How to build a better indie game in 9 easy steps...
ADGBoss:
Quote from: Devon Oratz on July 20, 2011, 05:33:46 PM
I do rather wish step 1 talked a bout more about actually getting people posting on your site. I feel like I've got the fostering part down, just not the part that comes before that.
Link to the forums or wherever people are posting on your site, not just the site itself when you have a sig. People do check signatures out. Its one way.
stefoid:
Some good advice there.
"make it addictive" ? Thats likes saying "to make good wine you need to make it taste great" OK, thanks, but how?
Maybe we can talk about what keeps us coming back to games and look for patterns.
One is continuous improvement in some form or other.
mark2v:
"Stay focused on your simple, unique idea and implement it well."
This is important.
I think many of us have had really good initial ideas that have lost their way during development.
If a developer has an idea they love, and really want to run with, the end result will be better if they run with it. Even if it is a niche idea, with less wide appeal than one may like.
My most recent project is a genre agnostic RPG, based on control of narration as a (the) reward. As much as I love the game, and we have had great games with it; I still feel a focused product, with a setting and strong existing theme to hang the story on always work more efficiently for a larger audience.
My point being a game like DitV has a setting and an idea that lives in that setting the author never lost focus on. And the product as a whole is better for it. A product that is less focused, say any generic or universal system, has less to draw a prospective players curiosity.
Mike Sugarbaker:
Quote from: stefoid on July 21, 2011, 04:19:30 PM
"make it addictive" ? Thats likes saying "to make good wine you need to make it taste great" OK, thanks, but how?
Maybe we can talk about what keeps us coming back to games and look for patterns.
One is continuous improvement in some form or other.
Continuous feedback is another, preferably in a tight loop. Think of the recent platformers and other PC games where the "death penalty," meaning the amount of time you get kicked out of play and how much play you have to do over, has been sharply reduced. You're more likely to keep going if the barriers aren't there, and you're more likely to improve if the information on your performance is tightly and immediately connected.
Angry Birds and FarmVille clones probably have a great deal (more) to teach us.
Mark Truman:
I think the "make it addictive" section is easy to be frustrated with because it feels so obvious. "Of course I want to create an addictive game! Duh!"
But Mike is right that some elements push people out of the game by penalizing them for failure in an un-fun manner. Sitting out in the corner while everyone else gets to play is not usually my idea of a fun session.
At the same time, we should recognize that what makes Angry Birds fun is fundamentally different than what makes an indie game fun. We want our players to be lost a bit in the game, not ducking in and out of it whenever they have a chance at work. I'm hesitant to say that Farmville should be a our model.
Maybe the best way to think about "addictive" for indie RPGs is to think about the return to effort. If a person puts in lots of effort into your game, do they get a lot out of it? Or at some level, do you push them out and penalize them for playing? Do you give a feedback loop that "rewards" them for playing with others and bringing in new people, or are they best served by keeping new people out and away?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page