7 ms·

Especially as reduced scope might torpedo the entire reason for the game to exist. A buggy game with a large scope may be orders of magnitude more successful th

Especially as reduced scope might torpedo the entire reason for the game to exist. A buggy game with a large scope may be orders of magnitude more successful than a well made small game.

p1necone 5y ago
Yeah - it's a lot easier to reduce scope when you're building a tool for people to do work with. You ask "can they do the job with this tool" and cut anything superfluous for the first release. What is necessary in a game is much less clear cut. I feel like the trend towards minimalism in game design is a little misguided. When you're building a world for people to be immersed in little "unnecessary" features, or roadblocks, or redundancies in both setting and gameplay can make that world feel more real and engaging.
- grp000 5y ago
  Where does StarCitizen fit in there? It feels like such a good example I have to ask the question.
  - celdon25 5y ago
    I'd assume it has a lot to do with decisions made at the top (see track record): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(video_game_developer)#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(video_game_deve... (Disclaimer: I don't know the guy's management techniques or specifics, it's just a guess) Crowdfunding is great when no VC will fund your track record. But it leads to even less incentive to produce a ROI. You can see evidence of this same pattern in the crypto ICO wave of 2017, where the business endgame was usually the raise, not the exit.
  - m0llusk 5y ago
    Star Citizen is a great example of how subjective all this is. Features have been delivered that most game developers would not even attempt. If your primary goal is smooth, polished, predictable progress then your scope and potential features will be more limited. In the case of Star Citizen it has a large player base even at the current extended alpha state.
  - maccard 5y ago
    Sometimes there are exceptions to the rule. Star Citizen is definitely an outlier.
- ido 5y ago
  Not every game's goal is to build an immersive world. And polish and scope are related but not the same thing - in fact the argument is often that with a small core you can afford to polish what you have a lot more.
- simion314 5y ago
  >I feel like the trend towards minimalism in game design is a little misguided. When you're building a world for people to be immersed in little "unnecessary" features, or roadblocks, or redundancies in both setting and gameplay can make that world feel more real and engaging. I think it depends, I for example hate "Extreme" realism, like for example in Kingdom Come: Deliverance picking flowers includes a lengthy animation, in Dragon Age Inquisition picking resources has the same flaw, first mods that appear attempt to speed the animation, or remove it... why do we need a grind simulator in this games, this would make sense in farming simulator maybe, as an option because it feels I am force to waste time doing repetitive things that are not enjoyable.
ehnto 5y ago
Or more recently, because you promised said scope in a kickstarter/early access phase. This does not seem to apply to AAA companies marketing, for some reason.
resonious 5y ago
I've had this happen to a lot of my hobby game projects. At first, the scope is too large because I have pie-in-the-sky ideas. I then recognize the large scope and try to pare down. Once I've reached something achievable, I find that it's basically a completely different game and doesn't seem fun anymore.
- maccard 5y ago
  I've worked on a few different games and the one thing they've all had in common is that they are all still fun when you carve them back to their basic core loop. If your project wasn't fun at its core, it's unlikely to be fun when you've wrapped it in layers of other features
joveian 5y ago
As someone who has played a lot of games (due to health issues), that is one kind of thinking that gives the whole industry a really scammy feeling. It only works because refunding is still frequently not possible. I'd much rather play a shorter game that works than a long buggy mess.
- reitzensteinm 5y ago
  I don't disagree.

Especially as reduced scope might torpedo the entire reason for the game to exist. A buggy game with a large scope may be orders of magnitude more successful than a well made small game.

p1necone 5y ago

Yeah - it's a lot easier to reduce scope when you're building a tool for people to do work with. You ask "can they do the job with this tool" and cut anything superfluous for the first release. What is necessary in a game is much less clear cut. I feel like the trend towards minimalism in game design is a little misguided. When you're building a world for people to be immersed in little "unnecessary" features, or roadblocks, or redundancies in both setting and gameplay can make that world feel more real and engaging.

grp000 5y ago
Where does StarCitizen fit in there? It feels like such a good example I have to ask the question.
- celdon25 5y ago
  I'd assume it has a lot to do with decisions made at the top (see track record): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(video_game_developer)#Career https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(video_game_deve... (Disclaimer: I don't know the guy's management techniques or specifics, it's just a guess) Crowdfunding is great when no VC will fund your track record. But it leads to even less incentive to produce a ROI. You can see evidence of this same pattern in the crypto ICO wave of 2017, where the business endgame was usually the raise, not the exit.
- m0llusk 5y ago
  Star Citizen is a great example of how subjective all this is. Features have been delivered that most game developers would not even attempt. If your primary goal is smooth, polished, predictable progress then your scope and potential features will be more limited. In the case of Star Citizen it has a large player base even at the current extended alpha state.
- maccard 5y ago
  Sometimes there are exceptions to the rule. Star Citizen is definitely an outlier.
ido 5y ago
Not every game's goal is to build an immersive world. And polish and scope are related but not the same thing - in fact the argument is often that with a small core you can afford to polish what you have a lot more.
simion314 5y ago
>I feel like the trend towards minimalism in game design is a little misguided. When you're building a world for people to be immersed in little "unnecessary" features, or roadblocks, or redundancies in both setting and gameplay can make that world feel more real and engaging. I think it depends, I for example hate "Extreme" realism, like for example in Kingdom Come: Deliverance picking flowers includes a lengthy animation, in Dragon Age Inquisition picking resources has the same flaw, first mods that appear attempt to speed the animation, or remove it... why do we need a grind simulator in this games, this would make sense in farming simulator maybe, as an option because it feels I am force to waste time doing repetitive things that are not enjoyable.

ehnto 5y ago

Or more recently, because you promised said scope in a kickstarter/early access phase. This does not seem to apply to AAA companies marketing, for some reason.

resonious 5y ago

I've had this happen to a lot of my hobby game projects. At first, the scope is too large because I have pie-in-the-sky ideas. I then recognize the large scope and try to pare down. Once I've reached something achievable, I find that it's basically a completely different game and doesn't seem fun anymore.

maccard 5y ago
I've worked on a few different games and the one thing they've all had in common is that they are all still fun when you carve them back to their basic core loop. If your project wasn't fun at its core, it's unlikely to be fun when you've wrapped it in layers of other features

joveian 5y ago

As someone who has played a lot of games (due to health issues), that is one kind of thinking that gives the whole industry a really scammy feeling. It only works because refunding is still frequently not possible. I'd much rather play a shorter game that works than a long buggy mess.

reitzensteinm 5y ago
I don't disagree.