next »

[PompiPompi]

Even Minecraft and Terreria have "spectacular visuals".
In my opinion Terreria is a lot more fun than Minecraft, but the Minecraft user videos sell it a lot better than Terreria.
It doesn't got to have fancy visuals, but it can have "marketable content".
Minecraft is a good game on it's own, but it is also an example of a game that have marketable content.
Some games look good and look fun on the trailers\videos, but that doesn't always reflect reality(in-game).
Because videos and trailers usually show peaks or action packed edited scenes from the game, while the game itself isn't necesseraly so action packed and exciting.
Part of my point is also that developers might invest time in marketable content, content that looks great on a trailer or a video, rather than make the game itself more fun.
For instance if Minecraft had more dense and interesting content(havn't played it for quiet some time), it might have been mor enjoyable, but it isn't necesseraly required to make good "peak videos".

[Christian Knudsen]

I don't get what point you're trying to make? That a game needs "marketable content" to sell? Of course it does.

But the "marketable content" for Minecraft and Terraria is not their visuals, no matter how "spectacular" you may deem them. The open-ended world and the sandbox nature of the gameplay, as well as the the word-of-mouth nature of the multiplayer, is what sold those games. When a potential customer watches a video of Minecraft or Terraria, they're not thinking "that game has spectacular visuals!" -- they're thinking "I can do and build almost anything I want in that game!" and "that game looks fun to play!".

[PompiPompi]

I said that marketable content doesn't have to be visuals. For instance all those videos in Minecraft that show people do crazy things and funny things happen.
I am not talking specifically about Minecraft and Terreria, because they have good gameplay. But I take them as an example of marketable content.
Terreria is a great game. Minecraft is a good game but used to be very sparse in content(compared to Terreria).
So for instance, single player Minecraft is(used to) not be very exciting like the videos show.
Videos usually show the peaks of the game, but in some games the peaks might be far from the average or majority of the game experience. In some game the peaks might really reflect how the game plays.
That is what I mean. You might create content that looks good in videos but doesn't reflect the majority of the gameplay. So a game with sparse content compared to it's scope is a good example of a game that have high peaks, but lower average.

Edit: Well, as opposed to Minecraft and Terreria, some games make "peak content" that only looks fun and isn't really fun in the game itself.
Think of a shoot-em up game where you have a very powerful weapon that blasts enemies into little bits, but when you play the game you realize the game is very unbalanced and there is no challange.

[Christian Knudsen]

I said that marketable content doesn't have to be visuals. For instance all those videos in Minecraft that show people do crazy things and funny things happen.

Yes. That's the gameplay selling the game. Like I said previously and you objected to.

I am not talking specifically about Minecraft and Terreria, because they have good gameplay. But I take them as an example of marketable content.

So now you're agreeing that good gameplay sells a game?

So for instance, single player Minecraft is(used to) not be very exciting like the videos show.
Videos usually show the peaks of the game, but in some games the peaks might be far from the average or majority of the game experience. In some game the peaks might really reflect how the game plays.

Of course trailers show the best of any given game. Why would anybody cut a trailer to show the boring parts? They're trying to sell the game. But I'm not exactly sure what trailers you're talking about in relation to Minecraft that show a much more exciting game than what it actually is?

And a game that only has content created for the purpose of looking good in a video won't sell well. It might catch people's immediate attention, but as soon as reviewers and players get their hands on it, word-of-mouth will spread. Can you give me an example of an indie game that sold really well based on content that was only created to look good in a trailer, but the game itself was generally reviewed poorly and had poor word-of-mouth?

Again, you're approaching this as if the only information potential customers get about a game is the trailer. That's not the case. Potential customers read reviews, watch videos on YouTube, listen to their friends rave about games and so on.

Think of a shoot-em up game where you have a very powerful weapon that blasts enemies into little bits, but when you play the game you realize the game is very unbalanced and there is no challange.

If you honestly think a game like that wouldn't be panned by most reviewers and players, you're out of your mind.

[PompiPompi]

Well, I am not necesseraly say these games have terrible gameplay, they might have medicore or even good gameplay. But their success is unproportional to the actual game's "goodness".
So now you know that I was trying to say that some games invest effort in content which only looks good on videos, rather than put an effort in the things that don't show immediatly but only after some time is spent with the game.
My original point is that, it might not be worth financially to choose a game or invest alot of effort in content and features which arn't easy to market and only shine after a player invested quite some time with the game.

I can give you an example of a recent game that was succesful and had bad gameplay, the developers also said the players complained. It's bytten lumberjack, it's a game that sells well and has bad gameplay, mostly because it was made in one month. Not because the developers arn't talented. They just didn't put much effort in the gameplay.
So this is an example of a very big contrast between the success and the actual value of the game. But some games are medicore but gain a lot more success than they "deserve".

[Christian Knudsen]

I've only stumpled upon Lumberjack in a thread here on the forums, I think. Can you link to the game (when Googling, I only get some polish sites). And some sales statistics on it? Also, what content was created for that game with the primary intent of looking good in a trailer? That's what you were arguing, right?

My original point is that, it might not be worth financially to choose a game or invest alot of effort in content and features which arn't easy to market and only shine after a player invested quite some time with the game.

If I'm reading this right, you're saying that you shouldn't add features that don't immediately pop out at the player because those features aren't marketable? That doesn't really make much sense to me. It's like you're arguing for games to be shallow. Do you honestly think you'll be a successful indie developer if you aim to make games that are so shallow that the entirety of their content can be shown in a 2 minute trailer? Do you really think that your success hinges entirely on how many people you can lure in with a razzle-dazzle trailer? Do you really think that building a fan base and making a name for yourself as a developer by making deep games that challenge and engage the player is a wasted effort? If you truly believe that, I'm sorry to say that there's no chance in hell you'll ever be a successful indie developer, so I really hope I'm misunderstanding your point or you're just stating it poorly.

[PompiPompi]

Bytton Lumberjack is available for the XBOX360, for 80 points.
I said it was succesful because the developer said it was more popular or passed the sales of "I made a game with zomies in it"(IIRC).
The marketable content is I think simpley the beautiful cover box art work. The quirky story and quirky characters, the art work, and lots of blood.

I didn't say what I am going to do. It's more like my frustration with gamers.
I am not saying that the developers who invest most of their effort in marketable content make bad games. They usually make an average game that gets a lot more attention because of the marketable content.
Of course you still need to have a game, not only videos. I am just realizing how games sell themsevles. And that choosing specific types of games might lead you to have a game with more marketable content.

I will give you another example. Legend of Grimrock. It's a pretty good game on it's own, but mostly because it cloned an older good game. Now, that's not a bad thing to clone older game mechanics if they were good. And I really enjoy this game mostly for the riddles, but they did a really bad job with the battle mechanics while in the original game the battle mechanics were good.
The biggest issue is that you can "dance" to fight enemies. Which means you continously walk and don' give your enemies a chance to hit you because they are so slow and you are fast.
Now, I am sure they didn't do that on purpose, and there is a lot of good things going on in the game. But you can see the game is succesful eventhough it has this flaw. Which means, you don't need to perfect the gameplay to sell well. It's enough to make something good enough gameplay wise, but have alot of other marketable content.
This does not mean I am going to cut corners like this, I am just pointing you that things that sell games arn't necesseraly correlating with how well and balanced the gameplay is.

[JWK5]

Sometimes there is not much of a market for a certain type of product simply because there are not enough products of that kind in the market. Back in the NES days (here in the US) RPGs were pretty sparse but gained momentum in the 16-bit era and with the advent of the Playstation pretty much exploded out into the market, and now we have tons of them every year. Tactical RPGs, user-generated content games, etc. have bloomed similarly. Sometimes all it takes for there to be a "market" for a certain kind of game is just to have a really good game of that kind spark people's interests.

With anything (video game or otherwise) created independently or non-commercially it is always going to be sink or swim. There are no real guarantees of success or failure, it is a leap of faith. Whether it is worth it or not depends on if you can afford the cost of failure, that is if you feel you can rebound from the lost time, money, etc. invested into the project should it flop.

Even if it does flop financially, you could always release it for free thereafter and see what the reactions are. You might get enough people who decided to take the chance on it (since it was free) to get solid feedback and good suggestions, not to mention the possibility of a fanbase, that could help you create a financially successful sequel or something.

In the end, you'll never really know what will happen until you try. If you can handle the price of failure I say go for it.



As for the visuals of a game, it has been my observation that quality is more personality than finesse. A lot of people are willing to forgive rough spots in the presentation if the characters are likable, the settings are immersive, etc. It's akin to watching a cartoon where the animation isn't the greatest but the characters are fun and quirky and make the show enjoyable. Put some heart into what you are doing and it will show.

[Christian Knudsen]

Pompi: Oh, you mean Bytown Lumberjack, I guess. The right name makes it a lot easier to Google. The developer never said it surpassed the sales of I MADE A GAME WITH ZOMBIES IN IT:

http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=24179.msg712261#msg712261

Gabriel said that it was the #1 highest rated game on the Canadian list in front of I MADE A GAME... I.e. the people buying it rated it higher than any other game. Which is almost the exact opposite of what you said (that it sold well but was poorly reviewed).

And Legend of Grimrock is a good game. I never said a game should be flawless to sell well. I said it needs good gameplay. And Legend of Grimrock has that in spades. And it has pretty much received positive reviews across the board. Does it look good? Yes, it looks great! Is that a powerful marketing angle? Sure. But so is the fact that it's a really well-done reimagining of a genre that was pretty much dead.

Look, you can go on about 'marketable content' all you want, but that's such a vague thing that differs wildly from game to game and genre to genre that I don't think there's any way you can make a good game with that mindset as your starting point. You're approaching it like a marketing executive. No good will come from that. Start with a good and solid game, then figure out how you're going to market it.

This is probably my favorite advice in this thread:

I'm not exactly an experienced indie developer, so please take my words with a grain of salt. To me it seems a game needs to have this:

- a working game mechanic
- some new interesting ideas to justify the "why buy this and not any of the older"
- your passion
- polishing to the moon and back
- some cool effects to show off at images

It's like you're focusing on the last point and skipping all the others. Here's what I think you should do: Make a bunch of small unpolished games that only take a day or two to program. Forget about pretty code and optimizations and graphics. Just focus on finding a new/interesting/fun game mechanic that has potential. When you find that mechanic, then explore it. Come up with variations on it. Twist it. Reverse it. But stick to that single game mechanic as your core. When you have enough ideas based on that core mechanic to make a full game, that's when you start making it.

Forget about 'marketable content'. That's not what you should be thinking about when you start making a game. Save that for the polishing phase or when you actually have to market it. You're putting the cart in front of the horse.

[PompiPompi]

It's not what the developers of Legend of Grimrock did though. They cloned Eye of the Beholder, but unlike EOB they have a flaw in the battle mechanics which simpley allow you to "cheat" in battles with some "dancing".
The riddles are fun though.

[James Coote]

I said that marketable content doesn't have to be visuals. For instance all those videos in Minecraft that show people do crazy things and funny things happen.

Yes. That's the gameplay selling the game. Like I said previously and you objected to.

Actually, that's good marketing. The developers have recognised people like to watch others play (or rather what others have created) and have emphasised that aspect of the game's appeal

It's about identifying what part of the game people enjoy the most and then concentrating on that when marketing.

[Christian Knudsen]

It's not what the developers of Legend of Grimrock did though. They cloned Eye of the Beholder, but unlike EOB they have a flaw in the battle mechanics which simpley allow you to "cheat" in battles with some "dancing".
The riddles are fun though.

What's your point? How does any of this relate to what's being discussed? What does that have to do with 'marketable content'? Are you saying the game doesn't have marketable content because of this "flaw"? You're jumping all over the place so it's kinda hard to follow what argument you're trying to make.

Actually, that's good marketing. The developers have recognised people like to watch others play (or rather what others have created) and have emphasised that aspect of the game's appeal

It's about identifying what part of the game people enjoy the most and then concentrating on that when marketing.

The developers of Minecraft didn't make 99.9% of the videos showing off Minecraft, but that's besides the point.

Those videos aren't selling something that isn't in the game. How would you sell Minecraft's fun gameplay in a video if it wasn't there? That's what I'm talking about when saying that you shouldn't try to determine the marketing before making the game. You can't. Make the game. Make it good. Have good gameplay. Then figure out how you're best going to show that and sell the game.

[James Coote]

Actually, that's good marketing. The developers have recognised people like to watch others play (or rather what others have created) and have emphasised that aspect of the game's appeal

It's about identifying what part of the game people enjoy the most and then concentrating on that when marketing.

That's what I'm talking about when saying that you shouldn't try to determine the marketing before making the game. You can't. Make the game. Make it good. Have good gameplay. Then figure out how you're best going to show that and sell the game.

Yep, that's what I was getting at

[Archibald]

I wanted to build a castle. I saw Minecraft videos, these proved I could build a castle if I buy it, so I bought it. The Terreria videos does not prove I can build a castle (at most it could be 2D castle which is not 3D because it can't convey all dimensions of my blueprints), so I have not bought it.
And that's it. It's all about me wanting to build a castle, not graphics, marketing, etc. The marketing merely made me aware of that game, nothing more, it didn't trigger me to buy it. It was my desire to build a castle which did it. It's all about my precious castle, all

[PompiPompi]

My point is that a game with medicore gameplay but good marketable content will sell better than a game with medicore marketable content but great gameplay.
What is good marketable content? It's something you can pitch the game, show it in demos or videos and make the game look appealing. Whether the game is really as good as it is appealing, it depends on the specific game.
I don't see why it seems so vague, you can see this in many prodcuts and many situation, it's kind of like propoganda.
I will give you an example of such game. Do you remember "indigo prophecy"? The demo had this amazing short bit where you murder someone in the bathroom and then you need to act as you wish.
You can try to run away quickly, you can try to hide the body, wash your hands, and etc. It seems so amazing that you had so much scripted options.
Needless to say, the game itself was a really bad where you just watch movies and have to follow key presses. Kind of like Dragon Layer, but without the amazing animation.
There are probably more games like that, but this is an extreme example that you don't need to have a great gameplay to sell the game. Medicore gameplay and some propoganda is enough.
That doesn't mean I am going to do that, I am just presenting you the issue.