next »

[PompiPompi]

I think part of my point is... choosing to create the games that will sell well. And the annoying thing is that the things which sell games are often very simple choices that look silly at first.
For instance good concept art and trailers which are not even part of the game might sell the game.
3D graphics which arn't really necessary for a specific type of game might sell a game.
Some sort of gimmick that might sell the game.
Choosing games that are easier to make, and take less time to make, or a game where you invest most of your time in the visuals rather than playtesting and polishing the gameplay.
Another good example, dialogs, good dialogs might require a lot of work and a good writer to come up with, but I am sure a lot of people don't even care for dialogs(although some do).
It seems like a lot of good games just won't sell well, because they don't have much marketing content. Or at least they would take a lot of time to make and won't return the investment.

I might be wrong about some of the things I specified, but I think my hunch is correct.

[James Coote]

You mean a game that doesn't have much marketable content?

There's two ways you could look at that.

One is that you didn't do the market research, didn't bother to check if anyone actually wanted the game, or that there weren't so many competitors offering exactly the same that a different game might have been better

Or that is a motivation for going out and making the game EVEN BETTER! to beat all the competition into a pulp! The game might not be the first in the genre, but by golly it's going to be the damn bestest ever!

But just what is a 'good game'? If the gameplay and mechanics are well considered and engaging (look at that marketing speak I just did right there!) then you need a marketing strategy that does not focus on visuals or selling on eye candy.

Some advice I was given was to pick one core mechanic to build the game around and make it absolutely perfect, polished till you could see your face in it. But really, to forget everything else. If dialogue is not going to add to or support that mechanic, don't be afraid to ditch it.

Also be glad you didn't do 3D graphics. I spent far too long on doing openGL and vertex buffers and all that jazz (probably 3 months for something that can't even do lighting and is horribly inefficient). I'll call it a 'learning experience' because otherwise it'll just annoy me every time my flatmate picks up unity and just calls Unity.initShinyGraphics();

[Chris Koźmik]

There are two approaches to what a player is:
a) a player is an idiot who plays primitive games only and his buying habits are purely based on impulse and graphics are the only thing that counts
b) a player is smarter than you, he wants to play good games and is capable of judging is a game is good or bad before buying

If you believe in a) you should make Bejeweled (match 3) and at all cost get to top 3 charts on the casual portals. If you believe in b) you should make Minecraft and ignore market research and marketing.

Of course these are extremes, usually devs believe in something between these two.

[PompiPompi]

Archibald, sounds you just made up rules to follow. Kind of like a dichomy(however you write that).
The majority of players or gamers(not fellow indie devs), don't really bother to search for games. They just get the games they somehow hear about in the biggest media and press channels.
Most indie games don't reach those major media and press channels.
I don't know why, but I think games with fancy visuals are eventually more popular(although it's just one factor).
It's not only in indie games, AAA titles do that a lot as well. Notice the amazing CG they make for games. For instance, in GW2 they made in-game videos of the characters fighting, but those were scripted\artist made battles, not really how the game plays.

[Christian Knudsen]

Good visuals complement good gameplay. But it can't stand alone. A pretty AAA game with terrible gameplay will still mostly get poor reviews. Sure, there are some reviewers that are pretty much in the pocket of big publishers, but the marketing channels that matter to indie developers (YouTube let's players and reviewers, for instance) are more concerned with gameplay than visuals.

[Chris Koźmik]

Archibald, sounds you just made up rules to follow. Kind of like a dichomy(however you write that).

I don't recall making up and posting any rule (yet) The two scenarios I posted are the extremes, your strategy usually falls somewhere between these two.

The majority of players or gamers(not fellow indie devs), don't really bother to search for games. They just get the games they somehow hear about in the biggest media and press channels.
Most indie games don't reach those major media and press channels.

So what? You can't reach the major media and press channels, you can't reach the majority of players. Why worry about majority then? Majority is irrelevant for an indie. Don't cater to audience you can't reach in the first place.
(and that one can be considered a rule I made up to follow )

[PompiPompi]

Christian, I am not talking about terrible gameplay. But many games(AAA included) have great visuals and medicore gameplay. Or at least, they didn't put much effort in the gameplay.
An obvious example is ME3's ending. I didn't play ME3, but you can see that they didn't put much thought into it, until the players complained.
It's no coincidence that the trailers you see of games barely contain in-game footage. Or contain enhanced, scripted footage or moments that don't really reflect the gameplay.

[Christian Knudsen]

I don't see how any of that contradicts what I said? Players complained about ME3's ending. They weren't so blown away by the visuals that the gameplay didn't matter.

[PompiPompi]

Well, they complained after they bought it. My point was to show that you don't need to invest effort in making a good ending to SELL the game.
What I am trying to say is that medicore games are being succesful because of visuals, and there are better games that arn't as succesful just because of lack of marketing content.
And by better I mean that if the player put an effort to actually play the game, they would enjoy it more than ME3 for instance. But players don't even bother to play these good games. So they will never know.
Of course after someone plays a game he has a smart opinion on it, but he won't have an opinion on a game he didn't even buy or know about.
I am talking about what makes a player BUY a game(or get interested at), obviously he buys it before he plays the game(usually).

[Christian Knudsen]

Those people bought the game because it was the final game in a highly successful and acclaimed series. If it had been the first game in the series, the outcry over the ending would definitely had affected it's sales. Also, you're completely ignoring all the interviews and featurettes that highlight the gameplay and mechanics of a game like Mass Effect 3. Marketing isn't just the final trailer.

But this has nothing to do with indie game development and/or marketing. It's like saying that Michael Bay movies are sold on trailers with shiny visuals and a bunch of explosions, so independent movies must have trailers with shiny visuals and a bunch of explosions to sell. Mass Effect and most of the other big AAA games are the blockbusters of the gaming industry. Of course their trailers are going to show spectacle. That doesn't mean that gameplay isn't the primary and most important factor when trying to sell your indie game. Some of the most successful indie games don't have impressive visuals. Minecraft. Terraria. And A Valley Without Wind got on Steam despite being one of the most ugly commercial games I've ever seen.

[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.