7 ms·

How to explain your game to an asshole

180 points by arthurbrown 15y ago

chrisacky 15y ago
You can switchout `game` to `startup` and the similarities are quite the same. The four points that you discuss to explain your game as quick as possible is similar to the elavator pitch for startups, or even more accurately Adeo Ressi's MadLibs for pitching... My company, __(insert name of company)__, is developing __(a defined offering)__ to help __(a defined audience)__ __(solve a problem)__ with __(secret sauce)__. He did a video here. https://vimeo.com/16447520 https://vimeo.com/16447520 At a glance when I first saw those snapshots of you giving the talk I thought you were Sheldon Cooper for a split second! Perhaps you get that a lot!
- Random_Person 15y ago
  That was an awesome video. Thanks! I'll be pitching new board games this year at shows and I'm certainly going to use this.
phzbOx 15y ago
Interesting article. I like the provocative asshole.. with a nice conclusion at the end specifying that people are just busy and not being direct is just non-respectful to your audience.
sjmulder 15y ago
Even worse is when you describe your game by the technology it sues. This is something that tends to happen a lot in the open source world: “X is an SDL/Python platformer for Linux, Window$, Darwin and OS/2 licensed under the GPL (version 3!)”
- manojlds 15y ago
  Exactly, I often get put off with games for Linux. Info that is meant for developers or the tech enthusiasts is not really great for gamers. Also, not greate for developers / tech enthusiasts who are in the "gaming" mode if you get what I mean.
  - ido 15y ago
    Actually it's a pretty good indication that you should probably not play the game, as it is likely made by someone who values programming more than game design (this is also the reason why there are comparatively many more good open source game engines than good open source games).
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  This is true, perhaps it is something to do with making sure people have the correct dependencies installed. Many open source games websites are badly designed also, often the front page is full of feeds from the developers blog or changelogs. All you really need is a trailer video , a few screenshots and a download link.
  - jebblue 15y ago
    Ironically the author had this to say: "The first bad way to explain your game is to not explain it at all. People often put out some raw footage or a screenshot and let it speak for itself." Also, I would not be a Minecraft fan if my son had not shown me Paul Soares Jr's excellent "How to survive your first night in Minecraft" video. The Minecraft web site itself never appealed to me though it's better now.
FredBrach 15y ago
Point number two, before you even finish your first sentence, is to tell us the coolest unique thing about it. There isn't a cool unique new thing in one game. There is a cool unique new thing every 3-5 years. It's just a fact: most games are remake if you prefer. I'm not saying games are not enjoyable and if they are for you, it's very cool.
- GuiA 15y ago
  Most indie games have a cool quirk that makes them unique. Maybe it's not new, or even unheard of, but the way it is baked into the gameplay is what sets them apart. Of course if you're a game company making a generic zombie FPS, then you might not have something cool and unique to pitch your game with— but in that case, it won't be a surprise to anyone if your game performs miserably.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- xenophanes 15y ago
  I made a 2d platformer game. It's a remake in many ways. I didn't spend much time on it. But does it have something cool and unique? Yup. It has a custom physics engine. Is the physics engine better than the ones other people make? Does it have some fancy theoretical advance? No way. It's simple and naive. But it's different b/c i just made one up from scratch instead of copying it. It's a little quirky. That means if you played a bunch of platformers before, this one won't feel too repetitive, because the physics are different. It gives you something new to learn and get used to and figure out how to use to your advantage. Example: in my game, ground tiles have high friction, air has much less, and ice tiles have even less than that. Therefore to land on ice and stop yourself you usually want to jump right after landing and put on the brakes while back in the air instead of while sliding on the ice. Every game really does need to have something that's different from other games to give you some reason to play this game instead of those other games. And it's not that hard to do that. Even if you're making a remake. All remakes should change something to be a little different from prior games. Even if you're doing a sequel and do not change the art or game engine at all, you could still say "what it has that no other game has is MORE LEVELS that you haven't played before in the original". That will explain to people why to buy it.
larrik 15y ago
I buy a lot of Humble Bundles. A lot of those games I haven't even tried, because I can't figure out what any of them really are. Their websites are usually terrible (one game even shut down their website during the bundle. How helpful!). Why would I spend time on them, then, when I have a ton of games that I know what to expect with?
haberman 15y ago
I like the sentiment, and I would extend it to websites for just about anything. Often I'll use Wikipedia to learn about X instead of going to X's own website because Wikipedia will at least say what it is instead of blowing a bunch of marketing-speak at me and asking me to download a PDF whitepaper.
- swah 15y ago
  The other day I was in the bathroom and there was an Oxford dictionary in front of me, so I looked at the definition for 4 words (root beer, ginger, tumbleweed, ?) in a couple minutes. Then I realized if I had done that on Wikipedia it would probably take me an hour.
  - lparry 15y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Comparing reading a dictionary definition to an encyclopedia entry, and complaining that the encyclopedia had more detail? Perhaps it'd be a fairer comparison if you compared reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article to the dictionary definition
    - jacalata 15y ago
      Perhaps it'd be a fairer comparison if he compared reading the Encyclopedia Britannica to wikipedia. Or perhaps he's trying to make the point that sometimes all you needed was a definition, and you should have <your favourite search engine>'d "define: root beer" instead of going to wikipedia to be distracted?
      - swah 15y ago
        Yes, but I didn't knew the define trick, so Googling and going to the first result (always Wikipedia) is "consulting the dictionary" these days.
        herval 15y ago
geuis 15y ago
I like this quote "But reasonable people still respond better to writing that values their time, and doesn’t waste it to gratify the writer’s pretensions". Sadly the author doesn't take his own advice and regales the reader with about 6 paragraphs of text before getting to the point. Once we're at the point, it's all interesting. The lead up, not so much. You see, I'm an asshole too. I don't really know who you are yet and don't give a flip about why you did or didn't go to GDC. So get to the point first and then add the details about yourself once you have interested me. Excellent write up otherwise.
- scott_s 15y ago
  Keep in mind this was a talk originally. Talks are going to be structured differently than essays. Although, a professor at my university gave excellent advice to someone in my research group after an interview talk dry-run: put your conclusions first. Say the most important thing as soon as you can, because most people will not follow the whole talk, for many different reasons. I've tried to structure talks like this since hearing that.
polemic 15y ago
Kinda wondered why it's "to an asshole"? It's a great set of tips that would make sense for explaining anything you are seriously passionate about to anyone who isn't quite as passionate about it.
- robertskmiles 15y ago
  Would you have clicked on a link titled "How to explain your game"? I probably wouldn't have.
  - polemic 15y ago
    So, link bait. Fun.
- mkolodny 15y ago
  It definitely gets the point across that they care a lot less about what you're talking about than you do.
- billrobertson42 15y ago
  I think the point is that most people will let you fumble around/meander until they understand or until you stop. Whereas an 'asshole' will simply tune you out otherwise.
sreyemhtes 15y ago
From my experience.....this is how to explain your game to everybody. An asshole will just tell you to stfu if you waste his time. Which I guess is how the article concludes itself.
benohear 15y ago
Maybe there's a series to be made here, a little like Zed Shaw's "Learn X the hard way", only it would be "Explain Y to an arsehole".

180 points by arthurbrown 15y ago

You can switchout `game` to `startup` and the similarities are quite the same. The four points that you discuss to explain your game as quick as possible is similar to the elavator pitch for startups, or even more accurately Adeo Ressi's MadLibs for pitching... My company, __(insert name of company)__, is developing __(a defined offering)__ to help __(a defined audience)__ __(solve a problem)__ with __(secret sauce)__. He did a video here. https://vimeo.com/16447520 https://vimeo.com/16447520 At a glance when I first saw those snapshots of you giving the talk I thought you were Sheldon Cooper for a split second! Perhaps you get that a lot!

Random_Person 15y ago
That was an awesome video. Thanks! I'll be pitching new board games this year at shows and I'm certainly going to use this.

phzbOx 15y ago

Interesting article. I like the provocative asshole.. with a nice conclusion at the end specifying that people are just busy and not being direct is just non-respectful to your audience.

sjmulder 15y ago

Even worse is when you describe your game by the technology it sues. This is something that tends to happen a lot in the open source world: “X is an SDL/Python platformer for Linux, Window$, Darwin and OS/2 licensed under the GPL (version 3!)”

manojlds 15y ago
Exactly, I often get put off with games for Linux. Info that is meant for developers or the tech enthusiasts is not really great for gamers. Also, not greate for developers / tech enthusiasts who are in the "gaming" mode if you get what I mean.
- ido 15y ago
  Actually it's a pretty good indication that you should probably not play the game, as it is likely made by someone who values programming more than game design (this is also the reason why there are comparatively many more good open source game engines than good open source games).
jiggy2011 15y ago
This is true, perhaps it is something to do with making sure people have the correct dependencies installed. Many open source games websites are badly designed also, often the front page is full of feeds from the developers blog or changelogs. All you really need is a trailer video , a few screenshots and a download link.
- jebblue 15y ago
  Ironically the author had this to say: "The first bad way to explain your game is to not explain it at all. People often put out some raw footage or a screenshot and let it speak for itself." Also, I would not be a Minecraft fan if my son had not shown me Paul Soares Jr's excellent "How to survive your first night in Minecraft" video. The Minecraft web site itself never appealed to me though it's better now.

FredBrach 15y ago

Point number two, before you even finish your first sentence, is to tell us the coolest unique thing about it. There isn't a cool unique new thing in one game. There is a cool unique new thing every 3-5 years. It's just a fact: most games are remake if you prefer. I'm not saying games are not enjoyable and if they are for you, it's very cool.

GuiA 15y ago
Most indie games have a cool quirk that makes them unique. Maybe it's not new, or even unheard of, but the way it is baked into the gameplay is what sets them apart. Of course if you're a game company making a generic zombie FPS, then you might not have something cool and unique to pitch your game with— but in that case, it won't be a surprise to anyone if your game performs miserably.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
xenophanes 15y ago
I made a 2d platformer game. It's a remake in many ways. I didn't spend much time on it. But does it have something cool and unique? Yup. It has a custom physics engine. Is the physics engine better than the ones other people make? Does it have some fancy theoretical advance? No way. It's simple and naive. But it's different b/c i just made one up from scratch instead of copying it. It's a little quirky. That means if you played a bunch of platformers before, this one won't feel too repetitive, because the physics are different. It gives you something new to learn and get used to and figure out how to use to your advantage. Example: in my game, ground tiles have high friction, air has much less, and ice tiles have even less than that. Therefore to land on ice and stop yourself you usually want to jump right after landing and put on the brakes while back in the air instead of while sliding on the ice. Every game really does need to have something that's different from other games to give you some reason to play this game instead of those other games. And it's not that hard to do that. Even if you're making a remake. All remakes should change something to be a little different from prior games. Even if you're doing a sequel and do not change the art or game engine at all, you could still say "what it has that no other game has is MORE LEVELS that you haven't played before in the original". That will explain to people why to buy it.

larrik 15y ago

I buy a lot of Humble Bundles. A lot of those games I haven't even tried, because I can't figure out what any of them really are. Their websites are usually terrible (one game even shut down their website during the bundle. How helpful!). Why would I spend time on them, then, when I have a ton of games that I know what to expect with?

haberman 15y ago

I like the sentiment, and I would extend it to websites for just about anything. Often I'll use Wikipedia to learn about X instead of going to X's own website because Wikipedia will at least say what it is instead of blowing a bunch of marketing-speak at me and asking me to download a PDF whitepaper.

swah 15y ago
The other day I was in the bathroom and there was an Oxford dictionary in front of me, so I looked at the definition for 4 words (root beer, ginger, tumbleweed, ?) in a couple minutes. Then I realized if I had done that on Wikipedia it would probably take me an hour.
- lparry 15y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Comparing reading a dictionary definition to an encyclopedia entry, and complaining that the encyclopedia had more detail? Perhaps it'd be a fairer comparison if you compared reading the first paragraph of the wikipedia article to the dictionary definition
  - jacalata 15y ago
    Perhaps it'd be a fairer comparison if he compared reading the Encyclopedia Britannica to wikipedia. Or perhaps he's trying to make the point that sometimes all you needed was a definition, and you should have <your favourite search engine>'d "define: root beer" instead of going to wikipedia to be distracted?
    - swah 15y ago
      Yes, but I didn't knew the define trick, so Googling and going to the first result (always Wikipedia) is "consulting the dictionary" these days.
      - herval 15y ago

geuis 15y ago

I like this quote "But reasonable people still respond better to writing that values their time, and doesn’t waste it to gratify the writer’s pretensions". Sadly the author doesn't take his own advice and regales the reader with about 6 paragraphs of text before getting to the point. Once we're at the point, it's all interesting. The lead up, not so much. You see, I'm an asshole too. I don't really know who you are yet and don't give a flip about why you did or didn't go to GDC. So get to the point first and then add the details about yourself once you have interested me. Excellent write up otherwise.

scott_s 15y ago
Keep in mind this was a talk originally. Talks are going to be structured differently than essays. Although, a professor at my university gave excellent advice to someone in my research group after an interview talk dry-run: put your conclusions first. Say the most important thing as soon as you can, because most people will not follow the whole talk, for many different reasons. I've tried to structure talks like this since hearing that.

polemic 15y ago

Kinda wondered why it's "to an asshole"? It's a great set of tips that would make sense for explaining anything you are seriously passionate about to anyone who isn't quite as passionate about it.

robertskmiles 15y ago
Would you have clicked on a link titled "How to explain your game"? I probably wouldn't have.
- polemic 15y ago
  So, link bait. Fun.
mkolodny 15y ago
It definitely gets the point across that they care a lot less about what you're talking about than you do.
billrobertson42 15y ago
I think the point is that most people will let you fumble around/meander until they understand or until you stop. Whereas an 'asshole' will simply tune you out otherwise.

sreyemhtes 15y ago

From my experience.....this is how to explain your game to everybody. An asshole will just tell you to stfu if you waste his time. Which I guess is how the article concludes itself.

benohear 15y ago

Maybe there's a series to be made here, a little like Zed Shaw's "Learn X the hard way", only it would be "Explain Y to an arsehole".