Different vs. too different was Re: Reviews (was RE: Indie games?)

>While Total War is a fine game by itself, I believe a large amount
>of its sales can be attributed to its pretense of realism and
>"historism".

I don't think that's the case, because, honestly, there aren't enough 
history buffs to really make it a top 10 game, and it was in the top 
10 for several weeks.

The realism factor -- large unit movement -- and lack of resource 
management I think greatly contributed to its fun.  Also note that 
its graphics weren't particularly anything to write home about.

>So I guess Total War took some part of the substantial, although not
>very large wargame market.

It's still real-time.  I think Jan and myself think of "Wargames" as 
more like the turn-based stuff of yore, such as Panzer General and 
Wargame Construction Set and the stuff that Battlefront sells.

>There is a fine line between making your game too similar in
>apparent gameplay to one of the classics, and making it too
>different so that no reviewer gets it in the 30 or so minutes he is
>able to devote.

I completely agree.  Having come from the first-person shooting 
genre, I witnessed this first hand with the migration from Quake to 
Quake 2.  ANY change that was entertained was derided by half the 
market as "not being true to our roots", but any LACK of change was 
perceived as "same old stuff, unoriginal".  It's a tough line to 
balance.

Which is why sometimes you have to come out with something SO 
different that people have to dump much of their preconceived 
notions.  I think Homeworld and Thief captured this very well.  
Homeworld felt like an RTS, but the extra dimension changed things so 
much that you couldn't think in terms of 2D bases/units anymore.

Thief felt like a first-person shooter, and a lot of people still 
reviewed it as such, but it obviously was not, and enjoyed a lot of 
success for being so different (and still good).

>As our lead designer put it after the first few reviews, "No more
>*different* games from me".

I think there's an area where you can be so different that people 
don't "get it", but yet still similar enough that people have certain 
expectations that may not be met.  It's what helicopter pilots call 
the dead man's curve.  There's a zone where if you lose your engine 
you must be high enough to allow for autotation to safety, or low 
enough that you can survive the crash, but if you're in between, 
you're pretty much dead.

>different, shallow and bland game. (Of course, the blame for this
>sits squarely on us, not them.)

I think that's a really positive attitude to have, because it gives 
you room to grow in the future.  I've seen too many game designers 
that blame the players for not enjoying their game.  Trust me, it's 
tempting to do when I get e-mails from people that disliked Candy 
Cruncher =)

>reviewers who judged the game completely superficially (what, 2D
>graphics? only two races? shallow tech tree? must be bad).

Unfortunately the nature of the Internet is such that anyone can have 
an opinion.  I know of at least one reviewer who has bragged to me 
that for "shitty games" he doesn't even bother opening the box, he 
just sells it on eBay.  And this is from one of the more respected 
sites *sigh*

>Maybe in the long term, it's gameplay that matters. But for good
>reviews in the initial period, you need not only glitzy technology,
>but also very accessible gameplay. 

Yes.  As the player base matures and broadens we're seeing 
accessibility becoming more and more important.  I remember trying to 
show a friend how to play Quake, and often we forget how incredibly 
difficult mouselook was to learn when first playing.

I'm happy to see the trend towards integrated tutorials, etc. so that 
you can learn without reading a manual.

>No one cares if two of your
>advanced units form a very interesting symbiotic combination in the
>endspiel, or if there's a great scripted sequence after the
>incredibly difficult mission 8. The game must be obviously good, not
>just good.

Also a very good point.  I had a friend comment once that "You need 
to show your best stuff FIRST", because that's what captures the 
imagination of the player immediately.  It's tempting to save the 
best for last to provide a final sense of "wow!" when they complete 
the game, but two hard facts make this a bad idea:

1.  The demo is often the first few levels, so if they're boring the 
game will be perceived as boring.  I'm amazed how many times I've 
downloaded a demo and it ends up being the tutorial with no 
indication of the actual gameplay.

2.  Very few players actually complete games, so you really want to 
front load as much content as possible.

Brian




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Scholarships for Techies!
Can't afford IT training? All 2003 ictp students receive scholarships.
Get hands-on training in Microsoft, Cisco, Sun, Linux/UNIX, and more.
www.ictp.com/training/sourceforge.asp
_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-design mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-design
Archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_idU6