The strange attractor

I love to read about screenplay writing, story design and movie concepts. And I recently came across a great site that covers these topics in a fun, insightful way, full of Hollywood insider stories.

While reading through the many articles, I came across this one that covers one of my favorite topics: How to create an appealing high concept. Many writers despise formulas and checklists, claiming they rub against their grain as "artists." But I see checklists as tools, not rules, and you've got to master them rather than let them master you.

Here's the best summary quote from this article, written by screenwriter, Terry Rossio:

"[T]he concept of your movie should be unique -- something that hasn't been done before -- and at the same time, it must 'attract' people to it. There must be some aspect that is compelling, enticing, and intriguing. Some element that is so inventive, so alluring, it has people in Hollywood kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. Kicking themselves so hard, in fact, that they're willing to give you lots of money because you did think of it first."

Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy, does this so easily applied to the game industry, too!

Too many games are sunk from day one because they lack a compelling concept. And even though these games may get made with the highest production values and polish, they will find only a small audience. If you think about the best selling games in recent years, practically all of them have a compelling, unique concept.

When designing a new game, it's imperative to base it on a winning concept that grabs people by the throat. In fact, the game's concept may be the most important decision you can make regarding the success of your game. To test if you you have a winning concept, see if it can jump these hurdles:

o Uniqueness (don't be a copycat) -- you should be able to say: "Wow, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?!"
o Easily conveyed premise (e.g. Tomb Raider = female Indiana Jones) -- Has anyone attempted a female James Bond, yet?
o Gives the lead character an interesting, meaningful story arc.
o Creates a rich game world, capable of supporting continued adventures.
o The concept is so distinctive that if anyone else does it after you, it'll be obvious where they got the idea from.
o Is the concept based on a very niche subject that few people have any interest in?

The bottom-line: Don't bet your chips on a weak concept. The concept must be enticing, otherwise who will give two cents about your game, let alone 40 bucks?

Comments

[Nick]

Femable James Bond, Joanna Dark of Perfect Dark?

[Scott Miller]

Yeah, I thought of her, but Perfect Dark seemed too futuristic, and just because she's a female agent doesn't necessarily make her a female James Bond. I could be wrong, because I never player much of that game, but I still think the slot for a female Bond is available for the taking. Likewise, I think the slot for a female Duke Nukem is still wide open.

[Walter]

Actually, I think Cate Archer of No One Lives Forever fits the bill perfectly, although Monolith unfortunately makes her character too incidental to the story (in both the original and the sequel). She's basically there to add some style and wit, but it isn't significantly about her in any real way, keeping her from reaching massive popularity.

Incidentally, I picked up McKee's Story not too long ago. Good stuff. Also picked up Egri's The Art of Dramatic Writing, which is considered to be a classic of the trade.

[Gabby Dizon]

Duke Nukem - macho, wisecracking, butt-kicking hero.

female Duke Nukem - sexy, wisecracking, butt-kicking hero?

What qualities would a "female Duke Nukem" possess?

[brian]

if the twist is just a gender change then you cannot really say the idea is innovative as it has been done since Ms. Pac Man. Now what would be a real shocker would be a male Barbie (and I don't mean Ken).

[Michael Samyn]

A male Barbie who is gay! :)
Has there ever been a gay game hero?

[Jack]

> Gives the lead character an interesting, meaningful story arc.

And what exactly is duke's meaningful story arc? :P

[Tom Henderson]

A female James Bond is a very unappealing idea. James Bond is tailor made to appeal to men. The closest characters are Modesty Blaize and more recently Syndey Brisco from "Alais". Both of these characters were strongly feminine. Frankly, this kind of role reversle is pretty lame. Even by the standards of Hollywood.

The rules you've listed seem preety reasonable if fairly obvious and generic. I mean who doesn't want to create a "easily conveyed concept" or "rich game world". Goals are easy, meeting them is the bitch.

[PaG]

"Gives the lead character an interesting, meaningful story arc."

That doesn't apply to all games. Project Gotham Racing was a great game, with a great premise (Race with style), that sold really and definitely started a franchise, yet it most definitely has no character story-arc. Heck, it doesn't even have identifiable characters.

It may be applicable to character-based games, but even then I'm not so sure. I played Halo, for example, because of the action and most certainly not because of the story (I mean, mutant zombies from outer space?). As you pointed out earlier, Scott, sometimes when you play you just rush forward (Geronimo!), ignoring the plot and when you're over you don't really feel like watching the missed story elements is worth it.

So, while essential in movies and books, I don't think a story-arc is an essential feature for a good game. If you can put a good one in your game, that's good but I don't think games live or die based on their story.

[Erwie]

I at least gotta agree with the first point: a game needs to have something unique to get sales. Grand Theft Auto had it, Battlefield 1942 had it, Max Payne had it.

But the uniqueness should be describable in one sentence, respectively "Play a criminal and do whatever you want", "Fight multiplayerbattles with lots of vehicles" and "Shoot people in slow motion".

Games like Sacrifice, Perimeter and even Beyond Good & Evil are too unique to appeal the masses: try to begin to describe what makes them unique, it's not a single feature but an entire concept, and that doesn't seem to work out all the time.

I also feel that the best thing to do is innovate within a known universe/setting. Full Spectrum Warrior did it, and sold above decent. Games which innovate and come up with a great, new universe, mostly won't be a hit - but an innovative and well executed Star Wars game is likely to be.

Personally I wonder if there are more settings to be thought of than medieval fantasy, historical, realism and science fiction. More than 99% of the games fits in one of those categories. A fresh setting without an innovative concept, might also work.

[Scott Miller]

-- "What qualities would a "female Duke Nukem" possess?"

Stay tuned!

-- "And what exactly is duke's meaningful story arc?"

Well, in Duke 3D he didn't have one, because back then we didn't know any better, and stories were less relevant to a game's success. In the coming Duke game, we're putting a lot more attention in this area.

-- "That doesn't apply to all games."

PaG, of course not. Only to games with a strong lead character. That list was a list of guidelines, not hard-n-fast rules.

The overall idea of this particular blog entry is to prod developers into ensuring that they dod not bother working on a been-there-seen-that concept, and try to add freshness and uniqueness to whatever idea they commit to. Beyond Good and Evil is a great example of a poor initial concept, as it doesn't seem to be compelling, nor distinctive. Part of this is that the title may be the most generic in the history of games, but even the elevator pitch for this game is bland. Why this game concept was made I'll never know. Even though this game was well executed, it never had a chance.

[Jerane Alleyne]

--"female Duke Nukem - sexy, wisecracking, butt-kicking hero?"
Julie Strain!

--"Gives the lead character an interesting, meaningful story arc."
I think along with this, having an interesting character is also helpful. I dunno about anyone else, but I'd like to see a bit more variation in what we're given for characters. I understand that that white males aged 18-25 are the core audience, but it would be nice to at the very least, have options. I do remember a friend of mine refusing to play NOLF because "he didn't want to play as a chick". Is this part of the same thought process when developers are creating characters? RPGs and games like Deus EX and even Jedi Academy give us a least a few options, I would like to see more action-oriented games do this as well.

[TheT]

"-- "What qualities would a "female Duke Nukem" possess?"

Stay tuned!"

That wasn't a hint of games to come ... was it?

[Chris Franklin]

Are we talking about metaphor for the game (story, setting, characters), or game design here?

[Anon]

As far as I can tell, when it comes to Scott we are never talking about game design.

[D]

The truth is all of these guidelines have give. The best selling games today arn't always the most creative, nor innovative. It's a problem with the industry at large, and a more mainstream audience. Does halo have a compelling story? not really. What is innovative to one isn't to another. Games are far more driven today by hype and the mystical coolness factor that gets attached to some games while not to others. Does the mainstream care about great story? not really, they look for the cool.

[NR]

The only thing that makes a decent game is original gameplay. Simply put, even if you took a game with a story - snatched the story away, made the graphics terrible, withdrew all sounds, and then played it.... would you still want to play it?

I mean, this is what made the games of yore so good. The GTA series have a certain gameplay which, even outside the realm of the story, you can really stick your teeth into... and keep playing ad infinitum.
I think even if Capcom released street-fighter 2 with no music, no backgrounds, and monochrome blocky characters - people would still enjoy it.... ok, so not as much as they normally would... but the game would still be playable at least. Make a game completely out of blocks and you end up with Tetris, which is universally popular.

Just look at chess. The only thing brilliant about that game is the math and gamplay mechanics behind it. A black and white checkerboard isn't too enticing, and even if the pieces weren't dressed up as medieval characters, the game would still be fun.

[Reason]

"The concept is so distinctive that if anyone else does it after you, it'll be obvious where they got the idea from."

[J]

Some people here are confusing "good game" and "successful game". "Good" can mean whatever you want, "successful" is much easier to agree upon.

Beyond Good and Evil is a good example: a great execution of a weird concept that wasn't successful. Compare to "NFS: Underground", a decent execution of an appealing concept that was very successful.

Simple - you can explain it in a few words.
Familiar - many people can relate to it.
Innovative - brings something new.
Attractive - this is the really tough one, being in tune with the tastes of millions of people.

Don't ruin it during production... cluttering its simplicity, moving away from what is familiar in order to solve design problems, or not playing to the strengths of what is innovative and attractive.

[Reason]

"Uniqueness (don't be a copycat)"

...

"Has anyone attempted a female James Bond, yet?"

[PaG]

Separating the gameplay from its metaphor is a bit weird, imho. Would Grand Theft Auto be as good if it were purely abstract? I don't think so. The twist in GTA (play a criminal who steals cars to achieve missions in a big city) has a direct impact on gameplay and not only on its metaphor. I believe the best "strange attractors" for games are those that affect what the player _does_, not just its setting.

[Cloud]

I would disagree that Beyond Good and Evil had a poor initial concept; if you listen to the creator in interviews, his concept was that of the camera as a weapon, and of creating a world in which the hero had a different kind of effect from slaying the Great Evil One. I think that he pulled off those ideas quite well.

On the other hand, the first time I saw Jade, I thought, "Wow, I went to school with her." She isn't all that unique to look at. However, while BG&E suffered from a lack of a unique world, so to speak, it excelled in every other area in my opinion. I can't remember the last time I saw an interface so well thought-out, so natural, and the last game I enjoyed as much as BG&E was Metroid Prime. The key/door problem solutions and the fighting were terrific, and the graphics and sound were very immersive.

As for Tomb Raider, it wasn't the female Indiana Jones thing that hadn't been done before. (IIRC that was the love interest in The Fate of Atlantis.) It was successfully taking Prince of Persia's style of movement and translating it into 3D. I don't feel that any other game before it successfully did that; it's one of the few systems in which the player feels personally connected to the adventuring because they, themselves, do the climbing, swinging, etc. What I feel developers are losing touch with is, what makes a game fun? The original Star Fox 64 is still one of my favorite games to date because it took a simple control scheme, and a limited gameplay mechanism, and went to town with it. After Tomb Raider II the games were just not fun any more due to gameplay additions and extra movements, diluting the pureness of the original game, and taking away all the things that made exploration fun.

I think that it's not just a killer concept that can make a game, although certainly games like Tomb Raider and Gish certainly use that to their advantage. But also, at this point a game which simply does things right would be a breath of fresh air. I'm sick of how nobody yet has figured out how to fix 3D cameras, aside from the morph ball mode in Metroid Prime. I'm sick of in-game interfaces not developing; why, when games like BG&E come out with such stylish examples of human interaction, do games like Doom3 look the same, roughly, menu-wise as they did ten years ago?

Also, story isn't necessarily needed in character-based games either. Alien Hominid works without it because the game's just so damned fun.

[Adam]

as far as story goes, the most important thing is that it be subservient to the gameplay. as a designer, as soon as you say "ooo you know we shouldn't do that cool gameplay hook, that messes up our story" you've made a mistake. stories, like characters, are the same. I agree with Cloud; while Tomb Raider may have been marketed as "female Indiana Jones", the reason it exploded popularity-wise (aside from the huge marketing of course :P ) was the way it captured whatever it was that the old PoP games had in 3D. So really, from a design standpoint, Tomb Raider's high-level concept was "3D prince of persia".

mario wears overalls because it is too hard to tell where his arms are otherwise. mario is a plumber because he wears overalls. in most cases, i think it is very important to retain this hierarchy; make your characters and story subservient to the game!

the clear exceptions to this rule are games descended from the IF genre - i would include BGE in this category.

I imagine you've all heard the news already, but Lara's original creator is working with Crystal Dynamics on the new TR title - I for one am looking forward to the results!

[Gabby Dizon]

"The concept is so distinctive that if anyone else does it after you, it'll be obvious where they got the idea from."

AFAIK, Max Payne was released in 2001 after 4 years of development by Remedy Entertainment. Which means they got their concept before the first Matrix movie was released in 1999.

For me, the problem with BG&E that I just have no idea what the game's about. There's no immediate high concept that their marketing people have been able to impress upon me. And I'm not buying it to find out (though I heard it's a good game).

[Reason]

"AFAIK, Max Payne was released in 2001 after 4 years of development by Remedy Entertainment. Which means they got their concept before the first Matrix movie was released in 1999."

Bullet time only became a talked-about feature in Max Payne after the Matrix came out (and before then, as the Matrix teasers and trailers that drifted out onto the net well in advance generated substantial buzz). The first time the feature was shown off publicly was over a year after the Matrix hit theatres.

Of course, Scott might remind us that perception is a lot more important than reality, and the perception is of course that bullet time is something the Matrix coined... never mind the fact that French cinematographer Michel Gondry created the technique ("The Frozen Moment") well before then.