiplayer, would I be happy with myself for abandoning the challenge? I would I constantly be looking back at this project wondering what could have been? Very simple statement, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that this mirrors my own thoughts on the subject.
Frankly, this advice really hasn’t helped any – and I’m sure that regardless of the path I choose this debate will haunt me throughout this project. I’ve done quite a bit of soul-searching since I’ve heard this though, and while I’m still a little unsure I think I’m going to choose the stubborn and difficult path (as where would I be if I didn’t always do things the hard way?). I’m going to keep pushing on the multiplayer support that I have in, and provided I can keep the momentum moving I’m going to continue developing with a mind to netcode. I can always abandon multiplayer support in the future if it truly becomes a black hole, but in the short term I don’t really think I have a choice on this one.
Concept:
This last piece of advice really got me thinking. The advice is basically that I should try to find a “high concept” for what is otherwise an extremely abstract game. The producer I spoke to warned that while games like Osmosis and such are awesome, they are the outliers – and that to pull off such an abstract game I would need flawless execution and not just a small bit of luck. Comparatively, by giving the game a defined concept it has more of a story to tell – and would potentially improve the signal to noise ratio when in the wild competing against countless other games of the same scale. This concept doesn’t have to change the gameplay, but a little bit of humor or context could potentially make my game project a lot more memorable and approachable.
I do agree with this sentiment, but at the same time I beg to differ. I _like_ abstract games. I _like_ games like Geometry Wars or Osmosis or Orbital (even though Geometry wars is successful due to being a well executed launch title). I also have difficulty with things like humor – we joked about various concepts including “sphincter wars” (based on the shape of the map) – sure, this got a smirk (the drinks helped), but I don’t think I would be happy with the type of game that this (or any humor based theme) would produce – though I would admit that such a concept would make it more notable in certain marketplaces.
I do give him that a concept will help ground and guide production of the game, and that currently I really don’t have any sort of concept – starting with the name (or lack thereof). After sleeping on this, I have an idea that is starting to resolve – and therefore I officially christen this project Curved Space. I like how this name highlights the unique aspect of the gameplay, and I like the science and physics connotations that go with it. I don’t know how many more conceptual elements I will eventually add (I’m happy with glowing abstract shapes shooting at each other – I see little value in making them spaceships with miniature animated humans inside) but I do think that this starts to give the project a theme and direction.
It’s a little hard to get back in gear after a trip like GDC, but I’m energized and ready to dive back into this project. I definitely feel that the trip confirmed that I’m onto something interesting, and gave me a lot of useful advice to think of whether I choose to follow it or not. I also made some great contacts at the show, some of which may certainly leave a mark on Curved Space here – but I’ll wait to further those relationships before adding to this blog.
Cheers!
Categories: Design, Development
