The Mobile Invasion

In the olden days, if you wanted to take your gaming with you, you had a Game Boy, Game Gear, or even a Nomad. While these systems definitely pulled their weight in the industry, they were considered companion pieces to the in-home consoles. (Heck, this was quite literal at times. Remember the N64’s Game Pak or the GameCube’s GBA cable?)

But, in the “newden” days, mobile phones have snatched this market space from the long time champs of portable gaming and now are gunning for the big guys. Just take a look at any industry web site and you’ll see just how concerned it is about the iPhone, Androids, and even Windows 7 Mobile. Not only are these guys outrunning handheld gaming machines in hardware units sold, but they completely blow them out of the water in software sales. And all of this with new fangled things like free games with in-app purchases or free add supported games; both paradigm shifts in industry economic models. (Not to mention the, less weird, $0.99 games like Angry Birds.)

So, the industry’s vanguard has their tails between their legs. They’ve been doing things the old fashioned way for decades and they’re scared that this new, kinder, way of selling games might steal money from them. 

But will they? In short, yes! Most of the casual gamers that once spent their allowances on Game Boys now get their games for free on their phones. They don’t even have to go to a store to get their games. Not only that, but the cost of the hardware is subsidized by the cell phone companies, making it more affordable for them. So, mobile phones have hit the casual gaming trifecta; affordability, convenience, and usability. 

So, what does this mean for the 3DSs and NGPs of the future? It means that they need to deliver in ways that they never have before if they want to stay viable. They need to market to hardcore gamers and deliver new, spiffy, features to those casual fans; ones that are cool enough to pull them away from their iPhones and Androids. They could try to compete with the mobile phone markets and offer similar games at similar prices, but the high cost of the hardware that they produce makes this risky, so this is doubtful. 

Handheld devices that only play games will have to adapt or become economically unfeasible. Believe me, I’m sad to say it - I’ve still got a pile of GBA games not more than 3 feet from where I now type – but times are changing, and so must the gaming industry.

A Tightening of Belts

Image from SiliconHomeBroker.com

Most gamers – and most developers for that matter – believe that the gaming industry is making money hand over fist. And while it IS making money, if we take a look behind the jewel encrusted curtain that drapes over the industry, we find that there isn’t as much left in the budget for everything else as we might have thought.

The gaming industry is cutting costs left and right. This manifests in many ways, although most of them are invisible to the average player. For instance, many “big budget games” are actually modifications of existing games, which makes them much cheaper, faster, and easier to develop. Take for instance Call of Duty: Black Ops which owes its quick development time to what it took from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. This and other games like it exemplify the new golden rule of the gaming industry: spend less, make more. Ever wonder why so many sequels and rehashes come out every year? It’s because their easier to make and their almost guaranteed to make money. 

Then on top of that, developers are paying their employees less while working them more. Almost everyone in the industry will tell you that you can expect about a month of 80 hour work weeks at the end of a development cycle, no matter what team you work with. And remember, 95% of these people are salaried, so there’s no extra pay for all this time away from families and loved ones. So while not one person in the gaming industry would give up their jobs for anything, times are still tough for them.

So, the next time you think about all of the millions of dollars and the fat cats that supposedly make these games, remember that the industry is CONTRACTING. The average industry worker makes less money there than they could in related fields - like film and TV - and they work more hours. The gaming industry is tightening its belt in these sad economic times, just like everyone else.

Wonder

Recently, I schlepped my Xbox 360 to an old friend of mine’s house. He and I used to play games like Golden Eye and Turok back in the day, so I thought he would enjoy playing some of the plethora of FPS games on the 360. We played the campaign mode for a while and had a good time, but the real eye opener came when I asked him if he was interested in playing online. He told me that he had never played a shooter online before! Ecstatic, I took us online and let him marvel at all of the game modes and super fast matchmaking. He had a blast! Not only that, but after only one match, he resolved to convince his wife to let him buy a 360!

But here’s the truly striking part; he was getting creamed the entire time! In most games, he would get blown to bits more often then not, but he still had loads of fun. This is something that is almost unheard of in the modern gaming community; especially when it comes to shooters. Most core gamers would get frustrated by all of those defeats and either quit or moan through the next set of matchmaking. But why? It’s only a game, after all. Why can’t we have the same since of wonder that my good friend has?

The reason that some people take games seriously and some don’t is because we all have different goals when we play games. If your goals include winning, it’s likely that losing will anger you, since one of your goals was not met. My friend, on the other hand, had no expectations going into his games, so when he lost, it didn’t keep him from achieving anything. His only goal was to have fun and that’s what he did.

So, maybe if we hardcore gamers reevaluated our goals a little, we might have more fun when we lose a match or two on Xbox Live or PSN.

Cannibalism

spreadshirt.com

As any creative medium evolves, it’s inevitable that new works begin to feel much like old ones, but in the current gaming industry, it seems almost impossible for even the best of designers to make a game the feels truly “new”. Because of this, even games that seek to be different only take parts from other games and repurpose them. Take for instance Halo: Reach. While I love the game, most of the new additions to the game – most notably reticle bloom and character loadouts - are merely mechanics taken from other shooters. And this problem persists throughout the industry; games that play almost exactly like more popular games, sequels to those games, and remakes of previous games/series flood the market.

The question is, how long will players be satisfied by this cannibalism? How long until they begin to grow tired of all this recycling of game design? It’s hard to say. There’s a certain amount of familiarity that you want in your games; people like what they understand. But what’s more important than that is novelty; games are an exercise in learning. When the player stops learning new things, they stop wanting to play. And when players realize that all of these games are basically the same as the ones that came before them, they will become disinterested and stop buying them.

So, what do we do? That depends on what your goals are. If you’re a big development team that’s looking to spend tons of cash on a project, it might be best to stick to the tried and true formals. That being said, for your games to have true appeal, they’ll need to have at least something new to keep players interested. Now, if you’re a small team that needs to set yourself apart from the pack, then you have a conundrum. Making a radically different game can set you apart, but it can also be a big risk. That being said, there’s no way that a team with a small budget can compete with the powerhouses on their expensive terms, so taking risks may actually be less risky, so to speak.

Overall, the industry needs more risk taking to stay alive. While there IS something to be said for playing it safe when there’s millions of dollars involved, if we don’t start innovating soon, there soon won’t be ANY dollars involved at all.

An Actual GAME!

(c) Josiah Marchand, 2011

For a change of pace from my one prior post, rather than writing about some game design concept this post, I will give you something even better, an honest-to-goodness GAME!

It’s called Paper Frog and it’s a board game where you and your friends race to see who can guide their frog to the pond at the top of the board first. (I’ll be honest, this board game is based on a certain classic video game! :P) The game is simple enough for most anyone to play. All you need is a printout of the game board and pieces – which you cut out - and a 4 sided die. (You can use a 6 sided die if you can’t get a hold of a 4 sided one. Just reroll all of the 5s and 6s.)

There is also a single player mode for those that don’t have other readily available players to race with. To find out how to play both versions, just have a look at the included instructions PDF. 

To get started, download the game board and instructions here:
 

Paper Frog Board Download!

Paper Frog Instructions Download!

(Note: You will need an Adobe Reader to view these files. 99% of modern computers have one, but if you don’t, you can download it from Adobe for free here: http://get.adobe.com/reader/)

Have fun and let me know what you think of the game in the comments below! ^_^

Complexity

This is my first post on this blog, but rather than give you some silly shpeel about it, I'm just going to jump in and talk about a game design conundrum that I feel has been on the minds of many a gamer and designer lately; the complexity of modern games - or the lack there of. (And if you actually want all that shpeel, you can find most of it in my profile on the right.)

Most hardcore gamers will complain that they feel that the last console generation has seen a disappointing drop in the complexity of games. This is usually seen as a ploy by the industry to pull in new players with simple gameplay and user-friendly interfaces. But any good game designer knows that game designs should be as simple as possible, so long as the gameplay is still intact. So then, where do we draw the line between engaging and oversimplified? When is a game fun and when is it too hard – or too easy - to follow?

In general, the best way to draw this proverbial line is to make sure that the player has a mental link from each part of your game to the next. For example, if you want the player to understand unblockable attacks, they need to already understand normal attacks and blocking. This way, the player has a frame of reference to use when assimilating the new information. So long as you follow this principle for everything throughout your game, from new items to level difficulty, your game progression should make sense to the player. If you've ever been told of a new piece of gameplay in a game and said, "Where the heck did THAT come from?!" this is likely because whoever designed the game didn't keep this "trail of bread crumbs" structure in mind.

But how much hand holding do we really need? Our players have been around for long enough that we can skip most of this stuff and just jump right into the core gameplay, right? Yes and no. There is some validity in the idea. It's never good to bog down a game with useless tutorials and the like. Most hardcore gamers feel babied if you try to re-teach them the basics of gaming. But at the same time, you can never know what exactly a player's frame of reference is. You might think that they already have experience with this type of game, but what if they don't? This is why even sequels to largely popular games like Halo and GTA still have tutorials. You never know if the player has played the previous games, and even then, you don't know how much they remember.

And then of course there's the question of drawing in new players that so many hardcore gamers groan at. As much as they might balk at the latest set of Wii mini-game titles, these releases and others like them are needed for the industry to grow. Just like the Super Marios and Sonics of our childhood years, the new crop of gamers needs that starting point for their journey into the legendary land of gaming. Games like these are simple enough for gamers to learn without prior gaming know-how, but complex enough to lead them further. A game as complex as say Starcraft 2 just can't do that, no matter how many tutorials you throw in.

So, while you may scoff at the simplicity or complexity of that game that you hate, just keep in mind that both types of games have an important role in the industry. The game may not be at the right skill level for you, but it's at the right one for someone.