Video Games and the Art of the Fail

They say success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. But I say failure has dubious parentage but everybody sure wants to stare at the ugly little bastard. 

I have had my fair share of exposure to cancelled games, aborted projects, shutdown services, less-than-spectacular releases and thunderous earth-shattering meteor impacts. And make no mistake, failure is a spectator sport.

Why Studying Game Design is (Largely) a Waste of Time

Presumably, it’s not enough to just get a job as a video game designer. You probably want to be a successful game developer. 

Maybe you even climb to the point where you’re directing your own eager minions what game we’re all making. To ascend to the rarefied summits of game design, you figure you’d better have the right skills. Naturally then, you want to study all the game design theory you can lay your hands on, right?

Wrong – because overall success in game development relies on skills outside of game design.

7 Principles of Good Video Game Design

As the Apple faithful descend on WWDC, we ask what can Steve Jobs teach a game developer about good video game design?

If "child"-proof bottle tops, blinking VCR clocks and Apple's iPad teaches us anything, its that good design makes a difference. But as game designers, we often struggle to define "good design". Design in the vocabulary of the games industry spans everything from the video game narrative to character visualization to the game combat mechanics to the statistical curve of the level progression. So how do you come up with meaningful criteria for separating the good from the bad? Is there an objective way to evaluate design? Or is good design purely in the eye of the beholder?

5 Video Game Stories to Make You Smart - and 1 to Make You Dumb

Here's Friday's run down of 5 video game news stories to make you smart - and one to make you dumb. 

1. First it was Dungeons and Dragons Online, now Lord of the Rings Online has embraced the free-to-play model. 

Why game developers should  care: not long ago, monthly subscriptions were the only game in town for MMOs but with WOW continuing to crush the competitors, under-performing online games can be resuscitated with a shift in business models. Being online gives you a second time at bat (maybe).

Starting a Game Company the Way for Developers to Survive?

Are game designers an endangered species? Is the new breed of game developer the "Game Entrepreneur-nus Rex"?

Game development is in upheaval. It's being shaken by the seismic forces of online and mobile gaming rising up from the bottom while the imminent deep impact of crushing AAA mega-title development costs comes streaking out of the sky. The products that are relevant to the market are changing with the mid-range titles eking out an existence in a precarious niche.

Game Developers: The Argument for Taming the Business Side

Your typical game developer has mixed feelings about business types. In the way a mongoose feels about a cobra.

It's something in the DNA of most game developers. They're instinctively repelled by talk of Brooks Brothers, ties and addressable markets. Many game developers wear their ignorance of business issues as a badge of honor. To be a "suit" is a bad thing. But there's actually a pretty good case for every dyed-in-the-world game developer to master the game of business.

Back Again For More: Sequels in the Video Game Industry

If your video game idea is so awesome, then why not double your fun and make it again?

One of the things you notice in the game industry is sequels. Lots and lots of sequels. A mountain of sequels. Holy crap, there's a lot of sequels.

This is not because game designers as breed can be a bit repetitive, sometimes unoriginal in their thinking and have a tendency to lock their jaws on to something with the tenacity of a demented bulldog.

Scary Risk in Game Development

There are two kinds of risk in life and game development: Rational Risk and Scary Risk.

Rational Risk is where you can measure the likelihood of disaster and reasonably predict a successful outcome. To be sure, there is genuine danger but you can rationally consider the risk versus the rewards. Race car driving, sky diving and marriage would fall into this category. But then there's risk where you can barely begin to calculate the dangers involved - or if you can, the numbers or potential upside don't add up. Included in this category are liposuction at unlicensed border town clinics, throwing your drink in Mike Tyson's face and and unprotected sex with Courtney Love. These are what you would call Scary Risks.

And beware the game project with Scary Risk.

With a lot of game projects, young designers tend to want to invent entirely new game systems from scratch. Why propose a tried and true approach when you can brainstorm an idea that's never been done before? The wheel is boring and has been done to death - why not be innovative and try the hexagoneel? The thing is, there's often a reason a radically innovative solution hasn't been done before. Or, more likely, it has been done before much to the chagrin of those that tried it. Trying something new is inherently riskier than doing something that has been proven to work in the past. And the more risks you take, the more likely you're doing to run into catastrophic ruin, the kind of disaster you don't recover from well.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have business-minded executives. They are typically risk-averse in a way that verges on hypochondria. It's the reason you see sequels in movies, books and games or new games that are adaptations of properties from other media - you lower your risk by working with existing properties (or at least, that's the theory). It's reason you get mantras like "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM...or Microsoft...or Oracle...or whatever". Don't develop an engine when you can license Unreal. Don't invest in infrastructure when you can utilize the cloud. Don't create your own technology when you can engage a middleware vendor. But the problem with that approach is that it's extremely difficult to stand out from the crowd and score a true home run in the market when you are just another commodity, exactly the same as everybody else.

So the between the eternal tension of product development safety and potential disaster lies the danger zone we call risk. Learning to measure and live with an appropriate amount of risk is crucial to success in the game industry. Risk is like jalapeños - the right amount gives life spice, too much brings tears. So it's good to be able to intelligently map out your risks.

Remember that old adage "fast, cheap or good - you can choose two"? Well, with risk there are three types on a game project: content, technology or organization.

Content risk in games represents your game itself and its systems. This includes things like the IP, as well as the game systems. If you've got an innovative and experimental new game system idea, it's probably best to try it in context of an existing franchise (though there's no guarantee there). Proposing a new IP isn't quite so risky if you have a track record of a delivering games with solid technology which is why Bioware is now in a position to role out games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age after building a reputation on Star Wars and Dungeons and Dragons. Or, if you're Blizzard, you can significantly reduce your risk by avoiding out-and-out innovation in favor of nuanced iteration and refinement.

Technology is all that magical code that exists under the hood and makes the games go - and it's an area that can frighteningly risky. Developers find platforms like the iPhone or the Wii appealing because they aren't very risky from a technology standpoint. Being the first generation of games on a new console - that's a recipe for pain while producing a title three years into the life cycle is safe as kittens. Technology risk is also one of the reasons you so many MMOs crash and burn. A client plus a server plus a network layer plus a honking database and a billing and CS backend - well, that my friend is a lot of different points where your risks can bite you on the, er, backend.

Finally, organization is a combination of the personnel, their experience working together as a team, as well as the processes they use as a team. Again, if you want to moderate risk on a project, go with a proven team. Take the guys who made Medal of Honor a hit and fund them to create a new promising war-themed franchise (but here's a hint - don't alienate them, since odds are they'll just go form yet another studio and create another franchise).

If you're smart, you'll look to balance risks - take a risk in one area while playing it safe in another. You can risk a new game feature if you've got a solid team. Push the technology envelope but do it with an established game genre and feature set.

So what about that start-up made up of people who've never worked together but are developing radical new technologies to deliver a unique gaming experience no one has ever had before?

Well, if by some miracle they succeed, there's a good chance you'll all be zillionaires. But in the meantime, you might want to stock up on crash helmets and anti-depressants.

- Sean Dugan learned long ago to wear protective gear when attending certain development meetings.


Photo by Shayan via Creative Commons License

Before You Work for a Start-up Game Company, Part II

So, you're about to take the plunge and work for a start-up video game company?

You've been asking the right questions - you know the executives are sharp (or at least didn't manage a hedge fund previously) and the team that's assembled looks like they can ship a product. What else do you need to ask before you take the plunge and jump on board the start-up?

Who doesn't work there?

Almost as important as who works there is who doesn’t work there anyway. If you can, you’ll want to check the people who have left a company. Check your network specifically for those who have left the company. Often, it’s more telling than who is still at the company.

That’s not to say a few departures are a disaster – in fact, its probably a good sign. It takes a while for a start-up to work out the kinks and get its culture to gel. Those that don’t quite fit in, right or wrong, end up leaving. Start-ups are inherently volatile, so a bit of churn is to be expected. That’s often a painful process but it’s not necessarily a bad sign for the company’s future. The question when considering departures is one of scale. Unless you are living in Egypt under a Pharoh, mass exoduses are generally not a positive sign. If people are leaving in droves, it’s in your interest to find out why.

What about the money?

Finally, you need to understand the company's bottom line. How much money has the company raised? Is this money that's actually in the bank or is it just promised? Where did the money come from and how likely are you to get any more? You need to consider the company’s ambitions in comparison to its means. As a wise philosopher once said, don’t let your mouth write a check that your butt can’t cash. If the company is trying to make a Halo-killer, do they have $25 million available to them?

Scratch the surface and all too often, "we've raised $25 million" actually means the company has a half million in Angel investment seed money and a 'cross my heart and hope to die' promise for the rest – spread out over the next three years. Maybe, if everything goes well and economy doesn’t tank and I don’t come across a better investment. The thing about promises - until the money is actually in the bank, they're worth exactly what you think they are. 

Even if there's a big check in the bank, you want to know if that's all the money. How much of the promised $25 million is in the bank today? When does the rest come? Typically, investments are divided into tranches (or slices) that are awarded at certain times. And there's usually a few strings attached to getting each new payment. If you want to be a real boy, Pinocchio, better understand how to get free of your strings. 

You also need to know how much money has been spent. Ask what the company's current burn rate is - that gives you a timeline until disaster or the necessary next round of funding. This is the lifespan of the company – and you need to know if it’s a fruit fly or a sea turtle.

And speaking of new funding - can you get more money? Every company needs rainmakers. Can you get more money from the publishers or VCs or whoever? Or will you all be asked Aunt Violet to put up her IRA to keep the company afloat? With your rainmakers, there's also a fine art to identifying which ones are the real deal and which are hot air. The best advice there - ask around and find out what deals they actually closed. Again, money in the bank is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. 

All this advice comes with a huge caveat. Almost guaranteed, you’ll find something you don’t like with any start-up you would consider. The nature of start-ups is that they’re funky and imperfect. If you want low risk, go to work for...well, frankly, another industry. Video game development is volatile and start-ups are doubly so.

Really, it’s the start-up that seems absolutely perfect and too-good-to-be-true that should be handled like an Ebola infected radioactive kitty litter box. I remember interviewing during the height of the dot-com boom with a company that was ‘perfect’ – it had the founder pedigree, the VC funding, the splashy cover stories on all the right magazines. But something seemed amiss when everybody I  interviewed with asked the same question - could I figure out how the company was supposed to make money? It struck me that the business should probably have some inkling already as to how to generate a bit of cash. Fast forward and you can guess that company’s eventual fate.

Working for a start-up can be the adventure of a lifetime. The excitement of working for a young, aggressive company that wants to change the world is undeniable. But if you want to keep your heart from getting broken, be sure to go in with your eyes wide open.


Image via Wikipedia Commons

Before You Work for a Start-up Game Company, Part I

It's the opportunity of a lifetime, your chance to be the next big thing, to seize the brass ring. 

You have a chance to work for a cool, new start-up game company. A year later, the company has missed four paychecks, you're working 80 hour weeks and the CEO has caught the redeye to Aruba.

Taking a new job at a new company is always a bit transition. Despite everything, there's inevitably a few surprises along the way. But when the new company you are working for is a start-up game company, the surprises can come fast and furious.

How do you keep your start-up game company dreams from becoming a nightmare? You have to approach this the same way a savvy investor would. Investors (that don't lose their shirts) require due diligence before putting up the money.

First, we'll define a start up as a company that doesn't have a revenue stream (or one steady enough to have any shot of keeping the company afloat). That means, whatever war chest the company has is steadily being drained until somebody figures out how to bring in some cash. Fundamentally, this means that you are on a countdown with a start-up - the only question is whether its a countdown to blast off or detonation.

If you are going to have any shot of being a part of one and not the other, there's some big questions to ask:

Who are the executives?
You know all those names on the website? The one's that have impressive C-level titles? You want to find out who these people are. Game developers often have an allergy to business and "suits" - but you need to understand who the suits in the corner office are. If you don't want to worry your pretty little head about the business, you better make sure damn sure the execs know the ins and outs.

Google their name and the name of their last company. Find out what happened to that company. Was it sold successfully? Did it go bankrupt? Was there an investor lawsuit? An SEC investigation? These are shockingly more plausible than you might realize.

Also, look at the business that they used to manage. If you're a World Wildlife Fund member, you might have some moral qualms of working for the former CEO of Seal Pelts, Inc. There are a lot of businesses that exist in a moral gray area for some people so you need to ask yourself if you can work with these people. How do you feel about tying your fate to an Enron or Goldman Saches executive? On a more basic level, how much game industry experience do they have? Much of business is universal - but a C-level exec who has never worked in a creative industry is almost certain to butt heads with those creative types during the production process.

Who is the team?
These are the line managers and co-workers, the people who are going to be your immediate boss and make the ship go. You want to know who they are. Ideally, you've already worked with them - and that's why you're even considering working for the company. Going blind into a start-up without any history with its peeps is a risky roll of the dice.

But even if you do know the team, you need to ask yourself the hard question - are these the people you want to be at a start-up with? We all know game developers who, frankly, fit in better in a big company than a lean and aggressive start-up. Picking a start-up team is a little like getting a roommate - that buddy from school who's great to hang out with on a Friday might not be the guy you want to share cleaning chores with on a Sunday.

And if you don't know the team first hand, find out. Figure out who you know in common - and ask them tough questions. You've got to find a source who will give you the straight scoop. And if you want my opinion, Linkedin recommendations are next to worthless. Yes, I have recommendations and I've recommended people. And the folks I've recommended are the people I genuinely believe in. But Linkedin is a game - people use social obligation to get softball recommendations. I've seen too many people who literally had dozens and dozens of recommendations who turned out to be incompetent. For me, too many recommendations is a warning sign as well as ones which have a certain bland, generic quality. If someone isn't motivated enough to write a stirring recommendation, it's probably not a real recommendation.

Also, you want to know what products they've shipped. The quality of those games is not the most important thing - there are far too many variables there - but you want to know that these people have been through the wars. Moby Games is a nice start - but its always incomplete. Credits are a dicey issue in this industry and someone's published credits doesn't always reflect their actual work experience. Again, the best source is someone you trust who worked on the project.

Check out Part II for more on Start-ups.


Image via Wikipedia Commons

Video Game Design By the Numbers, Part I

Inspiration is tough to pin down and when the Muse visits, she does not appreciate you demanding her exact height, weight and brassiere size.

Video game design and development is a frequently a profession of gut instincts and hunches. Artistry and creativity come from a deep and mysterious place that's maddeningly hard to quantify much less predict. When your business is "fun", some of your standards are rather subjective. Various people will describe running 26.2 miles, wading hip deep in a bog or grinding Molten Core for the ten-thousandth time as "fun".

Clearly, standards of fun differ.

But one of the biggest failures of many game designers is not fortifying their personal instincts and opinions with a few cold, hard numbers.

Let's boil it down to brass tacks. Video game design and development is a commercial art. All of our grand theories about the nature of fun and flow and optimal experience and blah blah blah must be in the end be sullied by talk of the almighty dollar. Eventually, we all must descend from the Ivory Tower and roll around in the mud with the dirty old swine of Commerce.

In other words, as a video game developer, your career prospects will be greatly enhanced if your game sells.

It's is all fine and well to be driven by your artistic and creative impulses and the quest for fun and The Awesome when you create a game. In fact, that's a prerequisite for being any good as a game designer. But you also need to temper your enthusiasm with a bit of objective reality.

Asking a junior designer "what did you think of [FILL IN THE BLANK]?" and you'll hear about how they lost the entire weekend to playing [FILL IN THE BLANK]. And that's exactly the kind of passion you want in a young game designer.

The thing to add is an understanding of what other people thought of the game. Their opinion matters too.

Really, there are two key questions to ask about a game (in addition to your own opinion).

What's the meta-critic rating?
There is more than one aggregator of game reviews out there and none are perfect. First, there's a lot of subjective evaluation in game reviews. And to say the state of game journalism it uneven at best is an understatement. Even if you assume the reviews are honest and genuine, there's a subjective evaluation in translating a review into a score. But it's really the best tool we have for evaluating the quality of a game. Look at the top meta-critic games and you'll see what most people would call "good games". More and more, publishers and game developers use meta-critic scores as a means of arguing quality even if sales are not overwhelming. "Maybe we only sold a million units - but our meta-critic was through the roof".

The other trick with meta-critic is evaluating the meaning of the score. There isn't much difference between a game in the low 70's and the high 70's - but an 82 metacritic score is a lot different than an 89. Getting a feeling for the plateaus of the scores is crucial to using metacritic (and yes, it's awfully subjective too).

But the other big question to ask is pretty obvious:

What are the unit sales?
Rather than relying on gut feelings about whether something 'did well', you need to get some real numbers. It's vital to understand how the marketplace responded to a product. NPD tracks game sales and you should be following the monthly charts religiously. You should understand what moving 250,000 units in a week means given whether that was the launch week, what were the pre-sales, what is the install base of the platform and how big of a marketing effort there was.  There is a huge difference in sales between an modest title developed by a new studio on a modest platform compared to a license tie-in backed by a powerhouse publisher with a gazillion marketing dollars.

Does this mean game design should be driven by purely mechanical evaluation of sales potential? Absolutely not. You'll never see a breakout hit unless you truly have a product with a soul. Innovation and true creativity drive new markets in the game industry. But you also need to understand the temperament of the market. Before you pitch your Japanese Cowboy Mech game, you might want to have a sense of how previous titles have fared.

But how do you actually judge is a title is a "hit"? What is it that separates a title that turns a tidy profit from a title that puts a studio out of business? That's a question that can only be answered by examining the economics of game production, which will be Part II of this series.

- Sean Dugan's number is up with this entry. 

Image by Ira R Gerich used via Creative Commons License

The Big Three Questions of Starting a Game Company

"Let's go start a video game company". And with those words, the dreams of innumerable game developers were ground into a thin tar-like paste.

It's not that starting a game company is impossible. Far from it - in this age of iPhone apps and social games, it's well within the reach of a lot of game developers. But that's not what most developers mean when they say they want to start a game company. They want to make a $20 million AAA console title or launch a $40 million MMO.

And to do either of those, you'll need more money than you've got stashed in your 401K.