Max Payne: The Making of a Franchise

Before I dive into a series of blogs on game design, I'll first give a quick overview of some of the thinking that went into the concept and design of Max Payne. In effect, Max Payne was purposely positioned for success right from the start. Here's how:

o A game's name is one of the most important marketing decisions to be made. It should be non-generic (avoid overused words, like "warrior," "shadow," "dark," "beyond," "legend," "combat," & "destiny") and memorable. A perfect name will convey something about the product (i.e. Doom, Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto), have good word-play possibilities for press and news headlines (i.e. "Maximum fun!" or "Duke it out!"), and have a good short-hand version that still tells people what game is being referred to (i.e. "Max" and "Duke"). The game should not be too long, or complicated -- avoid colons and dashes, as these are complications and often indicate a name that's too long (one of my favorite actual examples: Descent: Freespace -- The Great War). There are many more attributes good names should shoot for, and I'll cover them later in a blog on the art and science of game titles.

o Max Payne was conceptualized during Tomb Raider's peak run, and the design purposely avoids the special elements that made Tomb Raider unique and popular, such as swimming, the acrobatic moves, settings, horrible third-person camera, stuff like that. Yet, during this same time, other third-person action games more closely copied Tomb Raider's formula, and were therefore perceived as clones. (Space Bunnies Must Die comes to mind.) Games are labeled clones when they too closely copy previously successful games. One of the most important keys to being noticed and newsworthy is being unique, and this was a key design guideline for Max Payne. Being different is one of the most important principles of positioning. If you're not significantly unique, you're a follower, and by definition followers do not lead.

o Max Payne is a model of simplicity. This means that it's not a hard concept to communicate to press and gamers: You're a fugitive cop, everyone is out to stop you. The story is rampant revenge. The gameplay is straight-forward, too: Max shoots all enemies! Max Payne's gameplay verb is kill. It's not explore (Myst), or build (Roller Coaster Tycoon), or drive (GTA series). (Yes, games can have more than one gameplay verb, but for my point here I'm referring to the dominant verb.) Often, games that try to have more than one gameplay verb, like kill, sneak and negotiate (Deus Ex), can be too complicated for reaching the mass market. Simplicity rules.

o The game was designed with several interesting hooks to help it stand-out and generate buzz. The key hook is bullet-time, which I won't go into further. But perhaps overlooked are other important hooks: [1] The game's film noir style, [2] the game's graphic novel story presentation, and [3] the game's Hong Kong flick cinematic action. All of these hooks are dramatic and relatively unique within the game world, and that's what makes them buzz-worthy and news-worthy.

o The game was originally titled Dark Justice, as this well describes the game's theme. But, we felt it was more important to focus on the game's lead character like we had previously done with Duke Nukem. The comic book industry is smart about naming their comics the name of their lead character (or characters, as in X-Men, Fantastic Four), such as Batman, Spider-Man, Superman and so on. The idea is that when you have a character-focused franchise, it's trivial to put that character in new stories for sequels, or for exploitation in other media. But if you name you game with a setting, such as Tomb Raider, well, then you've a special setting that you must deal with each game. With Tomb Raider, every story you tell sort of needs to involve a tomb, otherwise the title doesn't fit. This is why I think it was a mistake not to name the Tomb Raider games after the lead character (Lara Croft) instead.

o Controversy. Max Payne had a little, though it didn't get as much press as we thought it might. Still, controversy that fits the context of the game is good for stirring up news. Duke Nukem, for example, had only one or two levels with strippers (and no nudity), and yet it generated endless controversy when the game was released in 1996. The bottom-line is that if you can build a little controversy into your game, do it.

o Positioning-wise, Max is the game industry's leading vigilante cop -- this is game category that he owns. The attribute Max owns is "bullet-time," like Volvo owns the word "safety" and McDonalds owns "fast." For a game to be successful, it's critical to have it be either the leader, or the alternative, in a category, such as Coke and Pepsi. It's also important to own an attribute. In fact, game designers would help themselves by thinking in terms of attributes rather than features. When you own an attribute then it's your brand that springs to mind when someone mentions the attribute. If I mention the attribute "cavity fighter," then the brand most people think of is Crest. If a say "document copier," then you think of Xerox. In the game industry, if someone talks about "bullet-time," the game automatically connected with that attribute is Max Payne. That's a very powerful positioning principle at work.

o We had a controlled, deliberate marketing plan for Max Payne, designed to ramp up the game's buzz and news-worthiness. A key way to make a game news-worthy is to give it a news-worthy attribute, and position it as a category leader. Second, do not hype the game -- let press and players do that for you. And third, keep the game exclusive by not releasing too many screen shots or too much news about the game. I've seen too many times publishers and/or developers flood websites with shots and info, and quickly news about the game becomes tiresome. With Max, we teased, but we didn't show too much. And when we did show, we knocked socks off by showing content and effects that were never seen before.

To sum up, Max Payne benefited from deliberate positioning-powered design, with several positioning principles baked into the game's design that were calculated to make the game newsworthy, compelling, unique and properly branded. In a nutshell, this is how to build a franchise, and how to build news-worthiness and buzz. Of course, execution and polish are also paramount, and Max Payne excelled in those areas, too.

Just to be clear that I do not hijack improper credit, Max Payne was developed (all content and code) by Remedy Entertainment (they did all the hard work!), and produced by 3D Realms (meaning we funded a significant portion of the game, handled the publishing agreements, helped guide the game's design, helped play-tested and polished the game, handled the shareware release, and oversaw and co-designed the game's marketing).

3D Realms is currently working with another developer, with a very similar relationship that we had with Remedy, to create another hit series (or so we hope!). In 2004 this game will be announced and it will make a good case study in the making of a franchise, allowing me to discuss our key decisions prior to the game's release, and eventually seeing if we made the right calls.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unrelated note: Thanks to the many kind words from people who have somehow landed on this blog (including a lot of industry friends), and to the other industry blogs that have sent them here. My plan is to update this blog once or twice per week. And speaking of "plan," I've had it pointed out to me by several people that this blog is just a fancy resurrection of the the ".plan files" that were so common ny developers in the late-90's. Can't argue.

Comments

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Looks like you delivered on your earlier promise, Scott. Good man.

After reading your overview to the relationship between marketing and design I'm struck with some observations and questions.

1. A short and snappy name makes for a distinctive pattern that easily fits within short term memory. How does that explain the success of IP's such as "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?"

2. You're quite correct in pointing out how an originator can be preferred to a perceived follower. That's why we pay gold bricks for a Picasso and bent washers for a copy. Doesn't this position fail when a competitive product is perceived as being better?

3. The common attribute of the brands you mention that own a particular IP territory is that the brands have achieved critical mass and are being maintained in customers and competitors minds by continuous exposure (including this Blog). What happens when this stops?

4. The psychological foundation that underpins your blending of marketing and game design is a formal approach to the common wisdom "know your audience." The film and music industries are saturated with techniques to grab the audience. Given the scarcity of truly great works and the past few decades gradual dumbing down of the mass media, how can you guarentee your methods won't accelerate this trend in the games industry?

5. In a century "Dr. Strangelove" will still be a great film while "The Matrix" may arguably be forgotten. No amount of careful positioning will alter this. A work is great or not great, regardless of short term commercial success. Could you explain how your methods might encourage better quality rather than just better selling games?

Phew. That's me done.

[Jamie Fristrom]

I've never had to name any IP, but if I did, something that I think might be important for a name is for it to be unique, for a few reasons:
One: you can track your mindshare by doing a Google search. When you first come up with your name, a search on Google should come up with under 1000 hits.
Two: it's good legally. You can own it.
Three: when people talk about it, you know they're only talking about one thing, and that's your IP.
Unfortunately, it's tough to come up with a name that's both sticky *and* unique. I think most sticky names are sticky partly because of their familiarity, but if something's familiar it's probably because somebody already came up with it.
Two word combinations are good: "Final Fantasy" "Mortal Kombat" etc.

[Scott Miller]

Charles, you're gonna make me work too hard on this blog! ;-) Answering your questions...

1. Long names *can* work, especially if they're memorable like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Shorter names are still preferred, if you can create a good one.

2. Being "better" is one of the great myths of marketing. For example, we've often heard the phrase, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door," yet it's entirely untrue. There have been many new, better mousetraps invented, yet the common wooden spring-trap design is still the one people use most. Same holds true for 1000's of other better-than-the-leader's products.

Being *first* in a category is far more important to a product's success than being better. If you create a product that's designed to be better than the leading competing product, usually you'll fail to overtake the leader.

When better products DO overtake competitors, it's usually because the leader made a killer mistake somewhere along the line, or the "better" product actually introduced a significant innovation that revolutionized the category. For example, Tivo is far more than just a better VHS recorder--it's a revolution that will soon overtake and replace the VHS entirely (go buy Tivo stock!).

3. Of course, if the brand fades away due to lack of exposure and/or availability, then another brand can, and most likely will, replace it.

4. Regardless of the quality of techniques available to the movie or game industries, execution, politics, funding, project leadership, etc. still play determinant roles in being successful within these industries. Good techniques alone cannot save the day.

5. I think The Matrix (the first move at least!) will be long remembered, as it was ground-breaking in its special effects and overall fresh concept. But more to your question: The techniques I advocate encourage developers to be original and innovative, because being otherwise is being a follower, and as I've stated, following only gets you to places other games have already been. People remember leaders, not followers. Who was the first person to step onto the moon? And who was second? ;-)

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Jamie, you make some excellent points about the search value of having a unique and memorable name. Making it easier to identify and find the product removes disincentives for potential customers.

Scott, you've done a good job of addressing the most obvious questions that flow from your presentation. I've still got my doubts about it, and as you've demonstrated yourself there's always an exception to the rule. Rather than drill that into the ground I'll pick the two strongest points that have emerged; your method does encourage innovation and isn't a substitute for quality. Everyone's a winner! ;)

If I can pick up where you left off in "The Game Industry Needs Help", the two points I ended on indirectly strike me as being the reasons for the current weak state of British game development. Products tend to lack a pitch and a polish, to coin a phrase. The positives are obscured by the negatives, whether this be at the marketing or design level. I'll also go further and say it goes deeper than individual game studios and publishers. It's systemic to the British economy.

[Aubrey]

"Max Payne's gameplay verb is quicksave."

I fixed this for you!

[JP]

"Often, games that try to have more than one gameplay verb, like kill, sneak and negotiate (Deus Ex), can be too complicated for reaching the mass market."

Kill, sneak *OR* negotiate. Thus, the key verb is "Decide".

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

The Independent has an article focusing on the technical superiority of Asian manufacturers mobile telephones when compared to the offerings by Nokia, the current number one.

"Not only is Nokia facing intense competition from rival manufacturers, but its relationship with its customers, such as Vodafone and mmO2, is becoming increasingly tricky too. Yesterday the Finnish press was full of comments made by Peter Erskine, the chief executive of mmO2, who claimed 3G handsets starting to appear from Asian manufacturers were generally superior to Nokia's."

Curious.

While I think you're definitely onto something with your marketing let argument, I'm still not convinced being first is enough to trump quality. That said, I can't disagree with any of the substantive points you do make. Any disagreement is in the structure and emphasis rather than the detail.

Just for a bit of fun I'll throw in the three pillers I think are important; know your audience, build it right, and don't screw up your aesthetics. This can be condensed, with a little stretching of the thesaurus, into three bullet points:

1. Marketing.
2. Method.
3. Majesty.

It addresses the one area I find lacking in your presentation, the issue of materialism versus spirituality, the instantaneous versus considered, the crude versus the sublime, gratification versus... I think you get the point.

Enough of me. What do you think?

[Jeffool]

For what it's worth, I've always thought of 'games' much as I have 'art'.

Art being 'anything not done for the sole purpose of basic human survival', and games being 'choice(s) made with a set of bounding rules'. Sure, that could mean rules of time and space, etc... But that was kinda the point.

Jeffool.
I strive for vagueness.

[Mark]

Just read your blog on Max Payne: Making a franchise. I really enjoyed reading it, was simple and to the point as things should be. The one section stood out though, when you stated:

"For a game to be successful, it's critical to have it be either the leader, or the alternative, in a category".

Good statement, although I would assume as it being an alternative you mean something which follows that line or type of game but has one set unique feature that sets the game itself into a new category. That would make sense to me at least otherwise it would just be another clone.

Anyway, good luck on the new game development I can't wait to hear more about it.. and of course Duke. :)

[Scott Miller]

Mark,

Being the alternate in a category is often tricky, because it's easy to be seen as a clone, rather than an alternate, as you say. Pepsi verses Coke is a good example of a successful alternate. Coke is the original, and has heritage and leadership on its side--one of the most powerful marketing advantages a product can own. Pepsi correctly positioned itself as the alternate by claiming to be the choice for a younger generation. In effect, Pepsi is saying that Coke can have the older market for cola drinkers, while Pepsi is the choice for the younger, cooler cola drinker. Meanwhile, how has Royal Crown positioned itself? As a clone. The makers of RC cola have given us no reason to see it as anything other than a low-rent copycat cola.

In the game market, Duke Nukem 3D could have been a clone of DOOM, but we positioned Duke as a alternate, for people who like humor and an over-the-top character. There were many other fairly well made FPS games released after DOOM, before and after Duke 3D, but how many caught on? The reason practically none did is because they were generally all clones trying to duplicate the same key qualities that made DOOM so popular. Duke 3D was one of the few from that era to do a lot of significant things uniquely.

[Scott Miller]

>>> While I think you're definitely onto something with your marketing let argument, I'm still not convinced being first is enough to trump quality. <<<

Charles, IMO, "quality" is not always synonymous with "better." Car A might be higher quality than Car B, but it might not be any better at its main function, getting from here to there. And back to mousetraps, plenty of better mousetraps have been built, but their quality is generally the same as the fairly well made wooden ones that are so common.

In any case, "quality" is almost a worthless attribute to own, because practically every company claims to have quality products. Generally, people only buy into claims of quality when the price suggests that it's true. Pricing, prestige, and quality are all very closely related attributes. Lots of products advertise quality as one of their key selling points, like Rolex, Lexus and fine restaurants, but prestige, customer service, and other factors are also at play. Very, very few products truly own the word "quality" in consumer minds.

[Jay]

JP -- damn you, you stole my line. ;) I was going to say that Deus Ex's verb is "choose".

The mind-blowing thing, to me, is that Eidos actually *recognizes* this, as demonstrated by one of their primary marketing taglines for Invisible War: "Wage War As You Choose". How cool is that?

Furthermore, one could argue that Deus Ex actually *owns* the attribute of "choose your own play style." Of course, it's a far more complicated, developer-intensive attribute to own than "shoot bad guys in slow-mo". ;)

And worse, it's less marketable. Ostensibly owning "choice" doesn't do a bit of good unless the gaming public perceives that you own it. If Eidos was really genius, every last little bit of ad copy they write would be hammering home the idea that Deus Ex is synonymous with "meaningful player choice".

Then again, one could argue that GTA actually owns "choice" (albeit a slightly different kind of choice). I guess I shouldn't really shed any tears if that were true. ;)

[Jay]

Oops -- I should've said that owning "choice" doesn't do a bit of good unless the gaming public perceives that you own it, *and cares*. ;)

At the moment, for every player who wants the freedom to interact with the game world on their own terms, there are like twenty players who want to proceed through a linear sequence of battles.

I honestly don't know how to reconcile that fact with the fact that people also seem to love the open-ended "sandbox" nature of GTA.

PS: I appreciated the title of the Max Payne 2 level "A Linear Sequence of Scares." Such self-awareness! ;)

[Scott Miller]

Choice is probably a fitting verb for Deux Ex. However, I'm not sure it can own that verb -- to own a verb means someone thinks of your product/game when they think of the verb. Likewise, kill, drive, and build are verbs that are too vague to be owned by any particular game. These very general, generic verbs do not make for good positioning attributes. Something more meaningful and specific is needed. In the case of the verb *choice*, legitimately it can be claimed more than one handful of popular games, I'm sure.

Deus Ex might be better off inventing a special word that describes its play-style, like the fabricated word "deathmatch" describes person-vs-person fragging. Once they have such a word, they promote it at every chance as the ultimate thing that makes this game unique and compelling.

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

Scott, you're quite correct in drawing a distinction between 'quality' and 'better.' Some common definitions might help here. May I suggest that 'quality' refers to how reliably a product achieves its objectives, and 'better' refers to how good a match its objectives is with customer requirements? 'Quality' is an internal factor and 'better' is external.

The advantage of being first, as others have stated, is that followers are often seen as copycats. They are judged to lack the intrinsic abilities to deliver or build on the known work. This is a fundamental of human nature, as any psychologist will tell you, and explains why it's such a powerful marketing tool. Dead man walking is another.

Looking over your comments I think the two most important factors relating to being first is brand awareness and persistence. For example, "The Matrix" wasn't the first to set a story within a virtual world. Before it there was "Feersum Endjinn" by Ian M. Banks. Before that Dr. Who with "The Trial of a Time Lord". Before that "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke. Before that Plato.

Rather than drill this one into the ground, the positives of looking for a first position are clear regardless of whether they can be trumped or not. By linking originality with financial return even the dullest of decision makers might start paying attention.

[Brannon Boren]

> How does that explain the success of IP's such
> as "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?"

This isn't really a fair example, as the title played off of the "Hitchhikers Guide to XYZ" books that many people were already familiar with. Thus the title, though long, has strong recognition/recall value.

My experience with game-naming (and character-naming) meetings at Microsoft only reinforced what I already believed: smaller companies have an enormous edge in this respect. When names are generated by large committees, and then have to pass through Byzantine legal and geopolitical vetting processes, the results will typically not be good.

[FedEx]

"Positioning" by Reis and Trout was a great read but I wonder if its some of its ideas are not always applicable to games? Gamers usually buy several games, gamers often tend to like similar games in similar genres, gamers flock to gaming trends (WWII FPS, city crime simulator, Gulf War FPS), and games have a relatively short shelf life. How is it that True Crime is able to compete with GTA, or Call of Duty compete with Medal of Honor? Maybe the rule of "Don't directly compete with a leader" is often trumped for these reasons? Or is it that nothing in the gaming market is "owned" for very long?

[Brian Peace]

If originality is very important than why a sequel to Max Payne .. I know the answer will most likely be to leverage the popularity of the series to make money but are there others? Seems like it's harder and harder under this model to conitue to create innovative and original games if you make sequels. Especially just as clones are judge by what they are similar too, i would argue sequels are judged even harsher.

[esky]

Good read, but on the subject of titles..

First off, I think Tomb Raider was a really good name, because it indeed emphasizes the main aspect of the game: finding treasure. Still, 'Tomb Raider' stirrs the imagination with mysterious, and adventure-driven potential. The concept of a raiding tombs also draws on existing marketing, from History Channel specials on Egyptian tombs full of treasure, to Raiders of the Lost Ark... I think the name as such fits perfectly.

On the other hand, while Max Payne fits many of your criteria for a good title; and I agree with most of your criteria... I think it tries to be overly clever on the wordplay while at the same time trying to retain it's simplicity... I don't think being clever goes in line with being straight to the point. In fact, something clever will avoid being straightforward, unlike 'Maximum Pain == Max Payne'...

Perhaps it is better to find a hook in the game for your title that can draw on exisiting ideas in people's minds, while still being unique rather than generic. Max Payne doesn't bring any ideas to my min; perhaps something more in line with the film noir atmosphere would.. Also, rather than focus on simplicity, I find it better to focus on not being overly-complex, while mainting a certain quality level.

In fact, that ideology also works with development. You can make a game with mass-market appeal through simplicity, but with cool hooks... but you can make a game better if you forget about simplicity, and keep pushing the bar just until before it gets too complicated. It's a fine line, and often drowns in ambition.

[Terje Alexander Barth]

A Good read. Looking forward to the next update. :-)

[Bob]

good read

teh shack blows

[Scott Miller]

>>> I think Tomb Raider was a really good name...

This really opens up a can-o-worms, because Tomb Raider is an interesting and long case study by itself. Being brief...

o Had Lara Croft been a more interesting name, then the game could have been named after the character, following the comic book model I've talked about.

o I love the Indiana Jones naming model, too, in which the sequels are named "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," and "Indiana Jones and the Final Crusade." This models includes the character name AND the story's premise. I think, but not sure, that Lucas has renamed the first movie ("Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark") to follow this model.

I mention this second point because I think it can work well for the Tomb Raider series.

[Scott Miller]

>>> Seems like it's harder and harder under this model to continue to create innovative and original games if you make sequels. <<<

The idea is not to create an innovative, original *game*, but to create an original, innovative *brand*. Sequels can rely on improving tech to keep them interesting, and gameplay advances that are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

And once stories become better in game, this will be a primary attraction for buying sequels, too. In fact, I hate to use the word sequel -- I prefer "episodes." For example, each Duke or Max sequel is a new episode in the character's life. Do we consider each new episode of CSI, X-Files, or The Simpson's a sequel? In reality they are, but we use the term "episode" because they're ongoing stories with the same characters.

Our coming unannounced game is being designed exactly in this way, with story hooks and ongoing characters leading directly into follow-up episodes.

[John Tynes]

There's a fair amount of puffery in what you're saying here, insofar as none of these attributes would have mattered had the game not been fun -- and the success of the game and its sequel do not actually indicate that the attributes you discuss have succeeded in creating a franchise. I believe they are helpful, but not critical. For that matter, I don't believe that a sequel makes a franchise.

Had Max Payne actually been a successful branding exercise, as opposed to a very good game with solid marketing support, wouldn't we see more evidence of it in the culture? GTA was a successful branding exercise, primarily because of the controversy; random people reading Time magazine can recognize the "Grand Theft Auto" brand and if they saw a comic book or a pair of pajamas or some candy with a Grand Theft Auto logo, they might even connect the two. The same is clearly not true of Max Payne (or Quake or Unreal for that matter).

A couple of specific responses to your points:

Max Payne is undoubtedly a better name than Dark Justice, which is very generic. But had the same game been called Dark Justice or even, God forbid, Dark Justice: Bullet-Time of Vengeance, I doubt it would have mattered. Halo is kind of a meaningless name, insofar as it creates no real impression on the audience, not even curiousity -- if anything, it sounds like a game about angels. But it is short, which is a fine thing. What made "Halo" Halo was the game behind the name.

What exactly is the "vigilante cop" category? It's something you've made up on the spot because you don't own the "third-person shooter" category. By engaging in this sort of podium-thumping you're overshadowing the more important element you cited: you were the first to market with bullet-time, and you did it well. That's called novelty, and it's great to have. Max Payne implemented bullet-time very well. This doesn't make it the owner of the attribute, any more than the first word processor to include a spell-checker became the owner of spell-checking. You introduced a novel new feature successfully, a feature which was swiftly copied to the point that its inclusion in future Max Payne products is merely a checkbox, not a distinguishing characteristic.

In short: Had Max Payne been released as a $19.99 budget title by a small publisher with little marketing, it indeed might have been a modest success greeted with a "hey, nice going" kind of vibe. Releasing it as a $39.99 title from an established publisher with solid marketing gave it the push and the presence it needed to break out into a hit. But it has not shown any real cultural penetration, has not distinguished itself as a franchise versus being a couple of very good and successful products, and has not displayed any indicators that your branding enthusiasms bore any meaningful fruit.

The topics you're discussing here are fine things to consider in game design and publishing. I'm not ridiculing these notions. But what I am very skeptical of is your claim to have achieved a franchise through branding, as opposed to simply being the publisher of two very well-executed products with solid marketing support.

[Tom]

Does this mean I should change the name of my new game? 'The dark legend of the shadow warrior : Destiny beyond combat'