How To Make Videogames That DON'T SUCK

[alva]

Firstly, I apologise for the title, but it ain't mine

It's not a brilliant article but I did found myself nodding more then once.

Haven't read part I or II yet (links to I & II can be found on the eugh link at the bottom.)

How To Make Videogames That DON'T SUCK Vol. 3: R-E-L-E-A-S-E T-H-E-M!
by: Jake McNeill

Wherin we tell game companies to release the good games they already have

Sometimes games suck. In the Atari era, when the videogame industry very nearly died a horrible death, it was largely as a result of the fact that the games sucked. Apparently, developers still haven't learned their lessons from this, and many games still get released despite the fact that they are horrendous steaming piles of SUCK.

Maybe developers simply don't realize what makes games suck. We here at Digital Entertainment News have decided to do our part to combat this ignorance in a new series of articles, How To Make Videogames That DON'T SUCK.


Vol. 3: R-E-L-E-A-S-E T-H-E-M!

For those unfamilliar with this series of articles, let me get you back up to speed. In our first two articles in the series, we began our efforts in systematically plotting out instructions and guidelines that would theoretically, when finished, provide developers with every peice of information necessary to create games that don't suck.

However, taking a slight detour from that for the moment, let's say that hypothetically, we already have a game that doesn't suck. We'll even go out on a limb and say it's the opposite of suck, an anti-suck, if you will. This is a darn good hypothetical game. It has all the elements that a great game needs (or at least almost all, but let's not get ahead of ourselves): It has a great story, good graphics, tight controls, fun gameplay, and most importantly, it's original. Really, a game that isn't original in any way usually only aims high enough to reach mediocrity, when it's lucky.

Getting back on track, here we have a game that's very good, possibly fantastic. However, that means that what's about to ensue is a terrible, terrible tragedy. It's never released. Considering that the world is filled with far too many games that suck, seeing one that doesn't suck slip through the cracks only adds insult to injury, and it happens far too often.

Most recently, we've seen the cancellation of LucasArts' Sam and Max: Freelance Police. While not a sure bet like our hypothetical title, it seemed to have all the potential in the world. It was a sequel to a game with massive critical acclaim, now with slick current-generation graphics, and already brimming with the hilarious personality that endeared the first game to adventure gamers all over the world (and I mean that quite literally: Another article we published earlier this week features the enraged reaction of a staff writer who hails from South Africa).

Last month, many RPG fans on the PS2 were outraged when Sony denied Agetec permission to publish Shadow Tower Abyss in the United States. The title, which got a silver award in the Japanese game magazine Famitsu (well-known for their stingy game scores), was supposedly turned down largely because Sony was displeased with the game's underwhelming graphics. Because, you know, who cares if the game is any good if the graphics don't look nice and shiny?

Most of the time, it seems these games don't get released for the same reason: money. One would be foolish to think that game companies are in the business solely to make gamers happy, and when a game company suspects that a game's sales won't warrant the costs to develop, manufacture, distribute, and advertise the title, there's really no reason for them to keep the title on the market... or so it would seem.

If there are any publishers reading this article, please take the following suggestions to heart and realize that the bottom line is not always what it appears to be, and sometimes risking a little can pay off a lot:

1. Gamers remember
Sega managed to garner a massive fanbase back when no one thought success in the game industry could belong to anyone but Nintendo. Those gamers that grew up on Sonic the Hedgehog were and often still are (as evidenced by half of our staff) extremely loyal to this company that made such an enormous impact on the game industry.

Over time Sega made numerous decisions ultimately looking at the bottom line, at the expense of their fans. Support for consoles was cut while their fans were still playing them. Highly-anticipated games were never released in certain markets. People began to lose trust in the company, and when the Dreamcast saw the slightest inkling of competition from the yet-to-be-released PS2, publishers jumped ship, and Sega let them. You see, Sega made a name for itself early on in the world of videogames with a system powerful enough to take on the undisputed champion. Now, they make games for other companies' systems.

Acclaim is another company with a long history of looking at the bottom line. Like many companies, Acclaim produced numerous licensed games over the years because, let's face it, licensed games = money. Aside from that, they seem to have stuck almost exclusively to producing numerous unambitious sequels, sports and racing titles which, also, are generally a pretty good bet if you want to make money.

However, in recent years, the few popular franchises the company had either fell victim to too many underwhelming sequels (Like Turok and Extreme-G), got bought out by another publisher (like Burnout), or got forgotten to the depths of time because their percieved potential for profit was low (like Aggressive Inline), and in the meantime the fans have grown increasingly weary of the uninspired sports, racing, and licensed games, which has in turn seen their sales plummet.

From success to failure, usually due to the company spent more time worrying about the bottom line rather than the gamers that support them - and gamers remember.

2. Without ambition, failure is simply a matter of time
The Tomb Raider series used to be one of the most highly-revered in the game industry. When the first title in the series hit the market in 1996, it was like nothing anyone had ever seen before. Gamers were happy. Then, the second title came out in 1997, and we all got more of the game everyone loved in 1996. By the year 2000, gamers had recieved the fifth title in the series, Tomb Raider Chronicles, and it was still prettymuch still the same game everyone loved in 1996. Only now they didn't love it. They hated it. After years of sequels that did absolutely nothing to bring the series forward, gamers realized that their money was better spent elsewhere.

Last year, Eidos released the sixth game in the series, Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, under the pretense that "No, it's different this time! Really!", but unfortunately it was too little, too late, and the game went on to sell so miserably that Paramount blamed the Tomb Raider movie's poor box office showing on the game. Ironically, this tale ends with the most recent release in the series, a poorly-recieved port of the first game for the N-Gage. Apparently, someone still hasn't learned their lesson.... and someone else has. After all this, Eidos kicked out CORE Design and brought in Crystal Dynamics to replace them. It just took them six cookie-cutter sequels to catch on.

3. A little risk can go a long way
Let me tell you the true story about a game that came out some years back. This title had been released in Japan and had seen a good amount of success, but seemed like an extremely unlikely candidate for release in the United States. For starters, it was old. It had already been out in Japan for three years, and by now the system it was on was really starting to show its age. Second, it was quirky, and while quirky games seem all the rage in Japan, it's generally agreed that the American audience neither wants nor needs a game that they can't immediately understand. Third, it was a kid's game, and no one is going to take a kid's game seriously, especially in today's voilence- and sex-driven game industry.

Maybe I'm just not being vague and clever enough and you've guessed already, but this game I'm describing is Pokemon, and upon release it went on to become nothing less than a national phenomenon. The fact that Nintendo is still alive today is largely attributed to the Pokemon franchise, and even now after all the hype seems to have died down, it remains one of the most successful franchises in the game industry.

Now, that's not to say that taking risks always pays off, but generally when a game truly takes off, it's because risks were taken. Grand Theft Auto III (And its successor, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City) pushed the envelope of violence in videogames, The Sims was virtually unprecedented in its focus on the management of human relationships. These are games that are more than "Top-Selling": they've essentially been written into the history of videogames as two of the biggest landmarks of the last decade.

4. A reputation needs to start somewhere
So not every quirky game is destined to be the next Sims or Pokemon, but that's not to say it won't be successful, and even games that aren't initially the biggest hit in the world are something that can be built on in the future if they're still of high quality. While Namco was making bank off the Tekken series, they brought out a decent fighting game by the name of Soul Blade (Or Soul Edge, depending on the version you're talking about). It wasn't extrordinarily popular like the Tekken series was at the time, but it was still a solid title. However, its sequel, Soul Calibur, would prove to be the killer app of the Dreamcast launch, and a must-buy title for anyone buying the system (In 2003, each series would recieve a sequel, and Soul Calibur 2 sales essentially massacred Tekken 4).

When the possibility to bring Soul Blade to a wider audience on the Playstation came before the folks at Namco, they didn't say "Why bother? We have Tekken 3 due out in a few months, at which time no one will care about the game." Instead, they stood behind a quality product which, unkown to the world, would become a major franchise in the years to come.

5. Don't think there's no place for niche
So maybe your analysts say that the latest Japanese oddity you were considering porting probably won't sell as well as Who Wants to Marry a Millionare: The Game. However, even barring the chance that said oddity will be the Next Big Thing(TM), there are certainly other ways it can bring fortune to you as a company.

Just look at companies like Koei, Treasure and Atlus. These developers and publishers have made names for themselves by diving headfirst into the niche, and they have something that the company churning out the safe movie-licensed titles has to fight tooth and nail for: respect. These are companies who have garnered fans. Fans who eagerly await the next title to come from these game companies, simply because said company's name is behind it. Fans who'll always be there to buy the product. Fans who are forgiving when the game isn't fantastic, and shout it out loudly to the world when it is.

This is not to say every niche project is worth persuing, but when gamers (even if a relatively small group of them) are looking forward to game X, making a little bit of effort to see that they get it will score you brownie points that will benefit you in the future.

It's worth noting that Eidos has created a label to cater specifically to the niche called Fresh Games. While their first few titles to be brought to the states recieved a mild reaction, their latest title, R-Type Final, is turning heads en masse. This is the perfect example of a company trying to do right by the gamers, a fact that any fans of old-fashioned space shoot-em-ups won't soon forget the next time a Fresh Games label title comes along.

6. Niche won't always be niche
Back in the 8- and 16-bit days, companies like Square and Enix built their companies around a genre that was (at least in America) considered niche: RPGs. Since then, probably as a result of Square's insanely popular Final Fantasy VII, RPGs have become mainstream, and a staple of any successful game system. As time goes by, word-of-mouth gets around, and if a game is good enough, its fanbase will have multiplied by the time the next game comes along, as will its genre.

Every genre started somewhere, and many didn't see popularity until being around for a little while. You know that survival horror thing everyone's aping now? Started a while before Resident Evil, with a moderately successful game called Alone in the Dark. Street Fighter II may have thrown one-on-one fighting games into popularity, but they were around long before that (as the "II" in the title should make painfully clear). And you don't honestly think the extreme sports genre began with Tony Hawk, do you? Just because you think your game is in a "small" genre doesn't mean that it'll stay that way. Imagine where Capcom would be if they stopped at just one Street Fighter game.

7. Listen to your fans
Another problem that some game companies don't seem to realize is that they seem to make assumptions without actually listening to the consumers. 3DO had that problem. Their fans absolutely loved the Heroes of Might and Magic games, which constantly got rave reviews and tons of good word-of-mouth. 3DO apparently didn't see it that way, and I know many retailers that had difficulty getting enough copies in to sell to frothing fans. They did, however, continue recieving the tons of Army Men games 3DO churned out like there was no tomorrow, to which gamers responded with a massive show of not caring. Last year, 3DO went the way of the dodo, its properties sold off to the highest bidders. We can only hope their new owners have a better idea what to do with them than 3DO did.

8. Don't throw out a good game because of a few small flaws
There's a fellow by the name of Bernie Stolar who's become quite hated by many gamers, most notably for his practice of cancelling or refusing to allow games that had underwhelming (i.e. not 3D) graphics. There were actually periods in time in which Sony and Sega, under Stolar's guidance, prevented many great games from reaching American shores solely because of the fact that they used sprites instead of polygons.

While graphics are certainly an important part of any game, generally most gamers will agree that it's not the most important part by far. Why else would 2D games like the Castlevania series and Street Fighter series continue to see such popularity while graphically amazing games like The Bouncer and Dino Crisis 3 are laughed at by the world? And then there's the Game Boy Advance, arguably the most popular system on the market, and one full of games that, graphically, look ancient when held up against the standards of console titles. Gamers can see past one or two flaws, and publishers should too.

9. Keep your priorities straight
Sam and Max: Freelance Police was a pretty highly-anticipated game, and LucasArts decided it wasn't anticipated enough. In and of itself, that's bad enough, but given the fact that the company just released the so-so title Wrath Unleashed that wasn't particularly high on the list of many gamers' priorities, their cancellation makes even less sense. If they wanted to save some cash, wouldn't it have made more sense to drop a game almost no one would care about, rather than a title that every LucasArts fan was awaiting with frothing anticipation?

Back when Capcom fans were eagerly awaiting titles like Dead Phoenix and Red Dead Revolver, Capcom dropped them, yet still released games like Pro Cast Sports Fishing, a title both ridiculously niche and horrendously bad, managing to not only confuse and anger the gamers that support them, but still losing money. To say decisions like these seem stupid is an understatement.

It should be noted that Capcom has at least in part redeemed itself by allowing Rockstar to pick up where they left off in Red Dead Revolver. Rockstar apparently felt that the potential market for the title was more lucrative than Capcom percieved it to be, and Capcom graciously allowed them the opportunity to explore that possibility.

This kind of action is commendable, and we can only hope that in the future, even when a game has to be cut for budgetary reasons, game companies can still cooperate in such a manner to see to it that the games people want can live on.

10. Have your games playtested, stupid!
If you're really unsure how gamers will react to your latest creation, there's one way to find out: Have them playtested. Back when Nintendo of America was trying to release their first hit game, they recieved an absurd title from Japan called Donkey Kong that had them infuriated at their Japanese counterparts, until they noticed that the gamers that tested out the game couldn't rip themselves away from it. Needless to say, they went ahead with releasing the game, it became a big success, and the rest is history: all because Nintendo had their game playtested, and reacted appropriately when the game tested well.



A game company can only ignore the pleas of its fans for so long before the fans catch on and find another company's games to spend their money on. Numerous game companies have already learned this the hard way, yet some still continue to ignore it. This is entertainment, and in the entertainment biz, the rule of thumb is "Give the people what they want", not "Give the people what you say they want". Are you risking something by not unwaveringly following the guidance of your analysts? Possibly. However, you're taking a bigger risk by ignoring your fans.

http://www.dignews.com/feature.php?story_id=2442

[Verto]

Lots of good points, esp. with regards to SEGA, Tomb Raider, etc.

[DrSpike]

Gamers remember all right. I'm watching you LucasArts.

[Skanky Burns]

I am puzzled over the fact that they would not release a game that is virtually ready to go. Particularly compared to the other crap titles being released at the same time from the same company.

[bipolarbear]

I thin kthat as long as we are focusing on the aspects of gamiong that SUCK, we should turn our attention to one very special and also quite often CRAPPY tv show. i am talking of course, about the infamous X-PLAY on tech tv. I hate the 95% of the jokes on the show, but I love getting game reviews on tv. Would it hurt htem to hire good writers? Is ther like a good writing drought in Hollywood? WTF keeps them from coming up with at least one stupid segway segment per every 500 that doesn't reek of crapulence? I realize that the jokes are a small part of the show, but did mention that they are also quite PAINFUL? I say we boycott tech tv! who's with me?

[Felch]

I dig that Morgan chick.

[Urban Ranger]

He tries to tell us that The Sims doesn't suck?

Ha, there goes his arguments.

[Guynemer]

1. Infact, The Sims doesn't suck at all.

2. However, LucasArts sucks all the live-long-day.

Give us Sam & Max, you corporate jackasses!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
1. Infact, The Sims doesn't suck at all.

Guynemer goes to the bottom of the pile.

[Guynemer]

Look, I'm not saying it is genius, but it doesn't suck--there's a certain zen quality to it.

But let's get back to the important facts--

1. LucasArts sucks donkey balls,

2. LucasArts enjoys it, and,

3. There is no #3.

[Urban Ranger]

Why do you hate them? Just because they cancelled Sam and Max?

[Skanky Burns]

The Sims don't suck. Sure, it isn't as indepth as most other games, but then it doesn't try to be either.

[Urban Ranger]

There's no game in The Sims. It's not a game. It's like watching a tank of goldfishes and feed them occasionally.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There's no game in The Sims. It's not a game. It's like watching a tank of goldfishes and feed them occasionally.

That's almost as funny as my Sims rants.

I would put it in my sig but I need it for a few days more yet.

[Skanky Burns]

... and people pay thousands of dollars to put a fish-tank in their own homes for just this experience. What was your point again?

And it is a game. The main goal, however, is very easy to achieve - to not die. Just because you set your own goals though does not mean it isn't a game. As with all Maxis games, you set your own goals.

[alva]

Anyone ever "the sims" on a Commodore back in the olden days?

IIRC it was called 'Little Computer People", although it was probably closer to Kamagotchi.

[Verto]

LucasArts needs to focus their efforts on Star Wars Rebellion: 2

[DrSpike]

/me glares at Verto pointedly.

[Verto]

Is there a problem?


Updated graphics and AI is all Rebellion 2 would need.

[Skanky Burns]

A user interface might be nice this time around too.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why do you hate them? Just because they cancelled Sam and Max?

Symptom of a larger problem. They used to be the best gaming company around. But they have abandoned almost all of their original work, producing only craptastic Star Wars cash-ins.

The only game worth half a damn to come out of LucasArts the past few years was KOTOR, and that was actually developed by Bioware.

[SnowFire]

Good article. I hope that someone does pick up the work that was done on S&M:FP, not that that'll happen.

UR: The article is fine. I could never enjoy the Tony Hawk games, but that doesn't mean they're bad, just not for me. Same with The Sims; it's not for everyone, but it's a unique achievement.

[DinoDoc]

How To Make Videogames That DON'T SUCK

Simple. Take lessons from Blizzard.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
And it is a game. The main goal, however, is very easy to achieve - to not die. Just because you set your own goals though does not mean it isn't a game. As with all Maxis games, you set your own goals.

Maxis call them software toys, not games, simply because there's no goal to them. Or rather, the game doesn't have any built-in ones.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

How To Make Videogames That DON'T SUCK

Simple. Take lessons from Blizzard.

All Blizzard games suck unless you play multiplayer. While the MP games aren't so hot, the solo campaigns are just horrendous.

[Space05us]

he didnt mention Fallout 3!!!!!!!!! This article is teh suck!

Grand Theft Auto III (And its successor, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City) pushed the envelope of violence in videogames

no it didnt, Doom has far more gore and its ancient. take that crappy article writer person who wont read this.





There are a lot of good points mentioned though, like Sega is in fact a million times better than Nintendo, and LucasArts should have stuck with movies, especially after thier ten-billionth Star Wars game.

[Space05us]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


All Blizzard games suck unless you play multiplayer. While the MP games aren't so hot, the solo campaigns are just horrendous.

Urban Ranger is right.

[Qilue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


All Blizzard games suck unless you play multiplayer. While the MP games aren't so hot, the solo campaigns are just horrendous.

As was reinforced by patch 1.10 for Diablo 2.

[child of Thor]

The point about the graphics is a good one, not that i expect any of todays big companies to ever realise it.

3D is fine IF the rest of the game is a good game(and suitable to 3D), it doesn't make a good game or even a game that will sell well, as highlighted by many of the recent takeovers/collapses of game companies.

Nice article, still as the games industry consolidates itself by moving into larger and fewer companies to survive - you cant help but wonder where it will end and who the next Sega will be?

I just buy with caution these days

[Sandman]

I reckon that most decent games can stand to have at least one 'cloned' sequel.

It's just nice to have a bit more of the same, in case the franchise goes belly-up when it gets reinvented.