Psychochild has a great post up, “The Innovation Paradox”, discussing the conundrum of innovating in games. The discussion is great.
A portion of my contribution was:
How much of a game’s development [budget] goes into the [...] game-engine and the set of graphics (rather than the arrangement of those graphics and the scripting of the engine to make a game)?
I’m going to make the assumption that, indeed, a very large percentage of a MMORPG budget is consumed by the creation of models/graphics/animations and the development (or customization) of a game engine and set of tools, and that these costs compete for budget and crowd out innovative game-play. Then, after the game’s launch, the developers busy themselves with adding additional game-play features. Examples might include LotRO’s skirmishes or housing (which I admit, are only innovative with respect to the base game).
It seems that high quality visuals are believed to be a MUST HAVE for market launch, and that (relatively) innovative features can be cut now and added later. As Psychochild points out, the studio is constrained by the expectations of the player-community, once a game is launched. Change the game too much and you’ll suffer the wrath of the player-base. The existing process doesn’t seem innovation friendly.
But what if we stood the usual process on its head? Would it be possible for a MMORPG studio (say SOE) to take an existing game engine and set of graphics/models/animations (say SWG) and build a new separate game, replete with novel and innovative features? Then, after launch, if the response is positive, add the visual glitz and upgrade the game engine?
Would re-using a game-engine and models/graphics/animations sufficiently reduce costs and time-to-market to permit multiple innovative variations to be tried? Could a MMORPG built with a re-used game engine and models/graphics/animations gain a sufficient player-base to determine whether it had the potential to be a winner? If a winning game-play design were found, would players stick with the game long enough for engine and visuals to be upgraded?
I don’t think it’s necessarily that far of a stretch. SOE did something akin to this with SWG:NGE … only they forgot to release it as a separate game. We also see something akin to this in the modding community that repurposes existing games to produce variants perhaps more enjoyable than the original.
By Psychochild January 14, 2010 - 4:25 pm
I’m glad you posted, because I was going to reply to your post but forgot to do so.
The distribution of costs depends on the individual game. Obviously for Meridian 59, most of our costs the first year were for salaries for people, notably customer service. We were an odd case, though.
The big problem with your suggestion is twofold. First, while re-use is an admirable goal, this hardly happens in reality. M59 was originally developed to be a generic client/server setup for MMO games, but the reality is that (at least the client) got very specific to the game after a while. A contact working at a larger studio said that the company was re-using their engine for two of their games, and sometimes fixing an engine bug in one game caused strange behavior in the other. So, you have to be careful if you’re going to re-use your engine, and realize that your games will probably have to be similar (thus limiting innovation).
The second problem is that it makes your games hard to differentiate. Let’s say that we had decided to make a new game with M59′s assets. Would the game be able to stand on its own, or would it have been constantly in the shadow of the orignial game? How would you arrange teh assets of WoW, for example, without it feeling like WoW? Having big bull people is going to make you think of Tauren, no matter what they name them. If all your games start looking the same, then any innovation might go unnoticed.
That said, I think one could possibly apply this in limited cases. For example, I think you’re exactly right in that the NGE should have been a separate game (or at least separate servers). But, this could cause some confusion. And, would a non-NGE screenshot look different than an NGE screenshot? Probably not, so there would be plenty of confusion.
Some thoughts.
By Tuebit January 14, 2010 - 6:10 pm
Thanks for the reply Psychochild. It’s great to get a glimpse of the “inside” from someone in the know.
One follow-up point though. The idea isn’t just to re-use and be done. But to re-use, and then, if warranted, invest in a visual upgrade.
Suppose, over time, a series of games G2 through G5 are built with all the same assets from game G1. Each has some unique mixture of innovative and re-used game-play. They all look very similar (if not identical), but feel a little different.
G2 through G4 fail to really grab an audience that sticks, and are relegated to maintenance mode, or even shut-down.
G5 generates more than a passing interest. Then, a big investment is made in the visuals.
Evolve or innovate game-play with less costly public releases using re-used assets. Make the big triple-A investment in glitz when you have something players appear to have validated.
Contrast that with my outsider’s-tongue-in-cheek belief’s about the current process. Make a triple-A investment based on the belief that designers you haven’t hired yet will succeed in trapping lightening in a contraption built from previous successes, hopeful thoughts, napkin scraps and some rock-star’s “vision”.
I agree though, it would likely be very hard to get most players to see a Tauren as anything but a Tauren.
By Tachevert January 14, 2010 - 9:25 pm
The idea of rapid innovation, testing, and merging against a single platform is HUGE in the Web 2.0 / Social / Casual / whatever it’s called this week space! I’ve even witnessed A/B tests between my screen and Emide’s!
By Psychochild January 14, 2010 - 9:28 pm
No problem. Glad to provide some perspective. I’m interested in seeing the industry progress, and informing people who give a damn helps accomplish that goal.
I understand what you mean a bit more now. Here are some other considerations, more in the business realm.
If G2 to G4 fail to gain interest, it might still be a drain on resources to support them even in maintenance mode. Closing down the games might harbor ill-will (witness how many people are still upset over Earth & Beyond‘s closure). Unless player attitudes change, this is risky.
The other problem is that game development is fueled by passion. This is why your “tongue-in-cheek” observation isn’t that far off the mark. You get a bunch of people passionate about a project and you get (hopefully) better results. This is why I’m not overly harsh on Alganon‘s developers or why Cheyenne Mountain’s handling of the Stargate game feels like such a betrayal, because there’s a lot of developer passion there. Changing that up and expecting that some games won’t be supported much afterwards will cause the games to lose a lot of the “spark” that makes them interesting, I fear.
Back to the original post, I’ve had some fun with some games created for a competition where the first phase was artists and musicians making game assets, then programmers and designers make games with them in the second phase. Here are two games that used similar assets:
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=10310.0
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=10372.0
Both are quite fun, but I find it a bit jarring to go from one game to the other given the different control schemes, etc. Try them both out and see if you agree with my design assessments above.