Making Baby Jesus Weep

Posted by oddbob on October 20, 2006 · Lovingly Filed Under Personal 
Print this Article | Help us keep RR online

We're raising money for SpecialEffect. Please donate if you can.


Yes, that’s precisely what “casual” portals do, it’s a known fact.

As some of you may be aware, I’m not the greatest fan of their publishing policies - I’m a firm believer that you can make a game open and accessible to everyone and still keep it, for want of a better phrase, fully featured. Whilst out of the games I’ve reviewed in the competition so far, there’s a fair few that missed the point by a country mile or twenty, I think if nothing else we’ve managed to prove the point myself, the RR team and Barrie were trying to get across.

Making a game accessible doesn’t have to be the reserve of solely mouse driven “Match 3″ games.

Which is why I find reading stuff like this (I’ve saved a local copy in case the thread gets deleted, so if it goes down I’ll up that here) utterly depressing in the extreme.

For those too lazy to click a link and read the contents, it’s the story of one lads attempt to get a Sokoban clone published. Now, I know the last thing the world really needs is yet another Sokoban game - there’s millions of the buggers and they appear to be breeding at a rate of knots, but some of the replies from the Portals really beggar belief. Honestly, I’m not sure what I find more disturbing, the fact that the criteria for reaching the portals is so idiotic or the demographic they’re aiming for.

Our users seem to gravitate towards games that are quite artistically sophisticated. I like the look of your game, but I’m afraid that the artwork may need to be enhanced and polished in order to catch our audience’s attention.

Ok, thats reasonably fair enough - as I’ve argued many times you don’t have to be especially *good* art wise, but a consistant style is the very least you can ask for, more so if you’re trying to whack a game onto the market. When there’s a million and one freeware games out there with great graphics and great playability - the very least you can ask for for your cash is a bit of spit and polish. But more often than not with a lot of games that reach portals, its more a case of style over substance. Take a look at a good 90% of the shooters on offer… lovely, lovely graphics but the games play like shit. But hey, thats alright because the users “gravitate towards games that are quite artistically sophisticated”.

It gets worse though, the more you read of the responses.

There is something addicting about your game that I really enjoy and I think that making the graphics a lot crisper has definitely helped

Addicting? “Addictive” you thick cunts.

Logical games aren’t popular among our audience. Our players prefer games where every click (or second-third click) give some results or approach them to definite aims. You may add to your game some logical elements but it mustn’t be absolute logic as it happened in your case.

Oh man, oh man, oh man. Where to start, where to start? What you’re basically saying is you’re tailoring your games to the dumbest possible level possible? Am I right? We don’t want *anything* that someone might actually have to think about. God forbid our users should actually have to think!

Ok, I’m a lover of zone gaming, and really, I want games that I can switch off to - but isn’t this taking it a little bit too far asking for any “absolute logic” to be removed from a game? This is the gaming equivalent of ECT. Drool-a-long a portal.

As if to hammer this home, a later reply contains this gem:

…our core audience just doesn’t like logic games. They’re too thinky.

Too thinky? Get the fuck off my planet right this second and don’t come back. What exactly is “too thinky” ? Where do you draw the line between not thinky, thinky and too thinky? Is it when a user has to make a 4th click for something to happen (and is it co-incedence that in a match 3, you’re probably required to make at maximum 3 clicks? *strokes beard*) or is it when they even have to remotely consider engaging their brain beyond a coma?

Mind you, the most special reply goes to whoever wrote this:

Here’s an idea I had (take it with a grain of salt): What if the piece that you move around is actually a little robot. When you move him you could see his legs animating like a spider or something as he walks around. Perhaps, as the story goes, this robot has accidentally fallen inside a huge machine and gotten stuck inside (or something bizarre like that). Since the robot is mechanical and thus, he only has a certain amount of power that will run out, he has to push the colored spheres into their respective power conduits to recharge himself as he searches for a way out of the machine.

You know what? That’s fucking brilliant. Why has no-one thought of a plot like that before? Give yourself a pat on the back and choke on a cookie, you unoriginal fuck.

All this does is cement my opinion that the portals are a blight on the independent scene and are doing more harm in the long term for development than anyone else in gaming history. The replies make for a completely depressing, if fascinating insight into the way their sales pitches work and exactly what they think of you, the developer and you lot at the back, the end users.

If you really want to make a game thats open and accessible to all people - go get some decent advice from people who really care. The link to One Switch and the Game Accessibility sites are in the sidebar on the right. Please, people - listen to what Barrie and the GA folks have to say because we can all make a difference.

Pandering to the portals won’t help anyone in the long run.

Thanks (I think) to Tims excellent blog for the link.

Tags:

Speak your brains

12 Responses to “Making Baby Jesus Weep”

  1. the2bears on October 20th, 2006 5:01 am

    You sir, have summed up rather nicely, why I write exactly what I want and give it away. Besides the fact no one would pay… but rather I get to try out *my* ideas, however dumb they are. But that’s ok, because I’ve got images of games playing in the old head that need to get translated onto the screen. I’m seriously glad that it’s a hobby and I support myself with a real job, though :P

    Bill

  2. anonymous on October 20th, 2006 4:23 pm

    well, come on. everyone wants to sell their games these days. everyone thinks their game is the awesomemest. i think they just made up any excuse they could think of without sounding too mean and telling the guy his game just isn’t good enough to sell. they tried to be nice. get it. your reading to much into their responses.

  3. oddbob on October 20th, 2006 5:15 pm

    Its not really in their interests to just make excuses though :-)

    If you read their responses they’re very obviously trying to get the game tailored to a publishable (by their criteria) state. There’s a comment I didn’t go into…

    “I’d recommend looking at games that sell well in this space and basing your next design on those that resonate with you.”

    Its really not possible to misinterpret that, is it?

    Thats essentially saying “look at what we’ve already got and give us more of the same”, assumedly “with a twist”.

    Obviously, I think my point still stands ;)

  4. Richard Phipps on October 21st, 2006 11:10 am

    I felt sorry for Jason. By the end he was basically redesigning the game to fit in with what other people wanted. So it wasn’t really his idea or game anymore, he was just a code monkey for people with money.

    :(

  5. mark w on October 21st, 2006 1:05 pm

    I can’t helping thinking that you are viewing this from the wrong perspective here. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of casual ‘match 3′ titles either but they cater for a market that is not you or I. I quote…

    “What you’re basically saying is you’re tailoring your games to the dumbest possible level possible? Am I right?”

    …and you are entirely right - but that does not mean what they are doing is wrong. They are not aiming their games at gaming fanatics, or the independant hardcore. To criticise their company objectives because their products are not aimed at you is like criticising a childrens book because there was nowhere near enough narrative or structure.

    The truth of the matter is that ‘casual’ (and I mean very casual) games are a perfectly valid market and these companies have learnt that they can keep a roof over their heads by working within it. If Jay has submitted a game that does not fall within their domain I see no problem with them stating what they’d actually like from it. He approached them remember.

    It all boils down to a particular grudge I have with the assumption that if you’re working in the games industry then you’re doing it for a love of innovative or challenging games. Ok, it’s great to see some drive and ambition, but for others it’s simply a means of feeding their kids and the predicatable ‘casual’ market is a safe bet for earning an income. Who’s in the wrong - the publishers for sticking to their domain, or Jay for assuming that they should should take something different (which is, in actuality, just another Sokoban clone)?

  6. haaf on October 21st, 2006 5:05 pm

    Hi, Bob!

    Do you really believe that people who run gaming portals (companies with tens to hundreds of employees, which serve hundred thousands to millions of users) are dumb? How is this possible? Have you ever tried to accomplish such a task?

    The point is, the audience they’re aiming to, is the largest one. The only one that allows their business to last and evolve. And that audience surely isn’t dumbest people ever. They’re just not as much into gaming as you, and they want a quick relaxation, not brutal challenge. They may want a 10 minute break between other activities they take, not 40+ hours of hardcore gameplay. They just won’t bother dealing with
    all the system setup, control issues and such, and they shouldn’t! (don’t you expect everyone to be an expert programmer?) This may be your mother, your teacher, your colleague.

    If you want your game to be bought by hundred thousands of people, you should make it appealing for them. Or else, if you have different taste, be honest, make games that you like and be satisfied with the lower number of people who are like you and find them appealing. Don’t you expect heavy metal rock song to hit charts nowadays? But if you like it, who can stop you from making it and finding your own audience?

    And to the cloning and “Match 3″ issue. Truth is gaming portals suffer in pain from these. Every next title too similar to previous ones lowers in sales. They’re just starving for innovation. But there are not much developers around who can successfully do it. This is a HARD task, to make something different that does it’s job well. It is way much easier to take an existing gameplay formula and differentiate it with the production value. But this route (buzzy “downward spiral”) is taken by developers, not publishers. When you bring them another dull Sokoban clone (not being offensive. lots of respect to Jay for trying and learning!), they think “Ugh, it happened again! Well, at least we should try to enhance it to the current production value requirements, then we still can sell it for some time. What a pity.” And they’re doing their best to be polite, respectful and helpful in explaining this. As they know for sure how uccessfully developers fall into anger when someone says he can’t sell something, they have invested months of their life into.

    - Jane, may I use your microwave oven, I haven’t managed to own one by myself yet?
    - Sure, Bob! For your pleasure. Please, just don’t put a metal foil into it and be careful with that power level knob.
    - You thick cunt! I’ll put whatever I find appropriate in it!
    - As you wish, Bob. As you wish.

    Look at the guys of http://ragdollkungfu.com fame. Their TRULY ORIGINAL game happened to be rather successful. And now they formed http://mediamolecule.com and signed up with Sony (one of majors, everyone else is blaming for their broken
    lives) with another breakthrough project (I truly believe these guys) for PS3. But their level of craft is a life-long achievement, every developer, not just
    indie, should strive for.

    Peace!

  7. Richard Phipps on October 21st, 2006 6:11 pm

    Mark, I understand where you are coming from.

    I suppose it has to be a balance between keeping your original idea and adding bits, polishing and tweaking things to make it appeal more to players.

    The problem is when people suggest taking a logic based puzzler idea and trying to totally change that to a action based puzzler. That’s more than trying to make the game idea more appealing.

  8. Graham Goring on October 21st, 2006 10:20 pm

    I’m with Bob on this. As a person who enjoys games more at the less casual end of the market I have a particular viewpoint. Consequentially I have nothing but malice and scorn for the sort of soppy-eyed fucks who pay for the pre-digested pap that’s shat out of most portals. Cunts, the lot of ‘em. :)

  9. oddbob on October 21st, 2006 11:10 pm

    @Haaf, first up, my apologies for the delay in your comment appearing - got caught up in Askimet and I’ve not long got round to todays spam clearout.

    I think we may be at crossed wires a bit here (possibly because I really shouldn’t rant in the early hours of the morning), I’m a huge advocate of keeping things simple and bite size if possible - I don’t have the time or inclination myself to wade through a game that I can’t take in small chunks. The only “commercial” titles I’ve waded through myself in the past three years are Prey, HL2 and Psychonauts - whereas I spend a lot of time on chunky Indie games inbetween the rest of the stuff life throws at me. (Shit phrase I know, best I could do ;))

    (One of) My main gripes with the portal attitude is the target focussing of games - you really can’t argue the “they’re doing it for the good of non gamers” card when all they’re really after is improving their bottom line, and as a by product of this going a long way towards marginalising the rest of the market.

    As far as I’m concerned, games should be open and playable to *everyone*, and whilst there will always be folks who are hardline and stick to their favourite genre where if it isn’t 40+ hours, uses mouse and 47 keys and requires the latest high tech gadgetry to run - they are, I’ll agree, in the minority.

    They (the portals) are doing the absolute bare minimum when it comes to accessibility features - “ah, shit, throw in mouse control thats the non gamer market covered”, when as game designers and developers ourselves we should be saying “hang on, no - I want *everyone* to play my game” but whilst the portals push the idea that a bit of mouse control and a “non thinky” game is acceptable to market, we’re never actually going to get anywhere. Just destined to repeat until the market goes *boom* and there’s nowhere left to manouvre and I don’t think that eventuality is good for anybody.

    It shouldn’t be a casual vs hardcore situation - which is what the portals breed. It should be an all games for everyone situation, and this is a theory I wanted to prove possible with the RR competition. If you can take Xain D’Sleena or Star Wars and make them more accessible (which has been done) without idly throwing in mouse control then it can be done with *any* game and bit by bit, every game that says “no, I won’t marginalise people” the shift moves closer to a reasonably unified gaming experience for us all. Idealogical? Yuss, Dreamy? Yuss - Possible…? I think so. Its something the majors are certainly moving towards. (Bloody slowly admittedly)

    My main point is, that in order to open up your game for more people - its not necessary to make it digital ECT like what the portals want, and obviously, the more people who are *able* to play your game, the more your own market opens up. Its in the portals interests to keep that market closed and wrapped up tightly as the instant we all start breaking down those barriers - the instant their one remaining argument gets fucked from here to kingdom come.

    “It is way much easier to take an existing gameplay formula and differentiate it with the production value. But this route (buzzy “downward spiral”) is taken by developers, not publishers.”

    Oh, I know I can’t lay all the blame at the publishers doorstep and you’re absolutely bang on that the best you really could hope for with someone pushing a Sokoban clone *is* higher production values. But it is down to the publishers to not encourage the sanitising of products into a safe and happy little package thats near identikit (but with a twist!) - which is why I highlighted the guy suggesting that the game be turned into a robot spider Sokoban clone.

    Whilst they’re willing to publish them and offer incentives for people to get those games on the portal (and actively encourage them because that rejected Sokoban clone developer may potentially be the key to their next big hit if nurtured correctly), by human nature itself and for some people, the need to actually live - people will make those games.

  10. Jare on October 22nd, 2006 3:05 pm

    When I was shopping my first game around, what comments did I get? “make graphics sharper, more varied and colourful”, “add a final goal”, “more sophisticated menus”, “add some background to the character and his mission”… sounds familiar? Well, that happened in 1985, yes, 21 years ago. I did all those things, the game still didn’t reach publishable state, but it made me a much better game developer.

    Portals are businesses, they have to spend some effort (= money) and exposure space (= money) into every game they publish. The game needs to make that money back through sales, and all they’re doing is giving hints about what sells best in their portal. They don’t decide what sells, the customers do.

    You can accuse portals of biasing the customers by only catering to what “apparently” sells, and thus encouraging clones and discouraging new and innovative ideas. But the game they’re commenting on is, well, the 1000th Sokoban clone.

    It seems to me they’re being very kind in offering all sorts of different ideas about how such an unattractive product might be closer to being worthy of their effort to publish. Perhaps for a game that shows more originality and appeal, their comments would be more inspiring than “too thinky”.

    It’s ok to make the game YOU want to make, but it’s not ok to expect other people to perform a service (publishing) for you if you ignore their own opinions.

  11. oddbob on October 22nd, 2006 5:40 pm

    Heh, it never fails to amuse me how the industry repeates itself constantly. (He says tangentially)

    There’s a great Mel Croucher quote I love from 1986

    “.. now the concepts are piffling compared with the hardware we’ve got available. There’s no memory restriction any more, there are ways you can get around that no problem at all. Graphical definition is getting pretty good, as is the capability to reproduce sound. Now the concepts are trailing behind the hardware”

    Which also sounds awfully familiar.

  12. dessgeega on October 23rd, 2006 11:41 am

    post of the year.

    also, some of the best narratives i’ve read have been children’s books. just because you cater to a more casual audience doesn’t mean you need to provide an unoriginal or unintelligent product.

Hello Reader! Perhaps you'd like to comment on this piece?.
As well as allowing you to type out your innermost and deepest thoughts about this piece, we've magiced up (well, installed a plugin) a fantastical ajax malarkey that lets you edit your post up to 15 minutes after you've posted it. Superb eh?