Wednesday, 22 April 2009

Game Discussion ver 1.0

Last week I teased a something exciting, something I had cooking. Here it is.

I am a big fan of listening to discussions so I decided to start hosting these discussions. This is a trial run. We all have to begin somewhere.

I enlisted my comrade Ben to talk about a subject over MSN. The following text is largely unedited; I tidied up some of my spelling and Ben's punctuation (full stops aren't something that happen to other people) but that's about it. We could have gone on for longer but I'm very aware of internet attention spans so we cut it short. We are going to do at least one more as just the two of us but I really want to open it up to more people.

If you want to take part in one of these please let me know. If you have any feedback about length, quality or content let me know.

Chopemon says:

Ok, this is the first of a hopefully successful discussion roundtable with developers about game issues. I am Oli Clarke Smith aka Chopemon and today we're going to be hitting up the subject of demos. With me is...

Ben says:

Ben Gouldstone, aka Yaw Momma on Xbox Live.

Chopemon says:

Ben and I have worked together in the scary world of development and to start we're going to talk about how to demo 60 seconds of fun in a demo. Ben, why don't you take it away.

Ben says:

well from my perspective, when i start up a demo the first thing I want to see is gameplay
too many times I've downloaded something and I'm barraged with menus and options and lots of stuff I don't need to see. In terms of demos, my personal opinion is that it should send the player right into the thick of it, if you are going to get a punter to buy the game, do it with the experience of playing the game, nothing else. What do you think?

Chopemon says:

I think the problem a lot of demos have is that they barrage the player with a crazy loading screen with insane controls from the start. That is off putting to a lot of people. I see it, decide that it is mostly nonsense and just try to pick it up as I play.
Then there's usually a cutscene. Cutscenes are silly in demos.
I tend to skip them so I can experience the story in the full game. Then you are in the unique problem of demoing gameplay.

Ben says:

I agree, I can understand why some companies do use cutscenes in demos, they want to set the scene for the gamer so they don't just feel dumped in the deep end. I think the problem stems from developers making demos from a developers perspective, not from the angle of the person who is going to play the game.
The average gamer doesn't care how much time a company puts into their cutscenes, mo cap or any of that stuff, if the game that follows it doesn't cut the mustard.

Chopemon says:

By demoing a cutscene you are placing some value on the cutscene, you are telling the player that this cutscene is a selling point of the game. Most games have a laughable story and cutscenes are generally poorly animated and rushed. Look at the Wheelman demo. That game is about driving fast and jumping between cars, not story.
There is almost no value in showing a games cutscenes. But maybe that is our perspective. As designers we only care about how it plays, not the fan-fic style story they are trying to tell.

Ben says:

I think one of the strongest recent demos was Resi 5. The reason it worked so well for me, was the fact that there was a small amount of exposition, so you understood what was going on, there is already a well established back story with the franchise, so you know what to expect and it let you play the game without stopping you to explain boring control schemes.
Gamers are smarter than a lot of developers realise, they know how most games work and can figure it out for themselves. I'm dreaming of a day when you fire up a demo for a racing game, and it starts you mid race doing 100mph and just says, sink or swim.

Chopemon says:

Nice point. Resi 5 worked because of the imagery. People react well to being surrounded by zombies. We know that situation and we know (kind of) what to do.
The Resi 5 demo did what Microsoft suggested a couple of years ago; demo the best 15 minutes, not the first 15 minutes. The Resi 5 demo is balls to the wall and shows the best bits of the combat and sells the mechanics of the game well. In comparison, it takes about an hour to get through the Too Human demo. Do a lot of people care enough to put that much time into a demo?

Ben says:

I didn't.
It almost killed me playing that. It makes you feel dumb. I think that's a crime a lot of demos suffer from, is a lack of active learning. Look at Burnout Paradise, you start the game and it tells you, this is a map, this is a car, this is a short cut, this is a road blah blah blah.
I loved it when you could play a game, and not know everything that was going to happen or everything that you could do. The Burnout Paradise demo just gave you everything and it put me off. Which is sad, because the full game is great if you miss all the tutorial stuff.

Chopemon says:

I agree. Developers haven't completely honed how to make a demo. It is hard though. How do you sell your game in a small amount of time whilst explaining the controls and providing a learning curve? Tutorials are boring and are normally badly done anyway but games have such complex control schemes that they are hard to just dump on the player. The only demo I can think of that got the balance between tutorial and freedom of play right was Crackdown.

Ben says:

You're right, the fun to be had from that game was the fun you found. The play it your way approach is great for demos, because there is no punishment, you aren't affecting high scores or ranks. I think the reason Crackdown worked so well as a demo, was that the best aspect, or at least the most addictive aspect of that game was free running.
The ability to leap as high as a sky scraper never got old, and that's why it worked, because the most fun part of the game was there from second 1 in the demo.

Chopemon says:

I want to ask, what would you say is your demo to purchase rate? Mine is pretty high. Regardless of me buying most games anyway, my purchases are often affirmed by a demo. Recently I was umming and ahhing about Red Faction Guerilla but the demo sold me on it.

Ben says:

I wouldn't say it was that high for me, there are few games that have really sold themselves to me based on a demo. Most of the time I know if I want to buy a game before I play the demo, the demo usually just confirms my thoughts. Sometimes it almost works the other way, warning me off something i didn't want
I can honestly say the last time I remember a demo selling me the game was Grim Fandango;
I played the demo and wanted to know more.
For me, Red Faction Guerilla put me off.
I'm very much into character development and narrative and plot in games. If done right I think they are just what a game needs to draw emotion from a player. I know its hard but it is possible. When i played the Red Faction demo, I thought, oh cool, you can smash everything.... now what? It just felt like same old same old.
To me anyway
Why did it excite you so much?

Chopemon says:

I guess I just how it appealed to the lowest sense of fun in videogames. I could blow stuff up and it looked real pretty. It was just mindless fun, a good fun sand box, playful experience. I tend to be like you, my decision to buy has been reaffirmed. I buy so many games that demos become a reassurance rather than a converter.
Did you used to pick up demo disk magazines before the rise of online demos?

Ben says:

Yeah I did, much more for PC than console though. I think it was just the range of available demos. I used to install all of them and then give each one 5 mins, if it didn't have me buy then I dumped it. I would even sometimes replay a demo as soon as I finished it because it drew me in so much.
I think part of it is the fact that we know so much about games that are going to come out these days there's no surprise any more.

Chopemon says:

I can't remember how many times I replayed the Starcraft demo mini campaign.
I think for us we already know what the game is but the vast majority of people often have no idea what a game is until they play a demo. We keep our ears pretty close to the ground and watch all the videos and read the previews. A lot of people don't. That's why I wonder if demos do enough to sell themselves.

Ben says:

You hit on it earlier, but don't you think timing in demos is sometimes dubious?
Like with the Too Human demo?
Way too long, where as some don't even let you get started.
The Mirrors Edge demo worked well for me length wise, but it was punishing, making you re-run sections over and over if you pressed a wrong button.

Chopemon says:

That was the game though. The game was brutal if you were 'bad' at it. The worst bit of that demo was the tutorial! I enjoy demos like Ninja Blade and FEAR where they do remix levels. The levels are chopped and changed so that you play the demo, enjoy some excellent buts but the levels in the game are still fresh and relatively unspoilt.
My last point for this topic is where do demos go in the future? Microsoft TRCs don't allow save games but the PS3 TRCs do. This allowed the orbs collected in the Ninja Gaiden Sigma demo to carry over to the full game. More linking of demos to games could be vital in the demo to purchase rate so they don't feel throw away. What would you like to see demos start doing?

Ben says:

I like the idea of linking demos to the released titles, some people might see it as a cheeky marketing scheme though. I think more than anything I want to see more trust in gamers, in terms of skill and intelligence. Let them work some things out for themselves, surprise them.

Chopemon says:

That is an excellent closing comment. I think this went pretty well for a first effort. Thanks a lot Ben, good to have you aboard for this.

Ben says:

Really enjoyed it, thanks for asking me.

9 comments:

  1. An interesting read, guys. Ironically, I spent the whole of yesterday playing xbox marketplace demos and contemplating the difficulty levels presented in them. In a lot of ways, I agree with what you're saying about just being able to "jump in" and pick it up as you go along. Sometimes, the first thing you see is a mind-boggling control layout screen. This can put people off straight away, in my mind. (The Ninja Blade demo does this to an extent.) Not all gamers want to feel challenged, and would be intimidated by a huge list of controls for a 20 minute demo. More experienced players such as us will just skip it and have fun finding out for themselves. Perhaps an _option_ to display controller prompts in appropriate places would satisfy both types of gamer?
    Also, the Resident Evil 5 demo... brilliant. Sold it to me. But, is it actually possible to finish the thing? I played a few times and always got killed by the "boss" at the end. I took this to be a clever gimmick and enjoyed it. The difficulty level peaks suddenly and you become overwhelmed with fear and panic. You fumble around in the inventory trying to shove some herbs Sheva's way, and then the hammer/chainsaw is brought down on the pair of you. I sh*t my pants, and started counting the days til loan day - but this could definately put off the less experienced gamer. "This game is too intense for me... I die every time, and this is only the demo". Like most things, the answer is in finding a balance. But what do I know, I'm just an artist? :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is all pretty interesting stuff. These days I work off two principles.

    1. A game is already so pumped up in my mind that I'm going buy it anyway - a pre-release demo might be downloaded, if time allows, so that I can pickup the control scheme and get those 'early mistakes' out the way with.

    2. A demo will be downloaded for games I'm not certain of. A recent example of this was Halo Wars. I wasn't ready to hand out £40 until I've made sure that the control system worked as I wanted it to.

    Neither of these really sell the principle of the game to me. If a game get's to the demo stage and I've never heard of it, chances are I won't ever play it.

    There are also a couple of other aspects about demos which are worth touching on - neither of which are really to do with selling the final game.

    I am reminded of my youth when my £2.00 per week pocket money didn't get me a whole lot of games. It did however get me a magazine or two and with those magazines came demos. Back then I remember pouring hours and hours into the same 30minutes of game and actually enjoying it. The sheer number of demos I had made for alot of game play time. Granted that I never got to know the full story or explored everything the game had to offer but I still had a good time. I still see this behaviour today in younger kids who see a demo as a mini game, not as an advertising tool.

    Another thing about modern demos that really annoys me is the download size. I really resent having to download a demo that is over 1Gb in size. A while ago I downloaded a wrestling demo (smackdown vs raw 2008 is memory serves - in this case the demo saved me from spending my precious £40). I get that the game uses high res textures, high quality images and all the rest of it but why the hell did it include tutorial videos?!? Videos that showed me how to play - no thanks. Now I'm sure the video didn't take up that much space but I resented having to download it anyway.

    Finally, my view of a perfect demo is one which presents a challenge but is not impossible - I wan't to complete it but not just walk through with my eyes closed. I wan't something that throws me into the action, shows me some of the killer features but hint's that there is so much more to look forward to. A great example of this would be a fighting sim like DoA4 or Street Fighter - you get to play the in all it's full glory. You get to checkout the control system and learn some advanced moves but you know that pretty soon you will be able to play with all those extra characters and that suggests there is whole lot more fun waiting for you. I definatly do not want to see a picture of the control pad with 30 different actions listed before I even have a clue what said actions really do. I don't really want to play a tutorial level and I definatly do not want the game to end after that tutorial.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm interested that you thought the Resi 5 demo was good. As somebody who loved Resi 4, the demo for 5 is the reason I didn't buy the game. It dumped me in a room full of monsters, giving me no chance to work out what was going on and just kept throwing more monsters at me until I died. There was also a vaguely baffling array of controls and a confusing inventory system, plus a partner who kept randomly dropping dead. The whole thing was a complete mess and totally put me off the game.

    I thought the Crackdown demo was an interesting approach, but that it slightly harmed the final game. The demo gave you access to powers that took hours to get in the real thing, which made the game itself feel a bit constrained if you'd played the demo first. Dead Rising possibly had a similar problem. I've known a few people comment that the demo for that is better than the game itself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm going to get nostalgic now, but I have a sensible point to make regarding the first 15 minutes vs. the best 15 minutes.

    Back in the days of shareware, Doom, Rise of the Triads, Duke Nukem etc. when life was golden and you could leave your front door unlocked, games where compelling right from the very beginning. This meant that demos could be (and usually were) just the first few levels of the game. I think it's a sad reflection that the first 15 minutes are no longer good enough to hook people and rather are something that has to be endured until you can get to the "good stuff".

    There is also a wider point here about players getting the most out of a game in the time they spend playing it. When you look at the graphs for how far through most players play the game it has a pretty linear drop off. For Half Life 2 Episode Two about 50% of players complete the Episode, about 75% made it half way through. If the best 15 minutes of your game is in the middle or towards the end a lot of your audience is not going to experience it and might not come back for the sequel.

    A comment regarding the blog post itself – this was a good read but might have been more accessible as a podcast (it felt like reading the script for a film rather than watching the film). Just my two Canadian cents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow, thanks for all the comments.

    Canadian James, to your point about it being better as a podcast, I eventually want to do a podcast but I think I need to have a bigger readership.

    To the other James, I really didn't feel that Resi 5 was too different at its core to 4 and as someone who has poop socked a lot of Resi 4, I slipped straight into it and got straight to busting heads.

    Phil, your point about demo sizes is unavoidable. The Smackdown thing is unforgivable but the Crackdown demo for example contained a third of a city and the lodded version of the rest of it. It's just something we have to suck in the modern age of games.

    Thanks for all the comments guys, if any of you would like to be part of this in the future, the invitation is always open.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "To the other James, I really didn't feel that Resi 5 was too different at its core to 4"

    My memory of Resi 4 was creeping around a spooky village trying to avoid combat as much as possible, so the Resi 5 demo was almost the exact opposite of what I wanted from it. That said, I may well have filtered my memories of Resi 4 to only include the bits I liked. I do recall not getting on with the combat that much at the time.

    On the podcast thing, I don't think an existing readership is necessary. Have it available on iTunes, and people will download it. If it's any good, the audience will grow. It's not like there are a huge number of UK based gaming Podcasts around.

    Back on the demo thing, the absolute worst demo I can remember recently is the Banjo Kazooie one (the new game, not the port of the N64 one). The demo was utterly terrible, stripping down the introductory section of the game to its bare essentials and dumping loads of information on you at once then throwing you into a stage from half way through the game. They tried to show you everything, and ended up with a confusing mess.

    The full game is much gentler and lets you slowly find your way through the game, learning as you go. It turned out to be one of my favourite games of last year, but if it hadn't been for good comments on forums, I would have completely forgotten about it after playing the demo.

    To be fair, I've no idea how they could have fixed the demo, given the structure of the game. The game just isn't well suited to one, as you need to learn how to build things before you can really play it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, just thought of something else. You might not have seen it, but I thought the way we did the Sega Superstars Tennis demo was quite nice. When you first run it, you only get the option to play a match, but finish that and it unlocks a mini game which you can then select from the main menu. Do the mini game, and you get another court to play on (or something like that; I forget the exact order).

    It was a custom front end and unlock structure done just for the demo and seemed like a nice way to offer a few bits of the game for the player to look at, but in a controlled way. It also offered a fair bit of play if you wanted it, but with nice jumping off points for people who didn't want to dedicate a lot of time to a demo.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I forgot about the SST demo. Something else did something similar recently but not to the same extent. That was a good demo and a good idea.

    I've kind of decided to look into podcasting equipment so I can do discussions in person and also use Skype. We'll see how it goes. Would be good to be able to record stuff at PAX in September.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I kinda feel I've missed the boat on getting in on the Demo topic here guys, but thanks very much to Oli (Chopemon) and all the comments from the other guys.

    Theres some really interesting perspectives on what works and what doesn't, I like the point about the Doom demo etc about the first 15 mins being exciting enough to hold your attention.

    I think the issue stems from the nature of games now, there is much more fed into exposition and fleshing out worlds. In Doom there was no method of really delivering that other than text, so it was "you're in hell, you have a gun, shoot stuff" and then you're into the "good stuff".

    I think some actions could and should be taken to understand how and why those old school demos worked so well.

    ReplyDelete