Polish vs Innovation, whats the balance?

I don't really see your two choices as different directions to take... You can have both a polished and innovative game. I'm not sure why you're sacrificing one for the other.

What would I do with $10,000 in funding? I'd hire a good artist and good sound person and make a nicely polished game that I know will turn a profit, and then spend whatever I have left on advertising and website costs and whatnot.

A small game would only require a minimal amount of art and sound. So you could hire an artist and sound person and pay them well to make sure you get good stuff.

However, if you need to hire a programmer then I'm not sure $10,000 is going to leave much for anything else. Unless the game takes a couple of days to program. Programmers are generally the most expensive people on the development team (other than the team leaders/managers/whatever)

So it really depends on what talents you have. If you're a programmer, hire an artist and sound person. If you're an artist, hire a programmer and probably just grab some royalty free sounds or something.

In any case, the game should be small but fun to play. This way you can get a quick turn around and start making back that investment quickly.

Your best chance of success is to finish a fun small game and build up some more funding from the profit that game creates. Then you can worry about making more innovative games and experimenting once you have the money to play with.

I don't think it's impossible to make an innovative game for under $10k. But if you're looking for a definite return on your initial investment, it might be best to go with a game mechanic that has proven to do well. Just to play it safe. But if the $10k is money you can spare to lose, then really, do whatever you want.

But it sounds like you're worried about not getting that money back in game sales, so if anything, a small, polished game using a popular game mechanic would be best to start out with.

Quote:

Original post by Robert-Glen - Whats your design direction? Polished or Innovation, whats the balance? -

That's neither a "design direction" nor a choice you should ever make.

Quote:

I have an idea of how I would use this chance, what would you do?

I'd make sure my game plays excellently before spending a cent on graphics or sound.

Yea... you shouldn't choose one or the other. However, if you worry about not being able to polish a game because your concept might have things that you probably haven't thought of to polish up. Then I'd say, use this chance to choose something fun and polish it as shiny as you can. Just because it's not innovated doesn't mean it's not fun. When you got something fun, people will play and if you get more money from it because people buy it, then you'll have a chance for "innovation" later.

I'm surprised at everybody saying you don't have to choose. Of course you have to choose. You don't have infinite resources.

You should choose innovation. If your game is interesting and playable enough then it's probably easy to secure additional resources to make it polished later. On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead. This is doubly true when you consider that you are competing against the big boys when it comes to looking and feeling 'polished'.

Yeah I don't think innovation and polish are inversely related, but every project does observe the Good, Fast, Cheap (pick 2) triangle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle

If your gameplay is good though, you will sell copies regardless of graphics. Have you tried Mine Craft?

http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/09/10/1713217/PayPal-Withholding-Indie-Game-Devs-euro600000-Account

Over 600,000 euros in sales and it is basically still an alpha test ...

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan I'm surprised at everybody saying you don't have to choose. Of course you have to choose. You don't have infinite resources. You should choose innovation. If your game is interesting and playable enough then it's probably easy to secure additional resources to make it polished later. On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead. This is doubly true when you consider that you are competing against the big boys when it comes to looking and feeling 'polished'.

Having innovation doesn't mean you have gameplay though. It just mean it's something new. Likewise, polish itself doesn't mean you have gameplay either. Even if you have innovation, it won't mean much if it doesn't work right and ends up buggy or boring to play.

Take Need for speed and this truck game I've played. (can't remember the name) Both are racing games, but NFS had way more polish. Control and graphics, sounds, etc were all good. But the other game wasn't and when you try to turn, it makes the car to immediately to turn 90 degrees. Virtually unplayable, and extremely annoying.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan I'm surprised at everybody saying you don't have to choose. Of course you have to choose. You don't have infinite resources. You should choose innovation. If your game is interesting and playable enough then it's probably easy to secure additional resources to make it polished later. On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead. This is doubly true when you consider that you are competing against the big boys when it comes to looking and feeling 'polished'.

I agree with pothb... I think you're getting confused.

Innovation is not the same as gameplay.

Innovation is essentially risk. By being innovative, you risk making something that could either be a huge success or a huge failure. Just because your game is innovative doesn't mean it's going to be wildly fun.

I don't see how you can tell him to choose innovation over polish when he has $10k to lose. You even throw out the big "If" when you say "If your game is interesting and playable enough..." What if it's not? Then say goodbye to that $10k... say goodbye to earning that profit to make the riskier more innovative games.

Sure, be innovative if you've got nothing to lose, or if you have a lot of money to play with and the game isn't your lifeline.

Also, shiny games with no innovation can sell extremely well. Just look at all those match 3 clones getting made. They are making money hand over fist, and there's nothing innovative about them.

Quote:

Original post by EJHOver 600,000 euros in sales and it is basically still an alpha test ...

Just looking at the stats page, the game has now pulled in over two million dollars. Very impressive for a game that is essentially a bunch of low res textured blocks and no real goal to achieve.

I've been playing the game and while it's quite addictive, I've found myself totally bored with it and haven't played it at all lately. Once you've managed to build a little fort for protection, there's not much else to do, aside from building more stuff... there's no real point to continue. Though the developer plans to change this in the future. He's already discussed implementing a storyline and some sort of plot/endgame.

Personally I'd like to see more types of monsters, some "boss" monsters to work toward defeating... possibly some NPC townspeople who move in so you have some civilization and not just one guy in his giant castle surrounded by cows and pigs. Anyway, I'm getting off topic so I'll end there. :p

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan I'm surprised at everybody saying you don't have to choose. Of course you have to choose. You don't have infinite resources.

Polishing equals iterative improvement of existing functionality and assets. Improving game balance, fine-tuning level design, increasing graphic effects, making jumping feel better, and non-critical bug fixing all fall under "polish". Its alternatives are things like "adding more features and mechanics", "making more levels" or "starting with a more ambitious design to begin with". If your production budget is fixed, these things compete directly with one another for resources. "Innovation" does not directly compete for resources. If you decide shooting at characters in your first person shooter heals them instead of dealing damage, fine. That doesn't take any longer to code, any longer to make graphics for, etc.

Quote:

You should choose innovation. If your game is interesting and playable enough then it's probably easy to secure additional resources to make it polished later. On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead. This is doubly true when you consider that you are competing against the big boys when it comes to looking and feeling 'polished'.

Consider Tumiki Fighters and Dwarf Fortress, both freeware indie games, both wildly innovative and both excellent games. Tumiki Fighters is very polished, to the point where there are few obvious improvements to be made. It would suffer immensely if it were not highly polished. That's the way action games are - they have to feel right pretty much all of the time. Dwarf Fortress has a lot of stuff that could obviously use some polish, but the lack of it doesn't ruin the game. So if you want the leeway to be able to cut corners on some things, I'd definitely go in the general direction of not-action.

The platform as well as the audience factor into these decisions. So OP, what is the platform? What is the audience? What is the genre (or nearest genre)?

I would say that polish wins over innovation -- polish is what turns interest into sales. How many times have you looked at screenshots from a game and thought to yourself "I'm not going to spend money on something that looks so amatuer." Heck, you might not even bother to give the free demo a try.

Keep in mind though, that "polish" is not just graphics, just sound, just gameplay or just great controls. Polish is all of these things in good measure, and if you have all those things, frankly, you don't *need* innovation to be successful.

All of that being said, its the innovative *AND* polished titles that garner the most attention from the press, turn the most heads, and typically pull in the most dollars.

What you're really up against with your first $10,000 in funding is to make a great product that will net you a return, hopefully multiplying your money so that you can either pay the lender back and still have money left over for the next game, and/or enough money to make the next game better -- It would be nice also if you were able to feed yourself and keep a roof over your head [grin].

My recommendation is to provide as much polish as you can over a "safe" product which has some amount of innovation -- Innovation is the hook, polish is what sets it, hard. Since there's money on the line, there's no shame in not being hugely innovative -- especially if you happen to be on the line to pay it back. There's nothing quite so disheartening as to over-innovate and end up with a project that you poured yourself into for months or years, only to have it fail because no one gets it.

Have outsiders playtest early and often -- don't rely on insiders (partners, friends, family) because you won't always get an honest opinion. bring in outsiders -- compensate them if you need to, you can probably get an hour or two of play-testing for $20 cash or gift card. Let them at it with minimal explanation, and play it cool -- don't give away your own excitement for particular features as it will taint your results. Their feedback should tell you what needs to be cut (stuff they find boring), what needs to be improved(stuff that's "kinda" fun), or what needs to come to the forefront (stuff they find really fun but is rare in the game). Don't be afraid to modify your vision of the game if it suits what your play testers are finding most fun. Playtest will also reveal gameplay bugs, and reveal ways of playing that you might not have accounted for internally. I might budget 5-10% of your money for "outside" play testing -- and I think it would be money well spent.

Quote:

Original post by Ravyne There's nothing quite so disheartening as to over-innovate and end up with a project that you poured yourself into for months or years, only to have it fail because no one gets it.

Can you offer actual examples of this happening? (A developer releases a highly ambitious game, game utterly bombs because it's misunderstood but gamers later change their opinion?) It feels to me the chances of a game that has just bombed (and "no one gets") later proving to actually be good are very small.

With a good but severely underperforming game, there are always some "who get it" - the best critics generally - who do see through the veil immediately and praise the game. Not that it saves the game from bombing, because the masses will rarely change their opinion of anything even when it becomes obvious those opinions were based on quicksand.

Quote:

Original post by EJH Yeah I don't think innovation and polish are inversely related, but every project does observe the Good, Fast, Cheap (pick 2) triangle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle

The Good, Fast, Cheap (pick 2) triangle (what I lovingly call "the evil triangle") is actually described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_triangle, where it says that the Project Triangle "can be confused with the Project Management Triangle."
When I followed EJH's link I got lost in all the stuff there, it certainly wasn't describing the evil triangle problem that I am accustomed to.

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari Quote: Original post by Ravyne There's nothing quite so disheartening as to over-innovate and end up with a project that you poured yourself into for months or years, only to have it fail because no one gets it. Can you offer actual examples of this happening? (A developer releases a highly ambitious game, game utterly bombs because it's misunderstood but gamers later change their opinion?) It feels to me the chances of a game that has just bombed (and "no one gets") later proving to actually be good are very small.

I never said anything about anyone changing their minds, but there are plenty of games which tried to over-innovate and few, if anyone, liked [smile].

- Thankyou for all your opinions and feedback, honestly appreciated -

Quote:

So OP, what is the platform? What is the audience? What is the genre (or nearest genre)?

Trying to decide and finalize these specifics is what prompted me to start this thread. My plan is as follows, use Unity to target both PC and Mac computers and aim to release for browsers online. My reasoning is that I know I'll be unable to make my perfect game first so having it online I can allow people to play it for free, to get feedback and test, plus allow me to add content and fix bugs as time continues.

The genre I feel most inclined to follow would be a Role-playing game, personally because I feel its what allows the greatest player-character connection. I hoped to develop Social heavy mechanics that allow strategy in both competitive and co-op communities that I would tie into the online component.

My target audience is the more advanced/hardcore gamers but I plan to make it accessible for casual players through the chosen genre, every player is important and will have necessary skills to aid any community they belong to.

Quote:

Have you tried Mine Craft?

I have ^^ I found it entertaining but I'm of the same opinion as Konidias in that I think it appeals to the more creatively driven players this early in development and I'm more of a fighter/"griefer" which at this point in time are totally despised in game. I have the game bookmarked and follow the development blog but I'm personally holding out for advanced combat.

The success of Minecraft and other indie titles have me of the opinion that a game needs not be fully developed before profits can be made. Consumers seem perfectly happy with pre-funding a games development so long as they see regular progress and roughly know how the finished product will play.

I'm interested, how do you see this financial process?

Quote:

Original post by Ravyne Quote: Original post by Stroppy Katamari Quote: Original post by Ravyne There's nothing quite so disheartening as to over-innovate and end up with a project that you poured yourself into for months or years, only to have it fail because no one gets it. Can you offer actual examples of this happening? (A developer releases a highly ambitious game, game utterly bombs because it's misunderstood but gamers later change their opinion?) It feels to me the chances of a game that has just bombed (and "no one gets") later proving to actually be good are very small. I never said anything about anyone changing their minds, but there are plenty of games which tried to over-innovate and few, if anyone, liked [smile].

The phrase "... and have it fail because no one gets it" implies the game was secretly good, and not actually wrecked by the "over-innovation". The only way that state of affairs could be verified was if the quality was subsequently discovered.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias Quote: Original post by Kylotan I'm surprised at everybody saying you don't have to choose. Of course you have to choose. You don't have infinite resources. You should choose innovation. If your game is interesting and playable enough then it's probably easy to secure additional resources to make it polished later. On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead. This is doubly true when you consider that you are competing against the big boys when it comes to looking and feeling 'polished'. I agree with pothb... I think you're getting confused. Innovation is not the same as gameplay. Innovation is essentially risk. By being innovative, you risk making something that could either be a huge success or a huge failure. Just because your game is innovative doesn't mean it's going to be wildly fun.

I'm not confused at all. He didn't ask about gameplay, he asked about innovation vs. polish. I suggested innovation as that is more likely to lead to something he can sell, given the budget he has. Trying new and different ideas could yield interesting game play. Yes, it also increases the risk of failure, but again, at this budget, that's not such a bad thing.

Quote:

Original post by Ravyne I would say that polish wins over innovation -- polish is what turns interest into sales.

Not when your budget is $10,000 it's not.

At that level, it's all about the idea that you've implemented. People do buy rather unpolished and crude games if they play well and are interesting. They don't typically buy them on the same scale that they buy AAA games on but that doesn't matter, because the people making these games aren't massive dev teams of 50 or 100 people. Polish can come later once the money is coming in.

I'm going to have put my advice down in the polish camp. Innovation is great but it is far better to do a few things really well then lots of thing poorly.

From the sounds of what you want to build a hardcode multiplayer RPG with lots of social interaction. $10,000 isn't going to go far, you'll to need to carefully plan your budget and business plan in advance to ensure you don't run out of money before you have anything to show for your efforts.

Figure out the basic costs first for your project and then see how much that leaves you to work with.

You'll need to consider:
- Software licenses both initial cost and annual fees.
- Hardware requirements
- Hosting costs
- Operational costs

I think the two must go hand-to-hand. If each element would theoretically cost you $10k, but you only have a total budget of $10k, I wouldn't pick one over the other, but reduce the number of features in order to bring each down to $5k.

Keep it simple. Execute it well.

For me personally, I would focus my "polish" on gameplay and interface, not so much on graphics and sound.

I've lately been enjoying an indie called Solium Infernum, a game with very minimal graphics and sound, but a very strong gameplay concept. I think it's just one guy who designed the whole thing (or at most a very small design team). The complete opposite of that is Elemental War of Magic, which has good graphics but a gameplay which seems to change with each and every update, causing me to think that the design team didn't have a strong enough core concept and focused too much of their polishing on the graphics.

There have been no updates in regard to graphics or sound for Solium ($30), but I'm still playing the game after almost six months. There have been tons of gameplay updates for Elemental ($50), but I've put the game to rest after only two weeks, and don't see myself playing the game again.

Quote:

Original post by KylotanI'm not confused at all. He didn't ask about gameplay, he asked about innovation vs. polish. I suggested innovation as that is more likely to lead to something he can sell, given the budget he has. Trying new and different ideas could yield interesting game play. Yes, it also increases the risk of failure, but again, at this budget, that's not such a bad thing.

Again, I still think you're confused. Because you said, and I quote:

"On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead."

This would lead me to believe that you're saying you have to either choose polish, or gameplay... Which would also lead me to believe that you're saying innovation and gameplay go hand in hand, which they do not.

The bottom line is that if the average person had to pick between:

A - A polished game with familar gameplay but no real innovation

or

B - A rough looking game with unfamiliar gameplay that is super innovative

It's only logical to assume that most people would pick A over B. If ugly looking innovative games sold so well, you wouldn't be seeing rehashes of the same games from the past 20 years with prettier graphics. But that is the case. We get sequels and prequels and trilogies and Diner Dash 5 (Collector's Edition) instead of something new and innovative. Because familiarity sells. Because pretty graphics sell. Because established brands sell. Innovation and ugly presentation are huge risks to be taking when you're trying to build a business.

I'm all for innovation... I love playing innovative games. But people like me are a minority. If you really want to reach a wide market, you need to build their trust with some familiar gameplay first. If all you're after is the praise of being this super innovative game developer, then by all means... focus on innovation. But if you're wanting to make money and have a successful business, innovation is going to have to take a back seat for a while.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias "On the other hand, if you spend all your time and money on prettiness but have no gameplay, your product is dead." This would lead me to believe that you're saying you have to either choose polish, or gameplay... Which would also lead me to believe that you're saying innovation and gameplay go hand in hand, which they do not.

I am saying that emphasising innovation - eg. through experimentation, research, prototyping, etc - has more chance of producing good gameplay. Specifically, it has more chance of producing gameplay that is interesting enough (through being different) to make the product financially viable.

Quote:

The bottom line is that if the average person had to pick between: A - A polished game with familar gameplay but no real innovation or B - A rough looking game with unfamiliar gameplay that is super innovative It's only logical to assume that most people would pick A over B. If ugly looking innovative games sold so well, you wouldn't be seeing rehashes of the same games from the past 20 years with prettier graphics.

Go and see how much money Minecraft has made in the last month alone, then come back here.

Not convinced, because it's an anomaly? Go look at Spiderweb Software and see how one man has made a full time job out of making RPGs that look like they were coded in 1996. Or Celso Riva at winterwolves.com who makes a living out of visual novels. Or Simon Read of newstargames.com who lives off making Sensible Soccer clones with added RPG elements.

(Also, you do not have to sell to 'the average person'. It's pretty foolish to even try.)

Quote:

But that is the case. We get sequels and prequels and trilogies and Diner Dash 5 (Collector's Edition) instead of something new and innovative. Because familiarity sells.

You are talking about the mass market of AAA games or super-slick casual games. The original poster is not aiming at the mass market. He has barely enough money to pay 1 programmer for 2 months, never mind buying in assets for art and sound, or any thing else for that matter. So he should go a different route - and the different routes can and do work.

Quote:

If you really want to reach a wide market

And there's your incorrect assumption. You don't need to reach a wide market to be successful. In fact, attempting to reach the wide market is why so many products fail, especially computer games. The original poster defined success as something "that will allow me to continue to develop or expand my game/s?" For this, I would assume he wants return on his investment and to start building up a reputation, maybe to earn enough money to keep going. That doesn't require selling to the mass market, but just to find the right market for his product. And as with the examples above, there are more than enough people willing to buy unpolished but interesting games to keep your business in profit.