Game Matters

Sequel-itis

This Hollywood Reporter article talks about the growing prevalence of sequels.

Dean Takahashi, who covers the games industry for the San Jose Mercury News, said, "Gamers tend to gravitate to whatever they know. If you try to sell them something else, you're asking them to spend $50 and invest dozens of hours of play on something they know nothing about. That's a real hard sell. And that's the main reason publishers do sequels; to insure that their games will stand out."

To counter Takahashi's claim, I firmly believe that gamers are always on the look out for something new, original and innovative. And the reason why sequels are generally successful is because the first game(s) in the series were original and innovative, and so gamers keep looking to these game brands to deliver greatness again. Generally, though, sequels deliver more of the same, which isn't necessarily bad, but sequels are a poor place to look for further innovation and uniqueness.

The key to what I'm saying is that most gamers want to experience something new. And the rare game that gives them something new will usually succeed wildly, like Everquest (well-executed 3D persistent world), Max Payne (slow motion gameplay), The Sims (social fulfillment), GTA3 ("possibility space" gameplay), Call of Duty (the real feeling of squad-based war), Half-Life (seamless story enhanced by scripted memorable moments) and Roller Coaster Tycoon (simple and fun construction).

The real issue is that publishers, for the most part, do not know how to make successful new games with any degree of confidence. And so they over-rely on sequels and licenses. And as an industry we look more and more creatively bankrupt. But, let's not get side-tracked on another topic.

"Another strong motivator is the gaming enthusiast magazines' tendency to save their covers for sequels, minimizing the exposure originals receive on newsstands," said Paul Hyman, author of this article.

We encountered this with the first Duke Nukem 3D, even though all of the editors told us they thought the game was great when we previewed it to them. The game eventually did get a ton of covers because the shareware version came out in Jan. 1996 and caused such a huge stir that magazines were practically forced to give the game covers for when the full version came out May that year.

However, with Max Payne, an entirely original game with no license attached to it, we were able to get dozens of covers worldwide by using several methods of buzz-building, which I'll save for another blog. True Crimes also got many covers, so it IS in fact possible for original games to get their due in the press.

Doug Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Assn., offers his thoughts: "There's no question that sequels are a very important part of the market," he said. "But just because it says 'Game 2' on the box doesn't mean what's inside is the same game as 'Game 1' but with a different script. A movie sequel usually tries to preserve the same basic elements that made the movie successful the first time. But, in a game sequel, because of AI changes, technical developments, and such, you can create a dramatically different game experience from the last time around."

Games are no better or worse than movies in this respect. Any sequel can be somewhat original within the context of its established gameworld if given the proper attention during design. But, again, the originality that caused the original game in a series to go from nothing to stardom is usually a one-time shot. Doesn't mean sequels cannot be great experiences, just means that it's hard to stray from the successful elements that warrant making a sequel in the first place.

At 3D Realms, we think of our story-driven approach as not creating sequels, but instead episodes. Each episode, like those of a TV series, shows a new chapter in the life of the key character(s). This was the approach taken with the follow-up to Max Payne. It's also the approach we're taking with each new Duke Nukem game. Sure, the tech is always being improved, but only so that we can tell a better story and give the player a better experience. But, in the grand scheme, we do not see Duke Nukem Forever as a sequel -- it's merely the next chapter in Duke Nukem's ongoing adventures. Semantics, sure. But that's our internal mindset.

In this way we do not look at sequels as rehashes, but as continuations. We hope that the stories we're building into our games are enthralling enough on their own to make the game seem like a fairly original experience, even if the gameplay is still similar (but we try to improve in this area, too).

My bottom-line is that I do not have a problem with sequels, as long as they continue to push forward in terms of gameplay, technology, and story. It's hard for sequels to make the revolutionary jump they likely made with their original appearance, but it shouldn't be too hard to make an evolutionary improvement with each new chapter in the series.

The real issue is the industry's fear of making new, original games, and thus relying too much on sequels, including games that didn't deserve to see a sequel, and we can all name a few of those! I haven't studied this at all, but without looking at the box-office charts I'm betting that the average top 10 movie list has far fewer sequels in it than the game industry has. So, somehow in their grand system, the movie industry is demonstrating more willingness to be creative and original than the game industry.

Let's hope it's not always this way.

Name matters

In general, a product name is one of the most important aspects of a brand. In effect, a name is a brand's banner, or headline, and it needs to quickly convey a compelling, meaningful message about the product itself -- the Die Hard Battery is one of the all-time best names in this regard. And given the high importance of product names, it's somewhat surprising that they are so often botched, blundered and bankrupt. Especially in the game industry. A bad name can weigh a game down like a two-ton anchor, or it can act like a booster rocket that helps propels the brand to stardom. There's a lot of psychology at play with product names, and it's smart to use every trick in the book to help your game reach its full potential. A name is most often your potential customer's first contact with your game, and forms that always critical first impression.

Since the early 90's, my partner, George Broussard, and I have researched the qualities that help make for a successful game name. Over time we've created a list of guidelines:

o Short names are better than long names. All other things being equal, if you can come up with a great short name for your game, do it. Doom, Diablo, Quake, Zelda, Halo, Mafia, The Sims, Fable, etc. The problem with longer names is that they are too often reduced to a short-hand version, or reduced to initials (GTA:VC and FFX for example). Both of these work against the brand building process. Names begin to get to unwieldy when they're longer than two or three words -- this should be avoided if at all possible, and in most cases it is possible. (BTW, the full name for Halo is Halo: Combat Evolved, but generally players haven't used the meaningless "Combat Evolved" portion, so the de facto name, and the one the marketing people should have stuck with, is just "Halo." Very short and simple. In this case, even the marketing people couldn't ruin a good name, as players have fixed their error.)

o Avoid punctuation in the game title. If your title has a colon, a dash, periods (Contract J.A.C.K.), or other punctuation, you're just asking for trouble. One of my favorite out-of-control game titles is Descent: Freespace 2 - The Great War. A more recent bad title is True Crime: Streets of LA. Why not just "True Crime"? What does "Streets of LA" add that will increase sales? Absolutely nothing of value. The addition of that colon and the subtitle just screws up a good short name. The same marketing person would have likely named Id's famous shooter something along the lines of, Doom: Hell Breaks Loose on Mars. In short, stay away from punctuation, and the cumbersome titles that usually results from this mistake.

o Avoid sequel numbers. This is the one I expect to hear the most controversy over. People who name their games just love to use sequel numbers, possibly thinking that their customer base is too stupid to figure out if the game is, in fact, a sequel. The problem is that sequel numbers, like Final Fantasy 2 through 10, make each succeeding game look more and more ridiculous, and more and more like a rehash rather than an original experience. Even though, let's say, Half-Life 2 doesn't sound that bad, when does it cross the line into clear absurdity? Half-Life 5? Half-Life 10? Why even start if you know at some point you'll cross that line?

With the Duke Nukem games, we mistakenly named the second one Duke Nukem 2, released in 1993 before we knew any better, but since then we've not used a sequel number, at least not a blatant one. Sure, the next game was Duke Nukem 3D, but that's a slightly more clever way of using "3" in the games title. The coming Duke Nukem Forever follows this same half-stealth tactic, as "Forever" implies the fourth episode.

And that's the key for us: we look at each succeeding game as a new episode, not a sequel. The episode model is the one we see used by television networks and comic books. Take Star Trek, for example: Is each new episode named something like "Star Trek 31: City on the Edge of Forever"? Nope. What about movies? Many movie series wisely avoid sequel numbers, such as the Alien series (except Alien 3), the Indiana Jones series, the Batman series, and the best example of all, the James Bond series. How completely and utterly silly would it be to have those 007 movies named, "James Bond 22: Die Another Day"?! Luckily, this series never got off on the wrong foot by using sequel numbers. It's really only been in Hollywood's recent history that they've fallen into the dark pit of using sequel numbers with exuberant glee. For example, all of those early Frankenstein and Dracula sequels avoided them, and same with the perfectly named Planet of the Ape series, and Bob Hope's many Road to Wherever movies. Does anyone ever have trouble knowing what the name of the current Bond film is? Of course not. Sequel numbers are not only unnecessary, they cheapen the brand in the long term. Get smart, stop using them.

Two more examples of out-of-control names: Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings, Star Wars: Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast.

Oh, and before people ask me, the original name for the Max Payne sequel was going to be simply, The Fall of Max Payne. But, after we sold the brand to Rockstar, they decided to change the name to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. A silly mistake, IMO. But hey, they paid us the big bucks to name the game whatever they thought worked best. But, I see this akin to changing the well named "The Mummy Returns" to the unnecessarily burdened "The Mummy 2: The Mummy Returns." See how titles can so quickly go from cool to crap!

o Have a meaningful title. Avoid titles that have practically no meaning, like Zone of the Enders, Allegiance, Far Cry, Syphon Filter and XIII. As one developer friend recently remarked, "I thought a 'syphon filter' might be something used to change a car's oil." Sure, these titles might mean something to players of the game, but they mean nothing to potential buyers, and those are the people you should care about most -- assuming you care about your game being a success.

This is one of the reasons I think Doom is a great name, while Quake is merely average. Yes, they're both short, which is good, but Doom communicates the frightful, nightmarish nature of the game, while Quake is quite meaningless as a name. Even after playing all of the Quake games, I'm still not sure what connection this name has to the games.

o Avoid generic titles. Examples include: Universal Combat, Brute Force, Dungeon Siege, and Eternal Darkness. In short, these names are banal and forgettable. They do practically no work in selling the game within the box. Their generic quality makes them more difficult to standout from the pack, and more difficult to remember. These names also show a lack of creativity. With permission from developer friend Rich Carlson, I'm including his recently updated list of generic words, all of which should be avoided if at all possible. He breaks them down into three categories of avoidance (and quite honestly, I'd group them ALL under the "Felony" heading, as I have no mercy for generic game titles):

-- Felony: Alien, Dark, Darkness, Extreme, Quest, Shadow.

-- Misdemeanor: Awakening, Brood, Chosen, Dawn, Death, Destiny, Doom, Evil, Fallen, Legacy, Legend, Mandate, Prophecy, Prophet, Rebirth, Redemption, Resurrection, Revelation, Rising, Vendetta.

-- Light Slap on the Wrist: Age, Arena, Black, Blood, Chaos, City, Command, Commander, Commando, Commandos, Conquest, Dragon, Elite, Empire, Empires, Encounter, Faction, Force, Forces, Forever, Forgotten, Gate, Imperium, Key, Knight, Knights, Last, Legion, Legions, Lord, Lords, Magic, Master, Metal, Myth, Ops, Power, Return, Revenge, Silent, Soul, Space, Star, Steel, Storm, Strike, Total, Vengeance, War, Warlord, Warlords, Warrior, Warriors, Wars.

Just this morning I happened to read about a coming game from Activision, Tenchu: Return from Darkness. Hmmm, about as generic as a subtitle can get. BTW, check out Rich's Feb. 4th blog entry, "Steel Dawn: Forgotten Rebirth II Gold Edition," for another take on generic words.

Bottom-line, do not use these words! To do so positions your game as ordinary right from the start. And is that what you want for your pride and joy? I didn't think so.

o Beware of names that leave you open for easy criticism. In the February 2004 issue of PC Gamer, I saw this headline for a review of Ubisoft's FPS, XIII: "It's called XIII because there are XII better shooters." You have to laugh! And even though you cannot protect against this sort of wordplay attack in all cases, it's still something to consider when you're formulating a game name. For example, I wouldn't use a game title like The Bad and the Beastly, as I can just see people twisting those words against you if they don't like your game.

And there you have it. Remember, none of these are hardened, immutable rules. However, I try to use all of them in my favor for each and every game, because in today's competitive environment, every little thing you do right only helps.

Industry facts

Industry "facts" from the ESA (Entertainment Software Association). A few comments about this information:

o "The average age of a game player is 29 years old," and "Ninety-two percent of all games are purchased by adults over the age of 18."

Could this be one of the key reasons for the Gamecube's demise? Has Nintendo's positioning as a kids- and family-friendly games maker come back to bite it? Me thinks so.

o "Thirty-nine percent of game players are women."

If we're talking online games like Spades, then yeah, I can believe this. But I truly doubt that women account for nearly 40 percent of retail buyers. I almost never see a female perusing games in my locale Gamestop or EB.

o "Computer and video game software sales grew eight percent in 2003 to $7 billion and are expected to show strong growth over the next few years."

Finally, an honest revenue figure that shows we're still a small fry compared to the movie industry.

A few answers

This entry I'll answer several questions from the topic two weeks ago.

-- Paul Jenkins asked: "Throughout the blog there's been considerable talk about things publishers have done to damage developers, etc. So, what kind of things could a publisher offer a developer to begin a relationship on a more honest premise? Would it be feasible for a publisher to give back a dev's IP post-publication? What would be fair for a publisher to request in this instance?"

A few obvious things a publisher can do to improve their relationship with developers:

o Communicate more, and respond faster to a developer's questions and issues. Act like the developer is part of the team and keep them in the loop.
o Involve the studio in business and marketing decisions, or at minimum get the studio's opinion on ads and the retail box. The publisher doesn't necessarily need to follow the dev studio's advice, but at least listen to it and consider it. Devs have a valuable perspective to share because they often know the game's strengths better than the publisher.
o Allow proven devs to take more risks.
o Share the pie fairly.
o Demonstrate integrity. Do not jerk studios around, costing them money and possibly forcing them to accept horrible deals.

It really all boils down to this: Publishers who care usually do the right thing. My experience suggests strongly that the publisher's leader sets the example for the publisher's overall culture and mindset when dealing with dev studios. If the leader is a bad apple, then it filters down throughout the execs. 3D Realms has worked with both great pubs, and a horrible publisher. I'll let you take two guesses to figure out the latter publisher.

-- Joe Studiostarter asked: "If you were starting a dev studio today, with no money but with willing talent, what would your plan of attack be? What kind of game would you try to make? The goal is to, at a minimum, make sure your studio is around to make a second game."

I've thought about this a lot over the last couple of years, and I do not have a good answer. If there was a good answer, many others would have thought of it before me. But generally, it boils down to positioning principles (refer to my list of recommended books), and making sure your game stands out as something compelling and unique. This means not making a clone or copycat game -- don't look at the hot games and copy them with minor twists, as that will get you no where.

As for finding people, you'll probably need to find hungry developers who will bust their butts in their spare time, after school and/or after work, who understand that getting a financial reward may take a year or two. This is how I started out, and I it took half a decade before I could quit my day job and go full-time with Apogee (the original name of 3D Realms).

Again, I don't have a golden answer.

-- Jeffool asked: "How do you see the job market of the in about six months? ... About the time I'll be graduating..."

It'll be as tough as it is now, with far more people trying to get in than jobs exist. I suspect that it'll always be like this, since the game industry has become a dream job, like the movie industry.

The best way to improve your chance to get in is to be willing to start low on the ladder, such as in QA, and also work hard on improving your skills and portfolio in your spare. More than anything, a portfolio is what will move you up the ladder. And writing skills can never be under-estimated. For example, in a QA position, anyone who cannot write well will never advance. Good writing indicates higher intelligence and higher education, right or wrong. For example, we get literally hundreds of emailed job inquiries each year that meet the delete key almost right away because the person's grammar and spelling indicate that the person's education is below par, or the person doesn't care enough to spell check. If they can't spend the time spell checking, then they aren't going to spend the proper time code checking, or testing their levels, etc. A person's writing ability says a lot, so say it well.

-- Jim Vessella asked: "[F]or MMORPG's, why don't companies sell the box for a minimum price, and rely on making money from the subscriptions. I know for a fact that many of my friends don't get into MMO's because first you pay $49.99 for the box, then if you don't like it you're stuck with a worthless piece of software."

Jim, you answered your own question! Publishers don't want to subsidize their own failures, they'd rather you do it. I agree with your thinking, though. Publishers should not look to make money on the game, but on the subscription fees. Therefore, it makes sense to sell the game cheap, and later in the life cycle even give it away once they feel sure that the game is a hit.

-- Jeff Mackintosh asked: "What do you see as the biggest problems facing the video game industry, in the long-term, and how do you see those hurdles best overcome?"

I already wrote about several of these problems. Over time, I hope to address most of these issues.

-- ADoomedMarine asked: "How about writing about how hard it is nowadays to start up a gaming developing company (or even publishing) compared to say 10 years ago."

The reason why it's hard (rather than "how") is that it costs so much more to make a game nowadays. Used to not be this way, and so it was much easier for a pub to take a chance on a studio, and on original games.

-- Jonas Stewart asked: "Scott, I'd be interested to hear more thoughts on character development. Perhaps stuff like name creation."

This is a fascinating topic that I do plan to cover later this year. One hint: Try to keep names to three syllables or less, like James Bond, Johnny Quest, Sherlock Holmes, Max Payne, Duke Nukem, Santa Claus, Rocky, Han Solo, and Darth Vadar. If you exceed three syllables, then the audience will try to come up with a shorter version. For example, Indiana Jones becomes Indy Jones. Note, this isn't a rule, just a good guideline that helps device a memorable character name. There are about a dozen such guidelines we use at 3D Realms.

-- John Beeler asked: "Describe the perfect 'fan'."

Sure. Right after you describe the perfect game. ;-)

-- Sofa asked: "What is your opinion of open-ended games such as Morrowind and Vice City, where the player is free to roam the world they're presented with and pick and choose their story path, versus games with a much more linear approach to their presentation, such as Max Payne..."

I love 'em! I can't wait to see this sort of open-endedness applied to other genres, like the FPS and RTS, too. This style of gameplay, though, isn't inherently better than linear games like Max Payne, just different. For games with well integrated stories, the linear approach usually makes more sense. Still, I'd love to see more free-form gameplay tried in more genres.

-- Ben Bradley asked: "How do you, as a designer/developer, select the games that you play? I'm a student and I definitely don't have the spare time to play all the games I want to, and I'd assume developers have far less opportunity."

Generally, I prioritize the games I play by first playing the ones that I feel compete most directly with the games we're making. It's important to stay current with the competition. Next, I prefer to play games outside the shooter genre that I believe I can still learn from, in terms of execution quality, interface innovation, or any number of areas.

I'm very quick to abandon games that frustrate me due to poor design. For example, I stopped playing Ico because of its weak save system, as there was a few sections where I died and had to replay long sections just to get to back to where I had died. I also stopped playing Maximo because it was simply too hard -- an adaptive difficulty system might have allowed me to finish it, because I just don't have the time to try a section over and over. So I move on to the next game in my stack.

With great games like Never Winter Nights and Morrowind, I play for a few days just to taste what they have to offer, but I know going in I do not have time to finish them. Finally, I never replay a game, again because time is too short and I'd rather experience something new. The only game I've played twice in the last dozen years is Diablo 2, just to see how playing as a new character (the assassin, after having played as a paladin the first time) would change the experience (quite a lot).

Thanks to everyone who submitted questions, making for an easy blog entry this week. I know there are questions I didn't answer, but I try to at a latter time, as some of them require a full blog on their own.