Slashdot Mirror
Establishing A Beachhead In A Crowded Genre
simoniker writes "How do you make a game that will stand apart from countless similar titles? Harmonix designer Chris Canfield (Guitar Hero II) thinks he knows, and is talking about it in a new editorial, 'Establishing A Beachhead In A Crowded Genre'. He comments that one of the key things you can do is to 'Gut key elements of the design': "Examples of this in your genre might include: sniper rifles in an FPS, powerslides in a racing game, minigames in a Wii title, healing crates, bosses, rocket jumps, or any other big or small element. Of course, the really good features shouldn't be the only ones on the chopping block. Not only will this free up time in the schedule that would otherwise be occupied by been-done features, but it creates space for genuinely new solutions and makes producers very, very happy.""
I think UserFriendly already answered this.
& mode=classic
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20021009
How about making the games longer with original content? Yay look another FPS where the single player is 5 hours. Oh look RPG #4567 where the quests are the same except the blue slime is now red! Yes Football game 2020 where you can now hear players fart (and smell them!).
Seriously when was the last time there was a FPS with a really good in-depth story? Deus Ex is the only thing that really comes to mind. The last epic RPG was really BG2.
In summary how to get your game noticed? Make a really good game.
I think they mean that be eliminating features that everyone does, it forces you to fill that void with something new or different. Take Prey for example. Rather than having the player go into stealth or limited invisibility, they created "spirit walking". This had some novel applications in puzzles where you could essentially be in two places at the same time. Or, how about the upcoming Portal: the FPS with no guns?
Yeah, the summary was so bad that I actually RTFA.
;)
The idea is not 'let's create something new', it's 'let's break into this genre'. To do so, one of the keys is to innovate something IN that genre, instead of just copying everything that came before. One of the suggested methods is to remove something that is extremely common-place in the genre and replace it with something (hopefully) better. One example was removing health packs and placing 'healing poles' that heal nearby places. This has actually been done a decade ago, but we won't tell him that... He thinks he's clever.
The point is valid, though. The same old crap will only get you a best-seller IF you do it amazingly well. Since that's not likely, it's smarter to use some tactics, like the article mentioned.
The FPS genre is amazingly easy to 'break into', though... Simply throw a lot of money at it and make sure it's a game that players can use tactics. The rest doesn't really matter.
Sadly, this is not the only genre like that... Others just have more complex rules to implement.
It's also important to note that this doesn't mean 'casual games' like Arkanoid and 'Yet Another Diner Simulator 8'. Those games sell from flashy graphics alone. You don't need to even do it well.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
There's an old deal with the devil story about a man who sells his soul to be able to play guitar like Eric Clapton. He picks up a guitar and behold, he's just like Clapton. He has dreams of fame and goes to a record producer and the guy is amazed. "Wow, you sound just like Clapton! Now how does your own style sound?" And then the guy realizes how the devil screwed him, he couldn't sound like anyone but Clapton. That's nice but the world already has one Clapton, there's no need for another.
That's the problem companies run into when they enter a crowded genre and try to emulate one of the leaders. The best they could hope for is to be as good as the original. But if you've already played the original, where's there to hold your interest in the knock-off? You could just play the original through again and save yourself $50.
So there's certainly some wisdom in not trying to do the same thing everyone else is doing. There's only a few companies out there that can do the same thing as everyone else and slap enough polish on it to make it better. In fact, Blizzard is the only one that comes to mind. Look at any of the other groundbreaking innovative major success games and you'll note the words "groundbreaking" and "innovative" in the description.
Where the guy here makes no sense is he says he's going to go into a mined out genre, remove the elements that make the genre interesting that have been done before, then replace them with what, exactly? Talk is cheap and ideas are a dime a dozen. I've got plenty of ideas for really great twists on 3D games that have never been seen before. I'm sure everyone reading this article has a half-dozen ideas sitting in the back of their brains, too. But there's a world of difference between coming up with an idea and getting it made. Show us how it's done.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I bet you all the other Tennis and Golfing games on the Wii have all those features he said you don't need, yet they all include the nifty/novel feature Nintendo added to the genre with their Wiimote. (Yes, I know that there are some other swing a stick in front of a sensor golf games...)
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Looking back, the REALLY successful games were usually sequels,
add-ons that played off the success of the previous title's fanbase.
Sure, they add new bells and whistles, but the game itself is a re-pop.
I don't have a list of truly "innovative" titles to compare against,
but I'd guess that the sequels probably sell more copies overall.
Most gamers seem to want more of the same, with shiny new skins.
Case in point, EA sells the same game every year. And they're fine with that.
Actually no not really, Castle Wolfenstein 3d although later than Ultima Underworld (and technically subpar compared to it) was unique
so was Ultima 7, Myst also was unique, The Sims didnt have a prequel up until the mid eighties when the little computer people project was the first of its kind.
Zelda had no real predecessor except maybe for Temple of Asphai (but both titles were in development parallely)
Mule, Seven Cities of Gold, Simcity (the original), Pirates, etc...
the list of innovative highly successful games is very long, the main problem is, the chances
are way higher nowadays if you do something innovative, that it already is covered, than they used to be 15 years ago.
I believe Unreal Tournament 2003 tried out the "no sniper rifles" concept. Result: the game flopped like a dying carp, and sniper rifles were reintroduced in UT2004.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it