Evergreens
Jan. 20th, 2006 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexxkayA game designer I respect once said to me, "If I ever make another Game of the Year that sells only 50,000 copies, please just shoot me." People who have been in the industry for years are often very good at making games that other game afficionados (such as game journalists) love -- but not so good at making games that actually *sell*.
As game budgets increase, it is rare for a game to take up less than a year of production time; Two years or more are not uncommon. And most of these games stay on the shelves for less than 3 months. I, for one, am tired of seeing such a brief return on years of my effort. *Some* games stay on the shelves for six months, a year, or even longer. Sometimes six months can go by where the top 5 sellers *don't change*, just shuffle their order. In this essay, I'm going to try and identify commonalities among these "Evergreen" titles. It goes without saying that an Evergreen has to be fun -- but that clearly isn't sufficient, as many fun games either vanish without a trace, or get only a brief stay on a best seller list.
In looking at Evergreens over the last few years, I see lots of little patterns, but they can be divided up into two broad categories: Mainstream Appeal and Lengthy Games. All Evergreens I looked at had at least one of these in a big way.
Mainstream Appeal
In order to sell lots of copies, people need to "get" the game. Games that are in and about the "real world" have an obvious leg up. Sports games, The Sims (and most of Maxis' output), most Sid Meier games, various "Tycoon" games -- all are eminently "gettable".
Sales can get an extra leg up if the setting is one that hasn't been previously exploited in gaming (Deer Hunter, Roller Coaster Tycoon). This effect is mitigated somewhat by the inevitable horde of copycats -- but not as much as one might think. Being "first in" has clear advantages, that seem to last well into, and often comletely through, the "competitive period".
Another source of popular settings seems to be from other media, Star Wars being the canonical example. In actuality, however, few other media licenses have generated Evergreens, and even Star Wars only rarely manages this.
The other source of familiarity is a game franchse that was once "original IP", but has since become well established in the public mind. Examples include Pokemon, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil. That's great if you *have* such a license; not so much if you're just hoping to establish one, but haven't yet succeeded.
It also helps sales if the setting is one you have a monopoly on. Any one can make space opera games, but only Lucasarts can make Star Wars games. Any one can make monster-collecting games, but Nintendo owns Pokemon. The license itself has enough appeal that it can help drive sales -- and it's an aspect that can't be competed with.
Lengthy Games
Of the Evergreen games I examined, vanishingly few of them had short gameplay. of the ones that did, *all* of them had extremely strong, popular licenses. Hypothesis: Given a certain minimum level of distribution and marketing awareness, the ongoing popularity of a game is more dependent on word-of-mouth than any other factor. People talk to their friends about the game that they're playing lately -- the longer they play any one game, the longer they talk about it, and the more friends of theirs will be inspired to pick it up themselves. (If you can show any counter-examples, I'd love to hear them! Part of the point of writing out theories like this is to find the holes in them...)
Over the last few years, there has been a general trend towards shorter games. This is driven primarily by the economics of increasing technology. As engines pump out more polygons, more artists are needed to create those polygons, pushing development budgets ever upwards. One way to cope with the ever-increasing expense of high-quality content has been to simply make *less* of it. Game journalists at first decried this trend, but have since become complacent about it. It si now common to see a line in a review say something like, "It's too bad the game is only eight hours long, but it was still really fun." That is a perfectly reasonable thing for a game reviewer to say -- but I don't think it's wise for *developers* to be so complacent about this issue.
Game Designers and game journalists both, as players, actually like short games. They are each professionally required to play many, many games, and rarely get to spend as much time as they like with the good ones. For an adult game designer wih a family, playing a game through to the end is a rare luxury -- one that a short game is more likely to provide. Since we know so much about the inner workings of games, we are likely to see through them and become bored fairly early on. In all these respects we are *very unlike* the consumers who actually buy Evergreen games. They have demonstrated that they prefer -- overwhelmingly -- games that can be enjoyed for months on end.
There are several common mechanisms for making games long-lived. Robust multiplayer options make it so that the game never plays the same way twice (sports, FPS, RTS). Some games have a lot of different ways to play, so that the player can enjoy trying out new strategies in a very unstructured manner, watching the emergent results of their actions (Civilization, The Sims). The game can include vast quantities of raw content, so that even a single "playthrough" takes weeks or months (Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft).
What's Missing?
There are two things that are noticeably absent or weak throughout the list of Evergreens, but which many game designers nonetheless focus on: Cutting Edge Graphics, and Complex Stories.
One might think that better graphics means better sales -- but this doesn't hold up to closer examination. Better graphics can make good screenshots, and look good on in-store demos -- but they don't promote the sort of lengthy gameplay that I argue is essential to creating Evergreens. Indeed, they actively work against that goal, by taking resources away from aspects of the project that increase play time. Moreover (at least on PC), extreme hardware requirements limit the audience to only hard-core gamers -- who aren't the people driving the Evergreen market. Awesome graphics may get great reviews and a great-selling debut, but it won't keep a game on the charts for months.
On the contrary, we see many Evergreens that demonstrate the exact opposite. Roller Coaster Tycoon was *years* behind the state of the art graphically at the time of release, but sold millions for years more. In the third installment, it modernized the graphics considerably -- and didn't stay on the charts as long. One of the canny decisions Blizzard made early on in World of Warcraft was to make the art design of their world highly stylized, almost cartoony. This lets them push very few polygons, relative to other games (even MMOs), and keep their hardware requirements low.
What about stories? Huge chunks of the Evergreen games have *no* story at all. Or if they do have a story, it's an emergent one, that exists more in the mind of the player than in anything programmed into the game (The Sims being the most obvious example). Where stories exist at *all* in Evergreens (such as GTA, Diablo, WoW), the stories are cliched, and only tangentially related to the gameplay. They're really just an excuse to "do the next mission", and usually a clumsy excuse at that.
There is, undeniably, a market for games with strong stories. It includes me and many of my friends and colleagues. But it is *not* an Evergreen market. As far as the mainstream is concerned, story is not what they play games for, and they vote with their wallets. A strong story-based game may be a critical darling, or even top the charts for a month or two -- but I can't recall such a game ever *staying* on top for more than that.
As game budgets increase, it is rare for a game to take up less than a year of production time; Two years or more are not uncommon. And most of these games stay on the shelves for less than 3 months. I, for one, am tired of seeing such a brief return on years of my effort. *Some* games stay on the shelves for six months, a year, or even longer. Sometimes six months can go by where the top 5 sellers *don't change*, just shuffle their order. In this essay, I'm going to try and identify commonalities among these "Evergreen" titles. It goes without saying that an Evergreen has to be fun -- but that clearly isn't sufficient, as many fun games either vanish without a trace, or get only a brief stay on a best seller list.
In looking at Evergreens over the last few years, I see lots of little patterns, but they can be divided up into two broad categories: Mainstream Appeal and Lengthy Games. All Evergreens I looked at had at least one of these in a big way.
Mainstream Appeal
In order to sell lots of copies, people need to "get" the game. Games that are in and about the "real world" have an obvious leg up. Sports games, The Sims (and most of Maxis' output), most Sid Meier games, various "Tycoon" games -- all are eminently "gettable".
Sales can get an extra leg up if the setting is one that hasn't been previously exploited in gaming (Deer Hunter, Roller Coaster Tycoon). This effect is mitigated somewhat by the inevitable horde of copycats -- but not as much as one might think. Being "first in" has clear advantages, that seem to last well into, and often comletely through, the "competitive period".
Another source of popular settings seems to be from other media, Star Wars being the canonical example. In actuality, however, few other media licenses have generated Evergreens, and even Star Wars only rarely manages this.
The other source of familiarity is a game franchse that was once "original IP", but has since become well established in the public mind. Examples include Pokemon, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil. That's great if you *have* such a license; not so much if you're just hoping to establish one, but haven't yet succeeded.
It also helps sales if the setting is one you have a monopoly on. Any one can make space opera games, but only Lucasarts can make Star Wars games. Any one can make monster-collecting games, but Nintendo owns Pokemon. The license itself has enough appeal that it can help drive sales -- and it's an aspect that can't be competed with.
Lengthy Games
Of the Evergreen games I examined, vanishingly few of them had short gameplay. of the ones that did, *all* of them had extremely strong, popular licenses. Hypothesis: Given a certain minimum level of distribution and marketing awareness, the ongoing popularity of a game is more dependent on word-of-mouth than any other factor. People talk to their friends about the game that they're playing lately -- the longer they play any one game, the longer they talk about it, and the more friends of theirs will be inspired to pick it up themselves. (If you can show any counter-examples, I'd love to hear them! Part of the point of writing out theories like this is to find the holes in them...)
Over the last few years, there has been a general trend towards shorter games. This is driven primarily by the economics of increasing technology. As engines pump out more polygons, more artists are needed to create those polygons, pushing development budgets ever upwards. One way to cope with the ever-increasing expense of high-quality content has been to simply make *less* of it. Game journalists at first decried this trend, but have since become complacent about it. It si now common to see a line in a review say something like, "It's too bad the game is only eight hours long, but it was still really fun." That is a perfectly reasonable thing for a game reviewer to say -- but I don't think it's wise for *developers* to be so complacent about this issue.
Game Designers and game journalists both, as players, actually like short games. They are each professionally required to play many, many games, and rarely get to spend as much time as they like with the good ones. For an adult game designer wih a family, playing a game through to the end is a rare luxury -- one that a short game is more likely to provide. Since we know so much about the inner workings of games, we are likely to see through them and become bored fairly early on. In all these respects we are *very unlike* the consumers who actually buy Evergreen games. They have demonstrated that they prefer -- overwhelmingly -- games that can be enjoyed for months on end.
There are several common mechanisms for making games long-lived. Robust multiplayer options make it so that the game never plays the same way twice (sports, FPS, RTS). Some games have a lot of different ways to play, so that the player can enjoy trying out new strategies in a very unstructured manner, watching the emergent results of their actions (Civilization, The Sims). The game can include vast quantities of raw content, so that even a single "playthrough" takes weeks or months (Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft).
What's Missing?
There are two things that are noticeably absent or weak throughout the list of Evergreens, but which many game designers nonetheless focus on: Cutting Edge Graphics, and Complex Stories.
One might think that better graphics means better sales -- but this doesn't hold up to closer examination. Better graphics can make good screenshots, and look good on in-store demos -- but they don't promote the sort of lengthy gameplay that I argue is essential to creating Evergreens. Indeed, they actively work against that goal, by taking resources away from aspects of the project that increase play time. Moreover (at least on PC), extreme hardware requirements limit the audience to only hard-core gamers -- who aren't the people driving the Evergreen market. Awesome graphics may get great reviews and a great-selling debut, but it won't keep a game on the charts for months.
On the contrary, we see many Evergreens that demonstrate the exact opposite. Roller Coaster Tycoon was *years* behind the state of the art graphically at the time of release, but sold millions for years more. In the third installment, it modernized the graphics considerably -- and didn't stay on the charts as long. One of the canny decisions Blizzard made early on in World of Warcraft was to make the art design of their world highly stylized, almost cartoony. This lets them push very few polygons, relative to other games (even MMOs), and keep their hardware requirements low.
What about stories? Huge chunks of the Evergreen games have *no* story at all. Or if they do have a story, it's an emergent one, that exists more in the mind of the player than in anything programmed into the game (The Sims being the most obvious example). Where stories exist at *all* in Evergreens (such as GTA, Diablo, WoW), the stories are cliched, and only tangentially related to the gameplay. They're really just an excuse to "do the next mission", and usually a clumsy excuse at that.
There is, undeniably, a market for games with strong stories. It includes me and many of my friends and colleagues. But it is *not* an Evergreen market. As far as the mainstream is concerned, story is not what they play games for, and they vote with their wallets. A strong story-based game may be a critical darling, or even top the charts for a month or two -- but I can't recall such a game ever *staying* on top for more than that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 10:05 pm (UTC)