Birth of a Game

The trials and tribulations of starting a new game company

Archive for September, 2008

Iteration

September 23rd, 2008

We at Uber Entertainment make games by iteration.  We basically build a bunch of white boxes to represent the game play so that we can make lots of stuff really fast and we can see if it works really fast and we can test it and find if its fun really fast.  Every time we get to a playable point we can jump in and play the game and see if its fun and then jump right out and decide what wasn’t fun and what was more fun.  Once we find out what wasn’t fun and what was more fun we can quickly go in and change the game to be the more fun way.  Every time we do this the game gets more and more fun and more and more nicer.

We at Uber entertainment iterate on our early prototypes.  Iteration on our early prototypes means we basically build a bunch of white boxes to represent the game play so that we can know what is fun to play and what is not.  We build the game until we get to a point where we consider a section playable and them jump in and actually play the game.  Then we ask, is this fun? Can it be more fun?  Then we go in and change the game to be the more fun way.  Then the games just gets more and more fun with each iteration.

At Uber Entertainment we create our game by iterating on the game first.  The game prototype is made by creating white box art.  Those white boxes allow us to put in and pull out new features at will, without losing man months worth of work on real art assets.  We play the game, once a new feature goes in, so that we can readily see what works and what doesn’t work.  We ‘find the fun first’. 

Each iteration makes whatever you’re working on better and better with each try.  How good will the next iteration be?

We Make Games

September 18th, 2008

While a business rarely goes as defined in a business plan it’s still a useful exercise to write one. It forces you to ask some fundamental questions to which the answers should be clear and concise. One such question I had to ask myself is, "what is the business?" Well, we make games. Simple enough, right? Not really. Apart from additional product details such as genre and platform, you’ll find that you need to answer the question of what it means to make games from a business perspective. Your business is a legal entity with a purpose to make money. The managers have a fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, yet in a creatively driven business that’s usually not the first thing on their minds. We want to make great games, games we’re proud of and sure, games that sell well. Fortunately it just so happens this intersects perfectly with the primary mission of the company. We’ll be proud if our game is great and great games generally sell well (provided they’re positioned correctly in the marketplace, but that’s the subject of another post). So if we focus on making a great game our fiduciary responsibilities should be met.

Focus. Al Ries wrote a great book on corporate focus and how the lack of it can be a killer (Focus: The Future of Your Company Depends on It). He gives numerous examples of successful and failed companies framing them in terms of focus. It’s a compelling notion. So what does it mean for us as a small startup game company to focus? For starters it means picking our battles and not overreaching on our first product. The three most resource intensive aspects of game development are game design, art production, and technology development.

Design

Game design may not sound like a large task, and certainly for some games it can be quite small, but late changes in design can have huge ramifications on art and tech and end up costing millions, missing your launch target, and/or even having your project canceled. The preproduction phase is critical for the game design to get nailed. I’ve got another post on deck that will cover some of my core philosophy for this period.

Art

Art production for modern games is a huge cost simply due to the massive content requirements. For example, staffing a 30 person art team for 24 months will cost you nearly $9 million (using a 12k man-month). Ideally the art staff size for a project should ramp up and down fairly sharply over the project. You start with a core team, ramp up the production line quickly when you have your ducks in a row, and ramp down quickly back to the core team when the production phase completes. One of the most common problems seen in game development is ramping up the art team too early and ramping down too late (or not at all!). Outsourcing doesn’t really change this. If your technical and design groundwork are not properly laid and the preproduction phase has not identified what it’s really going to take to finish the game you’re looking at a chaotic and inefficient production period. In other words, it’s going to cost a lot more than it should.

Technology

Technology costs can grow beyond limit if you don’t have the right people in place. One software development adage states that a new feature that takes 2 weeks for a skilled veteran programmer can take infinite time if put in the hands of the wrong programmer. This means they simply can not solve the problem no matter how much time you give them. Your game will either ship without the feature, or with the feature in an unpolished or possibly an unusable state, and will certainly cost way more than it should have. Creating a new engine from scratch is a huge risk for a small game company, no matter how great your programmers are. As neutrino pointed out in his first technology post, there are simply so many "fingers and toes" in the modern game engine that it requires a ton of resources to be competitive.

Reducing Risk

So how do we pick our battles and reduce the risk? By knowing what we are, and what we are not. Although we have brilliant engineers, we are not a technology company. Although we have fantastically talented artists, we are not an art production house. If licensing technology and outsourcing a large portion of the art production help us focus on actual game development then that is what we’ll do. We will focus all of our energy and talent toward a single endeavor. We make games.

Designing Designers

September 15th, 2008

When you think about creating something new, you spend most of your time thinking about what the end result will be. However, there’s another part that needs just as much consideration; who is going to create it?

"Who?" is the question and one that I’ve spent a lot of brain cycles contemplating. What kind of person should I hire? What skills should they have? How do I define the job I want someone to fill?  How do I find the best of the best?

Lets take a gander at my philosophy of: "What is a designer?" To me, a game designer is an artist of interactive entertainment. They are the people that continually look at the game and mold it into the art it becomes. The designers that I intend to hire must be more than just paper designers. A paper designer is a designer who only works in spreadsheets and word processors. Designers who spend all day in ‘brain land’ and hardly ever actually play or touch the game their working on. (Normally, you can spot these designers because they like to say "I’m an idea guy.")  Like any artist in any other medium, I expect my designers to be able to know the tools of their trade.  Michelangelo didn’t write up a document on how to paint the Sistine Chapel and then wait for a contractor to do it. Steve Howe doesn’t write a bunch of sheet music and hand if off to a guitar player to strum.  Spielberg doesn’t write up how he wants actors to act, how the camera should be angled and how the film should be edited then jet off on vacation, he’s there working with the actors, the camera and in the editing room. 

Artists use the tools of their trade. 

Designers I work with must be able to do something more than write docs. They must know and understand the tools in front of them. Level designer must be able to fluently use the level editor and know how to write the scripts to make their levels work. Gameplay designers must be able to get into the code and make it work the way they want. Designers have to mold the game in their own hands to make it a masterpiece.

I need designers that can prototype their ideas and show them to me. It is far more effective to sit and play with an idea than to hear or read about it. 

I need designers that are amazing at what they do and great at what they don’t do.

I need designers, do I need you?

A Slice of Pie

September 12th, 2008

The user interface is a very important aspect of any game. UI technically encompasses any system that allows the player to influence the game and vice-versa. For example how the controller maps to game actions, the Heads Up Display (HUD) that gives the player status information and even the audio system. Lately I’ve been concentrating on prototyping several of these features, but mainly, some of the more interesting HUD elements. From a game design perspective you don’t want to have a HUD that’s too cluttered. Presenting too much information can often be as bad as presenting too little information. A HUD that contains a lot of different elements that stay on screen can be extremely confusing to players first picking up the controller. This means that a large part of prototyping these features is trying to find the magic sauce to make everything work together without completely alienating new players.

One of the most interesting types of UI elements is the pie menu. I think this is an underutilized technique and one that new players can quickly understand. Ratchet & Clank Future used this technique well for choosing weapons. I have other ideas for it which I’ll be talking about more in the future. So far it really seems to be working out pretty well for exposing some more complex options to the player which are quickly selectable.

http://www.piemenus.com/ has quite a few articles and pie menu examples if you are interested in learning more.

Whatever It Takes

September 8th, 2008

A few months ago while in the very early stages of startup mode I was talking to the CEO of a large, publicly traded medical devices company. I showed him the business plan and asked for some advice. “Do whatever it takes,” he said. You knock on every door and you turn over every rock. You do whatever it takes to make your business go. You can spend months writing the perfect business plan, but nothing ever goes as planned. Being flexible enough to capitalize on opportunities when they arise is crucial.

Knock on every door. Investors can appear from the most unlikely places as I realized simply getting to know my neighbors. Putting some time in the relationships you’d classify as “acquaintances” can go a long way. I run a local industry event every month that brings out developers looking to socialize. It takes effort, is time consuming, and I’m often exhausted before the event even begins, but I feel it’s something I need to maintain. The majority of attendees aren’t business guys, they are in the trenches developers. It’s important to stay grounded even as I transition away from development. You never know when one of them is going to turn up having a rich uncle looking to invest!

Turn over every rock. This has led me to rekindling old relationships from half a world a way. Putting together our Japanese investor package has really helped me distill the true essence of our business proposition and realize how bloated the English package was.

Be flexible. According to our business plan we shouldn’t need to talk to publishers for another year. When they approach you, however, there’s no harm in listening. I’m surprised how quickly we’ve been approached by 3 of the top publishers in the world so early in development.

This is going to be a very exciting year. Our core gameplay prototype is really coming together. In fact, I’m off to hop in a playtest now!

On Writing AI Code

September 2nd, 2008

Writing Game AI code is an interesting endeavor. It really has very little to do with what the traditional “AI Community” does. It’s actually extremely easy to create an AI that can wipe the floor with even the best player. After all, your AI can have perfect knowledge about the game and instant reflexes. It’s a much more difficult problem to create AI’s that are fun to play against and that don’t cheat. If you are trying to make them actually look intelligent and fun it’s an even tougher problem. In fact most AI in games these days is a simple state machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_machine) with some feedback mechanisms to shift between states. This is a generalization, of course, as there have been several games based around the idea of real AI as in the game “Creatures”. Scripted AI sequences are also extremely popular to try to give the player a sense that the game avatars are intelligent. In addition these scripted sequences allow the characters to do things that either wouldn’t possible in an AI framework or that they need to do to make an big “game moment” happen on cue.

I actually don’t remember the last time I spent working on AI characters. It’s probably been at least 10 years. Our game has some interesting AI elements to it that I’m currently prototyping and it’s been something really fun to play with after so long. In the past actually getting the characters to navigate the world was one of the harder problems. Nowadays this is mostly a solved problem using either node networks or a navigation mesh type setup. There are still several complications like more complex types of navigation (opening doors, using elevators, jumping chasms etc). Overall though we can spend most of our time deciding how we want the AI to react to other agents like the player and other AI’s. In addition many modern AI’s allow some amount of common planning by a higher level AI planning brain. For instance, all of the AI’s on one team can coordinate as to which targets to attack and how they approach these targets by following orders of the higher level AI but still having enough intelligence to carry out the orders given.