Skip to content

Tag: ideas

One game per year

We live around 75 years. We have 75 summers, around 80 travels (in my personal economical condition of course). The people we will meet are relatively few, the projects we can tackle too.

Imagine you start to work at 25 years, because you are born in the lucky side of the World. You have 40 years working. If a game takes 3-5 years, you can make around 8-14 games in your life. Game for companies, that may be successful or not.

Or you can go indie, maybe solo dev, going alone and try to publish one game per year. Small game, of course. In that case you can leave 20-30 good games (the first will surely be a disaster). That can be your legacy as a game designer.

The future of games

This weekend I was scrolling the infinite feed of LinkedIn and reading updates from many experts. I have to say that lately from one side there are lots of challenges. Many layoffs across the whole IT sector and people looking desperate. From the other, lots of experts are sharing their knowledge online. This is absolutely a good thing.

One of the main topic is about the future of games. Right now, it seems that everyone can make and publish a PC game very easily. But the cost of AAA games production is rising and the value perceived by the players is going down.

There is a demand/offer problem, too many games and it’s hard that the people notices you. To me, the solution should come by adopting a different perspective. Unless you have a strong IP, like Call of Duty, you cannot just make a game and sell it. You cannot afford to assume that people will come buy it. Nowadays, you should first get in touch with people, make them notice you. Then the people will eventually buy your things.

There is a trend among content creators, especially tech ones. They use Patreon to arrive to their audience. They build little by little. Play-to-earn crypto games were scam, but they were making something good: making contact with people super early. Of course, the focus there was money which is never something good to relate with entertainment. Still, I liked this very fact.

The key to me is in being able to create a strategy to go towards the people, the Players. Not the other way around. If you are making a game and then you will invest your money in marketing to spread the word, it’s very possible you join the rest of noise. It’s better to start build your player base right now, instead.

On finishing games

Every game creator I know, every company I worked for, always wants a thing: that the Players stay with them until the end of content.

On f2p games the more the game stays in the market the more this is hard to reach. For premium games, games with an ending, it can happen. Still, in most cases it doesn’t. The vast majority of people do not complete the games they purchase. And the trend is going worse as we have so many great games published every month.

The question I have is: is that important? One may think that if the Players complete a game then maybe they will buy its sequel. Another can say that if the Players stay until the end it’s because they loved the game.

Well, I think of me and it’s not always the case honestly. There are games I loved and that gave me tremendous emotions that I have never completed. The reason is not important here.

That’s why in game design we like to talk about the moment-to-moment. The important thing is that the Players enjoy stay in our game while they stay. It doesn’t really matter if they don’t complete the game. If we provided them enjoyment, engagement, challenge and motivation during that time that is where the real value of games is.

Be a professional

There was a time when companies decided if you were apt to join the games industry or not. That time is well gone.

I see a lot of messages on social networks, especially LinkedIn, by people looking for the next gig in a company. Someone is looking for the first job. Which is normal and good, LinkedIn was created exactly for that reason.

But, you cannot permit to stay at the border of the river waiting for your opportunity to pass. You have to be what you want to be first. Don’t just look for a job, do the job.

Many years ago it was impossible or very hard to do something without working for a company. Companies acted like a filter, they decided somehow you were worth or not. That is not the case anymore. You have all the material to do what you like to do. In case you have to pay the bills, there are nowadays alternatives to do that.

Be a professional first, then companies will look for you! It’s not the other way around anymore.

Paternity Leave

I had a baby and I am very happy. I love her so much and met her just 11 days ago. I am on paternity leave.

Being a freelancer, this does not exist fully. I will still support my projects and make new contacts. My intention is to design a game dedicated to her. I am already on it.

With other projects I learned that is better to keep things for me until I have something that I can share and can be interesting for people. Otherwise, my energies may go in wrong directions and I can lose steam.

Theme or mechanics first?

There are many approaches to game design, but the most common ones are two: “theme -> mechanics” and “mechanics -> theme”.

Sid Meyer is one of the most famous representatives of the “theme -> mechanics” approach. In that fashion, you start from a fantasy, an experience you want to offer to the Players. Then you describe all the mechanics needed to realize that fantasy. Mechanics should offer meaningful choices for the theme to be properly implemented.

Shigeru Miyamoto is a master of the other approach, mechanics -> theme. His games try to find the most engaging and fun mechanics with lots of possibilities. Those games offer surprising twists, using a Japanese technique inherited from drama: kishotenketsu. The mechanics define new in this way new themes. If you look at the most famous games, the theme sounds pretty crazy. It’s because it is defined by mechanics, not the other way around.

What about us? Should we choose one approach and go for it or look for a synthesis? That is up to you, to me the important thing is to be aware of our choice and not leave it to chance.

Game design with mandinga

There is a Brazilian word I learned by practicing Capoeira: mandinga.

Like many words from Brazilian Portuguese, its origin goes up to Africa. The original “mandingueiros” were Muslim literates who compared to other enslaved people knew how to read and write. That’s why they were considered like magicians, almost.

“Mandinga é fazer com pouco, muito!”. Old Capoeira masters speak these words: mandinga is to make a lot with a few things.

This knowledge from the history of our World can be adapted to game design, too:

  • When you have budget 10, it’s better to design a game for budget 3. Your team will thank you later. Explain mandinga to the voices telling you you are not being ambitious enough.
  • When you don’t have access to all the best talents in the World, remember that games like Counter-Strike, League of Legends, and Candy Crush Saga were not created by people with huge tracks.
  • It’s better to do one-two things very well than five-seven average. Remember that the value is in the IPs you create, not in the features you add.

Put a little bit of mandinga in your game design!

Prepare the soil

You can buy a plot of land and start planting crops. You may want to build some structure and make changes on the land. You start a new business. Then you may hire farmers to take care of your land and make it grow.

The same is valid for the game as a service business. Often the people who start a game are not the people who make it grow. Often you need a certain type of people to find something new, a new land. But then you may want expert farmers to make it grow.

It’s not that people cannot do both, it’s a matter of will. Creating a brand-new experience requires the ability to spot opportunities and connect the dots. Maintaining and making a game grow requires analytical skills, instead.

Someone says that one thing is to go 0-to-1, and another 1-to-1000.

If I would start a new games company

You have probably seen something like this:

I cannot say that is an universal rule, but it makes a lot of sense to me. So, if I would start a new games company without investors, I will definitely go for GOOD and CHEAP games.

  • FAST and GOOD are not cheap. So you need high investments for those. And I would prefer not having investors.
  • FAST and CHEAP are not good. And Players are looking for quality, for motivations to play, for the right gameplay case.
  • CHEAP and GOOD games are slow to make. But if you keep the scope controlled (cheap, remember) there is a lot of space for smaller games.

I don’t hate Web3

Every time I hear about web3 I feel mixed sentiments. Some week ago at a local games fair, an executive I know asked me “Why are you against NFTs?“. The fact is that I am not against any technology.

I just have my point of view, probably wrong on many points as every point of view. Today I want to expose the contrast I have.

I will always support creators

First of all, to me attacking any creator is like a mortal sin. There are people really struggling for innovation working hard every day. I admire and respect those people. They have also the luxury of playing with new toys (blockchain, NFTs, and so on). I worked for one client on a project like this and I clearly saw vision and passion. It may work, it may not. But the passion is there.

Nobody should attack the others for their ideas. I blocked very smart professionals who spend their time attacking others (including me). To me, spaces like LinkedIn are to lift others up. So, to any creator out there: go for it!

Web3 is about solving a problem

On the other side, I have my experience and my career. And what I know is that game companies are not tech companies. Tech companies create technologies to solve problems, their business is there. Games companies, instead, are in the entertainment business. In games, we use many technologies to entertain people and also to improve our business operations.

When I read things like “web3 has proven to be the revolution…” honestly I smile. Web3 means nothing for people and gamers. If they want to play a game, they run their console/mobile/PC and play. Someone plays on web browsers. They look for entertainment, not for web3 entertainment. They choose where to play, at a desk, on the sofa. Web3 offers no new places to play. So that it’s not a revolution.

Web3 is a set of technologies that can in the future solve the huge issue of payment systems and platform fees. Everyone dreams of skipping those costs, so I understand why it can be important. But consumer side, there is nothing valuable to me.

When I play a game with a progression system, a strategy, or an RPG, I already have the feeling that I own what I have inside of the game. What I have inside of a game makes sense only inside that magic circle. There is no value in bringing it outside. Some game like Baldur’s Gate 1 lets you export your character for the second chapter. And that’s cool, but you don’t need web3 for that.

As long as I don’t see any new venue to play or a revolutionary form of entertainment for the players, I will never give credit to any web3 storytelling.