Contents
Letters
Mark Baldwin; John R. Powers, III; Mike Joslyn
A Layman’s Doom
Doug Clapp
Shakeout!
Gordon Walton and Laura Miskines
The Journal Reporter
Kellyn Beck
Reviewing Computer Games
Ken St. Andre
Silicon Valley Meets Hollywood
Rob Fulop
Editor Chris Crawford
Subscriptions The Journal of Computer Game Design is published six times a year. To subscribe to The Journal, send a check or money order for $30 to:
The Journal of Computer Game Design
5251 Sierra Road
San Jose, CA 95132
Submissions Material for this Journal is solicited from the readership. Articles should address artistic or technical aspects of computer game design at a level suitable for professionals in the industry. Reviews of games are not published by this Journal. All articles must be submitted electronically, either on Macintosh disk , through MCI Mail (my username is CCRAWFORD), through the JCGD BBS, or via direct modem. No payments are made for articles. Authors are hereby notified that their submissions may be reprinted in Computer Gaming World.
Back Issues Back issues of the Journal are available. Volume 1 may be purchased only in its entirety; the price is $30. Individual numbers from Volume 2 cost $5 apiece.
Copyright The contents of this Journal are copyright © Chris Crawford 1988.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________Letters
from Mark Baldwin
Slowly through time and the actions of a few special individuals in our industry, a community has been in forging for the betterment of all of us. That community has been assisted greatly by such vehicles as this Journal and the Computer Game Developers Conference. It is the friendships and associations that exist between us. It is the skills, abilities and professionalism that we all share.
With this thought in mind, I would like to propose that it is now time for the formalization of that community. It is time to mold an association of professional game designers.
I am not talking about a union or a guild for it is not desirable to have this association control the individuals from which it is composed. I am speaking of and what seems to be envisioned by many of our colleagues is an association which will support the individual and the industry, from the union of the individuals in it. The Science Fiction Writers of America and other similar artistic associations are good models from which we can aspire. A loose federation of professionals who work to add to the total community.
There are many tangible reasons for forming such an association.Such things could include formal means of communication. From this we can learn from others mistakes. It will give us group identification outside the industry, assistance to members in contracting,health/insurance, legal support and awards and recognition ofoutstanding works by their peers. It would be the foundation in assisting new members to our profession as well.
Such an organization would give us a balance against disreputable or dishonest publishers. It would place us on an even footing.
And I am sure that there are other advantages that each of you can think of.
But more importantly are the intangible benefits. Such an association will act as the small snowball, generating a greater and more beneficial community. It will be the cement that holds us together. Although we are a community, we are a weak one. A formal association is the very tool we need to strengthen and join us. It will give us our sense of cohesive identity.
It has been argued that we should not form such an association until we are a cohesive community. But without the glue of an association, we will never be a community. We are far too independent without the assistance of a formal organization!
So I say, the time for action is now! There will be a panel at the next developers conference to discuss such an association. Come to the panel. Give your support to such an association with your person,skills and knowledge. Let us form what has not existed before for the gain of all of us! The need exist, the time for the first steps are now! RESOLVED, THAT A FORMAL ASSOCIATION OF COMPUTER GAME DESIGN PROFESSIONALS BE HEREBY ESTABLISHED.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from John R. Powers III
Copyright 1989, John R. Powers, III
Dear Chris,
I did it! I finally did it! I published my first computer game! (Actually, it's my 11th, but the first in 10 years.) I call it "Maim the Mainframe", but the publisher will probably rename it something more "marketable". It's going to be a new genre in games - a game for real-life adventures. I call it a "Reality Game". It may not look like a game, but it has all the right ingredients: a goal to achieve, rules to follow, tools to use, discoveries to uncover, deadlines to make, and obstacles to overcome. It even has antagonists, but I'll get to all that after a brief description.
Imagine you are a hard-working, industrious user of a large corporate Management Information System (MIS). You spend your days using your Macintosh to store and retrieve data on the company IBM mainframe. You don't ask for a lot, you just want to do your job, maybe retire someday in Florida; but it's hard using the mainframe and you'd appreciate some way to make the job easier and maybe a little more fun. Along comes a friend. "Chris, have you tried the new Reality Game from Tri-Data? Here, I bought an extra copy for you." You install the game on your Macintosh and notice right away that it appears to be a HyperCard stack (It is a stack alright, but with 6,000+ lines of custom C-code added.) You double-click on the stack and plunge right in. Your goal is to make contact with the mainframe and do something useful. Sounds easy doesn't it? Almost too easy you think, what's the catch? But then you think about all the neat things you could do with HyperCard if you could only use it with the mainframe. "Maybe this new game is the answer.", you think to yourself. So you start using your new game with the goal of productive communication with the mainframe. Along the way you find that there are rules that must be followed, lots of them. You have lots of tools to use, the game is chock full of them. You discover pitfalls and tricks. There are lots of obstacles to overcome, most provided by the IBM mainframe (Chris, that's the neat thing about my new Reality genre, the obstacles are already there, jillions of them.) Finally, you must all do this by the deadline - maybe a report is due, or you want to finish in time to go home for dinner, or you want to finish before retirement.
You're probably wondering why you would even attempt a Reality Game. It's because you want the satisfaction of reaching the goal. You will have created a "program" using the tools provided in the game and a program is a mark that stays behind in the computer after you've turned it off. ("There, take that computer! Store this tidbit on your disk, this gem of my creativity; wipe out a few of your bytes and replace them with mine!") You will have learned something and we all know that information is power.
I mentioned about having antagonists. Golly, does this game have antagonists. Need I even start mentioning the IBM devils that dreamed up the host communication monsters like SNA. But the most insidious antagonists of them all are the creators of HyperCard. They have devised an ingenuous trap where you are lulled into a sense of power and control only to find out too late that you have scripted yourself into a disaster. That's one of the secrets of my new game - you walk the fine edge between survival and disaster. Click on the right buttons, but step into the script and it could mean oblivion. But imagine the thrill when you succeed! You could even publish your own creation on your favorite BBS!
My contract with the publisher is pretty simple. It goes something like "Here, take it, it's yours." There's no complicated language about royalties or defaults. They pay me and it's their's. This is one case when I feel that we have genuine links to the oldest profession. I also wrote the reference manual for them and am now negotiating a "Main The Mainframe" User's Guide. With luck, it will turn into a daytime TV game show.
This game has gone so well that I'm thinking of new possibilities for my "Reality" genre. Perhaps IRS audits....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from Mike Joslyn
Lord Louis Montbatten once addressed a group of British soldiers in Burma by saying:“Gentlemen, some of you think you’re the forgotten soldiers; some of you think you are the forgotten front. Well, I’m here to tell you that’s not true. Nobody even knows you’re here.”
Your most recent editorial (“Fire & Brimstone on Community Spirit”) really hit home. Unfortunately, I’ve already been there. This sense of Deja Vu is inspired by my previous experience with the old Game Designer’s Guild (dealing with boardgame designers). It had exactly the same problems. No one would be more delighted to see the JCGD represent the interests of designers than myself, however, let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.
The first roadblock is the nature of creative enterprise and its interaction with the publisher. The publisher isn’t always a businessman with a philistine sensibility, but it IS the most popular attitude. For example, I worked several years for a Texas based publisher (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty). His attitude was summed up in one sentence, “I don’t care whether it’s good or bad — as long as it sells.” This dovetails nicely with another publisher’s expression of contempt for quality work (this time from California) when he said, “why should I pay ”X“ amount for a really good game when I can pay half as much for a mediocre game that will sell anyway.” Publishing is a buyer’s market.
Few of us have the name recognition that you do, and as long as we don’t, it’s hard to hold out for a truly decent rate of compensation when the only bargaining point is the product itself. If the publisher can’t get it on his terms, he’ll take second rate work knowing it will sell nearly as well given what he’s throwing into the effort: development, advertising and promotion.
Having said that, I’d also like you to know that both of the publishers I quoted are in the middle of very serious financial difficulties. However, it’s not what’s true in the long run which counts with a publisher (or any other executive), i.e. quality work will mean a strong market over the long haul, it’s the bottom line of that P&L statement at the end of the year. Publishers are no more far-sighted than the rest of us.
Why am I harping on the publisher’s contempt for quality? Because you and I both know that a corps of experienced designers quite naturally produces the best work they can. It’s just a part of the breed. If game designers wanted to make easy money with a minimum of programming effort, they’d design custom software and spreadsheets.
So what is a GOOD game designer? He is a PROFESSIONAL game designer. And as a PROFESSIONAL, he may look askance at unions. Unions, after all are for LABOR, and a computer programmer of any sort is WHITE COLLAR work. All this talk about contracts, shared information, dues, participation, etc. sounds very much like an organization trying to gain some leverage with the bosses (i.e. the publishers). If you think I’m being silly or waving the red flag here, think about teachers. They are professionals, many of them belong to unions, and many of them don’t-- precisely because of the attitude I’ve already outlined. So are writers, and certainly the screenwriters guild is a union for professionals, with a standard contract and, let’s face it, alot of economic clout because of their solid organization. But I’m certain a few holdouts feel that an organization with the goals you proclaim is, well, beneath them.
“Tell your friends to subscribe to the Journal. Don’t ask them. Tell them.” Well Chris, I’d love to, but what would that really accomplish? I have maybe one or two other friends who are interested in the underpinnings of this industry and the actual workings of the creative process. The rest of them are happy to squash orcs, blast Zaxxons, or whatever, in blissful (but entertained) ignorance of what makes it a good-- or bad-- game. Let’s say, just for the sake of theory, that the rest of your subscribership is in the same position. (After all, we don’t all live in Silicon Valley or in Western Mass.) And let’s say that all the recommendations are immediately and enthusiastically acted upon. What do you have? 400 subscribers instead of 200 subscribers. So what? Unless you’re willing to state for the record that you’d then have the majority of game designer’s signed up, you haven’t bought yourself any leverage at all. Just a reputation as a troublemaker among publishers for trying to introduce this pesky standard contract.
So much for playing the devil’s advocate, except, for one last point. What does the Journal really want to be? Does it want to be a simple medium of exchange between designers? Well, you haven’t exactly been bowled over by response to that one. (And I have to plead guilty on that count as well, but I cite my relative inexperience). Does it want to be a force in designer-publisher relations? (Admittedly, a tough road.) Does it want a broad subscriber base? (In that case, it will need appeal to publishers and consumers, as well).
Let me conclude by saying that personally, I think you’re absolutely right. There are some very definite benefits to having a strong Journal-group out there. Even if its only for an exchange of horror stories. I submit to you, though, that the participation you suggest is unnecessarily limited. So let me play a few variations:
1) Why stop with telling friends to subscribe? Why not put it on every local, state and national bulletin board you can leave message on. And maintain it there. Put it on special ECHO systems. Send out the word to Users’ groups. Any publication needs numbers, and the JCGD remains extraordinarily underadvertised.
2) If people were angels, we wouldn’t have games. Off hand I’d say a number of people are dropping out because the Journal is not answering the question most people ask themselves: “What has it done for me lately?” As far as that goes, the Journal Reporter is a GREAT start. So are the articles on technique and philosphy of design. Mr. Mulligan’s article “Are You A Crook” is not particularly useful because, as the US Congress discovered (and with all due respect to Mr. Mulligan’s first amendment rights), people are seldom interested in attempts to legislate their morality.
a) Let me suggest a potential auxiliary source of income for the JCGD. Publish a book on how to create and sell a computer game. Lots of people will buy it. Very few will have the discipline and singlemindedness to act on it, and the proceeds could relieve other difficulties the JCGD has, such as not paying its writers, (even a small honorarium would probably net you more contributions than you’re getting now), and the dearth of advertising. It could be collabarative effort among some of your more experienced readership with a single editor to tie it all together. I assume that if the JCGD has tax exempt status, they could also write off their contribution. Just a thought.
b) How about a special annual issue on the companies? Some of them must be publicly owned and a recap (both product and financial) of what they’ve done over the year might prove useful.
c) Lack articles? Don’t depend on random chance to bring you gems. Every magazine editor I have ever known has a “dream” list of articles he’d like to see done. Publish yours. Tell your subscribers what you want to see (and don’t cop out by saying “good articles on subjects that interest you.” Be specific.) Maybe you’ll get it.
3) “Contract awareness?” What happened to Ms. Ditton’s attempt to draft three model contracts? Where are they? Run up on the rocks of subscriber apathy? That’s no excuse. Certainly Ms. Ditton and Mr. Hanson Esq. had some ideas of their own. Why didn’t they publish them? It might have started the ball rolling.
Let me conclude by saying that the JCGD is a valiant effort, and something which designers as a group need, (whether they know it or not). Granted, you can’t shoulder the entire burden, or expect the relatively small number of shoulders which have volunteered to take it up to last indefinitely. Your suggestions are valid, (and I will do my utmost to carry them out), however, I think the JCGD needs more if it’s going to do more than totter along for a few years as a special interest newsletter. Unlike the boardgame, there is REAL money in the computer business (even if games only represent 9% of the market, it is a phenomenally large pie) and that may eventually lead most of your subscribers to part with more time/money in order to make more money for less time. I also think the JCGD will have a part in that.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A Layman’s Doom
Doug Clapp
I’ve been a lurking reader of this newsletter for many, many months. I’m not a game designer, but I am a software designer, programmer, and developer. (My company developed a full-blown DTP program for creating ads. A lotta code.)
These long months, I’ve been wanting to write about games I--a layman--enjoy. And, more important, why I enjoy them.
I haven’t written until now, because...well, there’s a punchline to all this. We’ll get to it.
On the Macintosh, my computer of choice, I’ve only truly enjoyed one game: Patton vs. Rommel. Chris may now blush.
Why no other games? First, because I hate puzzles. I get enough puzzles at work, thanks. And the tedium of adventure/role playing games is, well, tedious. And dumb.
Why do I like PvR? After much thought, this: Because I can bring as much as I want to the game. I can play it mindlessly, sleepy, or drunk. Or I can bear down and play hard. Whichever, I can play: I don’t get “stuck.” I may lose, but I won’t get stuck.
Who wants to get stuck?
I also like the “spring-loaded” nature of the game. I can take my time setting up the round. I like the anticipation of the day’s events, and I enjoy trying to “pre-guess” what will take place (which, after all, is how to succeed).
Those are good pulls, emotionally. The calm, unhurried set-up. The anticipation. Then the joy or despair as the round plays itself out. Then the consideration of the new conditions.
A good mix. If I’m in the mood, I can ratchet the game into more sophisticated play. That, I don’t usually do; I’d rather “play against the algorithms,” of the lower levels. But I love the depth, and sometimes venture into it.
And that, until now, is about all I could say about computer games. I’ve bought most of the popular Mac computer games, but...fey. For the most part, I’ve found them shallow, boring, and dumb. Manhole? Aimless and trivial. MacGolf? Who cares? The ICOM Simulations games? Dumb puzzles. SimCity? Admirable and fascinating, but hey: Too much work! I feel like someone should pay me to use (it seems a better word than “play”) SimCity. Chess? It was fun ten years ago, when I could sometimes beat the program. (And I was a good--I thought--chess player, back in college.) Flight Simulator? I once enjoyed it, but got bored after I’d achieved an average level of proficiency. After I learned to land, in other words.
My eleven-year-old son loves the Dark Castle’s, and should. They’re magnificent, playable games. Silicon Beach put great effort into them, and it shows. Great effort always shows. Particularly when you can’t notice it. So there I was. I enjoyed the newsletter, but didn’t play games. Not a “game guy,” I guess. I didn’t even buy my son a Nintendo for Christmas, for Chrissakes! Instead, I broke down and bought the Nintendo two days after Christmas. The punchline: I love Gauntlet. There I am, a thirty-nine-year-old guy, on my couch, playing Gauntlet. And playing and playing and playing.
Why, in God’s name? Why?
Here’s why, I think. (And I may be wrong...)
First, I can play with my son. We blunder through the levels, sometimes laughing so hard that our stomachs hurt the next day. (I’m known at home as Doug “shoot-the-food” Clapp.) Also, I love the richness of the “cast” of meanies, and the many beautifully thought-out “boards.” (How many other middle-aged guys have made it, alone, to level 64, huh? Using only the standard controller, huh?)
And again, I can bring what I what to the game. I can mindlessly race around, or be thoughtful in my play. Finally, there’s a richness here that I don’t see in Mac games (Dark Castle excluded, but only barely). Gauntlet is simply an immense, rich accomplishment. And superbly playable because of it.
That said, here’s some advice from a layman. Remember that we grown-ups are tired. Game play should be just that: play. Remember “play”? It’s when you have fun. And don’t be afraid to “put too much” into the game. You won’t. Unfortunately, to many game designers “putting more” into a game means putting more difficulty into the game.
Don’t. Put more into the “playability” first. Work on the design, the looks, and--above all--the interaction between human and game. Make it rich, smooth, and responsive. Then make it even richer and more responsive. (Some issues back, Chris said this well. I’ll paraphrase it as “Maximum response from minimum player input”) Now, maybe, add some difficulty at the higher levels, or later stages. But don’t shut us down too early. Grownups get cranky fast.
But we do like to have fun.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Shakeout!
Gordon Walton and Laura Miskines
1989 was a year of major changes which affected all the aspects of how entertainment software is created, distributed and sold. The new year launches us into a very shaky marketplace, indeed.
The Past
The first quarter of 1989 surprised many publishers with much larger than anticipated product returns. This was the “hangover” caused by an overindulgence in less than top quality product by both developers and publishers. Part of the weaker demand for disk-based entertainment product was attributable to the dedicated game machines (ie. Nintendo, Sega) capturing both consumer sales and retail store shelf space.
Overall PC growth had slowed to under 20%, and the glut of entertainment product was not enticing the new customers nor bringing back our former customers.
Publisher panic ensued as sales forecasts were trimmed and development budgets tightened. It is obvious that the cost of development has increased more rapidly than the market expanded. It takes much longer (as much as 6-12 man years) to produce a hit product, when only three years ago it was not uncommon to spend less than a single man year to create a hit product. The combination of decreased development budgets and longer development time, combined with many outright cancellations ensured that fewer titles were released this year.
Several smaller publishers chose to become affiliate publishers with one of the major publishers. These large publishers could provide sales support and access to broader distribution, while reducing the small publishers risk of not being paid. Epyx, one of the top five entertainment publishers blundered into Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Mindscape merged with Software Toolworks and is consolidating at the Software Toolworks’ offices.
Consolidation in the distribution channel caused changes in direction, as with the Ingram/Micro-D merger. This combined company almost immediately de-emphasized entertainment software. They now buy fewer titles from fewer publishers. Lieberman and Navarre, both primarily rack-jobbers, are trying to smooth their transition to a combined company.
The retail chains like Electronics Boutique, Egghead, Software Etc., Babbages and Walden are scrutinizing their bottom line and adjusting their business plans. Three of these companies have posted ominous operating losses for consecutive quarters. Most of these chains have expanded too rapidly in relationship to the actual demand. Service Merchandise, a major mass market chain, dropped disk-based entertainment software completely (due to risk and low sales) even though they still carry computer hardware!
Major price cutting was the theme for the fourth quarter of 1989, with many titles, including the hits, selling at over 40% off retail price. Retailers were nervous about the disk-based entertainment market and tried to push the product out of inventory at greatly reduced margins.
The Present
The 80’s ended with some rather sobering results. The top 20 disk-based entertainment titles of 1989 accounted for over 70% of sales! This means that the other 97% of the entertainment titles produced had to split up the remaining 30% of the business! Titles did not last as long at the top of the “hit lists” as in previous years, showing a more rapid turnover and shorter life cycle. All of this indicates fewer sales to new customers combined with a more selective existing customer base.
Many entertainment publishers are in poor condition, with at least two mid-sized publishers up for sale. Many of the titles released for the holiday season in 1989 did not perform as well as anticipated and publishers, large and small, are holding their breath waiting to see what returns will look like this year.
Several distributors are distressed as well. After years of price wars in an effort to gain market share, no relief is evident. Forecasts indicate continued competitive price pressure in distribution, making them even more risk adverse. In fact, CSS, a national distributor recently closed, due to low return on investment combined with continuing high market risk.
The retailers are also anxious as they count what didn’t sell during the holidays and determine where to put their dollars this year.
The Future
Expect more consolidation in both the retail and distribution channels, and expect the pace of consolidation to increase. It is likely that at least one of the software retail chains will be out of the picture during the first half of the year. Also, expect more retailers to use rack-jobbers so they reduce their inventory risk and purchasing overhead.
National distributors will continue to revise their product strategies and redirect their focus, while a shakeout at the regional level will continue. With national distribution de-emphasizing entertainment and regional distribution in turmoil, there will be a smaller group of buyers for disk-based entertainment product. These buyers will wield a great deal of power in determining which products even get on a retail shelf.
This handful of buyers will naturally want to streamline the number of publishers they deal with. Currently 90% of all product volume comes from less than 10% of the publishers. These large publishers offer reduced inventory risk (ie. if product A doesn’t sell, we will swap it for product B), and provide more marketing support in the form of advertising and retail sales aids. Buyers will accelerate the trend of buying more from these large publishers, and squeezing the small publishers out. New small publishers will find it almost impossible to break into distribution. This does not mean that a small publisher who affiliates with a large publisher will gain instant distribution. In fact, the buyers will be “cherry-picking” the product lines offered by larger publishers, taking only titles that they feel are guaranteed to sell well. Many affiliate publishers will find that they are stuck with a distribution agreement that does not sell any product! Moreover, in a risky market buyers will monitor product performance very closely and often drop a slow moving product after it has been on the shelf only 60-90 days! Products must make their impact at launch, they won’t be given the time to build a following.
Conclusion
A famous boxer once said, “To be a champion, you have to fight one more round”. The next round in our industry won’t be easy, so what can you do to “go the distance”?
The industry will certainly be more professional for those who last, simply because so many of those who fly by the seat of their pants will be out of business. The key is to properly position yourself for current conditions.
Rule #1: Develop only “Class A” product. Average product will not cut it in a weak market. “Class A” products typically enjoy longer life cycles, don’t fall into “me too” categories, discourage competition and create satisfied customers.
Rule #2: Make very sure that the publishers you work with have the strategies and wherewithal to survive in a flat market.
Rule #3: Ensure that you retain copyright to your work, at least until it is actually published. The last thing you want is your work-in-progress tied up in bankruptcy court, just because the publisher owns the copyright.
Rule #4: Don’t panic when the inevitable upsets come. Have a plan for your business with plenty of contingencies and stick with it!
Rule #5: If you can’t compete with the top 20 products in quality, find another line of work! You will save yourself a lot of trauma and facilitate the recovery of our industry.
The market is now forcing us to produce less, but better quality, product that does not directly compete with the dedicated game machines. If you follow a sound development and business strategy, you can both survive and prosper!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Journal Reporter
Kellyn Beck
If you missed the Winter Consumer Electronics Show this year, you didn’t miss much — unless you had an invitation to see Commodore’s Big Secret. That’s the word from many of those who attended the Las Vegas show early in January. Computer game industry professionals who strolled the aisles at CES found it difficult to single out any new software titles that they felt were memorable or exciting.
This does not, of course, include the exciting new Electronic Arts game about the Roman Empire that was introduced at CES. I would tell you about how well it was received, how the press, the buyers and the retailers loved it, but it’s my game and I would never even consider using this space to promote one of my own products.
Moreover, if I were to mention the thousands of hours we spent researching ancient Rome and crafting the graphics for the game, that would be shameless. I refuse to do it. It would be, well, less than dignified. Finally, there’s no doubt in my mind that lauding the game’s intuitive interface and strategic depth would be nothing but the basest form of self aggrandizement. I wouldn’t want to do that either.
Yes, I will refrain from any form of cheap self-promotion. It’s not that I’m trying to be noble. It’s just difficult to get much mileage out of cheap self-promotion when your product doesn’t have a name. Caesar — for lack of an official title — is only a few weeks from publication and we haven’t settled on a name, but the discussions surrounding the title are very interesting, especially the reasoning behind each name that has been accepted or rejected along the way. More on that later. First, the top news item this month: Commodore’s Big Secret.
Commodore’s CD Computer
Shrouded in secrecy, Commodore has been readying a CD-based videogame unit for release this year. The machine was shown to key members of the industry behind closed doors at Winter CES, and it promises to be the most advanced and expensive videogame device yet released for the consumer market.
Wisely packaged in a black box to look like part of your home entertainment system and nothing at all like a home computer, the unit contains a CD-ROM drive, an Amiga 500, and a wireless mouse as the basic game controller. The unit also comes with joystick ports, but — and this is another important marketing move — it doesn’t have a keyboard. The public will view the player as a consumer entertainment device, not as a computer.
The unit is designed to connect to a TV set, the CD’s will be contained in cartridges for ease of use, and word is that the device will retail for less than $1000 when it is introduced this summer.
Christmas Sales Down in ’89
Computer game publishers report that sales were down at Christmas, but they hasten to add that it wasn’t as bad as many had feared.
According to Trip Hawkins, president of Electronic Arts, sales of computer games in the 4th quarter were down slightly from 1988. “We expected the drop,” Hawkins said, “so retailers were more cautious, and they helped prevent problems by not overbuying.” Hawkins called it a good Christmas, pointing out that the industry was prepared for the downturn — so when sales didn’t drop as low as people had expected, it was viewed as a moral victory.
Rumors, Rumors
The next item is from the How Do These Rumors Get Started Department. A hot rumor flying across the GEnie bulletin board recently involved Microillusions — it all began when someone mentioned going to the software company’s offices during the holidays and discovering a set of locked doors. Were the doors closed for good? Had the company gone out of business? The rumors were flying. Then someone decided to check with the company and ask them about the rumors.
The phone call to Microillusions produced the following answer: “Yes, of course we’re still in business. We were just shut down for Christmas.” A representative of Microillusions reported that the company was preparing to release several new products, including a line of Amiga boards and software aimed at the desktop video market. The products include professional video cards, genlock cards and videotape editing software. So much for rumors . . .
The Name of the Game
Now back to the subject of game titles. When Caesar was first proposed, the project had the working title, “The Roman Empire”. The game depicts the rise of the Roman Empire, so it was a satisfactory name for the initial proposal. It was a descriptive title, even if it wasn’t very catchy.
The first name lasted several weeks before it became clear that “Caesar” would be a better title for the game. It was a much stronger name, it was more descriptive of the player’s role in the game and it had more of an epic feel. The name stuck as the game was being developed, and everyone connected with the project began to get attached to it (this would later become a problem).
As the game neared completion this month, the publisher undertook a search to find out if anyone owned the title. To our collective dismay, it turned out that “Caesar” was taken. The attorneys who conducted the search discovered that a certain Las Vegas hotel owned the rights to the name and had always been very protective about its use. In fact, when a well-known boardgame company published a game called “Caesar’s Legions” a few years ago, the hotel put up a fight, making life very difficult for the publisher. It was clear that we would not be able to use “Caesar”, even though the word is a common historical term.
We began thinking about alternatives, and the suggestions ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. Some of the choices included Birth of the Empire, Ancient Empires, Chieftains, The Romans, The Glory of Rome, Chariots of Gold, When Men Wore Skirts, Hannibal’s Cannibals and one of my personal favorites, Ben Herb. Nothing seemed to stand out as a good replacement, although many titles were considered.
“Emperor of Rome” was suggested, but it seemed prosaic and lacked punch. “Dawn of the Empire” had a big, epic feel but it made some people think of Japan (as in the land of the rising sun). “Legions of the Eagle” was catchy, but many people thought of Nazis when they heard it, so that name was discarded, too.
Clearly, we had grown attached to the name Caesar during the months of development, so it was proving difficult to be satisfied with any title that didn’t have the same feel as that single strong, descriptive word. We looked at several one-word titles like Tribune, Centurion, Imperator, The Generals, Legions, Dominion, Republic. Again, there was no clear winner. So the issue remains undecided.
Two issues ago I reported that some of Cinemaware’s authors were conducting an audit of Cinemaware’s books. Four months have passed, the audit is complete, and so far there has been no further action taken in the matter. I will not attempt to draw any conclusions from this. If any further developments arise, I will report them after they have been resolved.
The 1990 Computer Game Developers’ Conference will be held on April 1-2 at the Le Baron Hotel in San Jose, CA. As a subscriber to this Journal, you should have already received an announcement and registration form. If you have not, and wish to attend, please send a request to:
Computer Game Developers’ Conference
5339 Prospect Road, Suite 289
San Jose, CA 95129-5020
Mindscape has been acquired by The Software Toolworks. For the immediate future, Mindscape will continue to operate normally. I would guess that, as the two companies’ operations are merged, there will be some staff reductions at Mindscape. I would further speculate that Mindscape as a business entity will not be in existence a year from now — although the Mindscape name will continue to be used.
Most of the gossip about the acquisition focuses on Les Crane’s primary motivation: was it Mindscape’s Nintendo license or Mindscape’s distribution system that Crane wanted most? In any event, The Software Toolworks’ days as an affiliate label are over.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewing Computer Games
Ken St. Andre
(Caveat: The following rules and opinions belong to me. Other reviewers may take violent exception to what I say, and who could blame them?)
You’ve all read hundreds, perhaps thousands of computer game reviews by now, and said to yourself, “I could do that.” Maybe you could, but I’m here to tell you, there’s more to it than appears on the surface.
The reviewer’s job is to tell the reader enough about the product (computer game, program, film, book, music, whatever) to enable the reader to make an informed decision on whether he wants to buy/read/play/view that product or not. I’m only going to talk about computer games from here on with the clear understanding that such talk could be generalized to cover any media. In addition, the reviewer is entitled to make a critical judgment about the quality of the game. If a game is good, the reviewer should say so, and tell the reader why it’s good. If a game stinks, or is blatant ripoff of some other game, the reviewer should still tell it like it is.
In order to review a game, a reviewer must: (1) play enough of it to see what it is like, (2) have enough experience to be able to compare the game with others like it in the field, and (3) be able to marshall one’s statements in a coherent essay. The reviewer doesn’t have to play the game from beginning to end (though it helps to play as much and as long as possible before starting to write. More familiarity with a game may change your opinions.) in order to write about it. The first screen of Donkey Kong tells you all you really need to know about the game to describe it to others.
Experience is another vital attribute of the competent reviewer. Game companies might be happy if we reviewers could view every new product as a complete original, but the truth is that many games are just knockoffs of things that have been done before. The music and graphics may be different, but Space Invaders by any other name is still a “shoot the alien” game. We were all quite pleased with Space Invaders when it first appeared, but would be justifiably scornful of anyone trying to sell us a Space Invaders Clone in 1990. That’s what I mean by experience. The good reviewer has to have played enough to see the similarities between such games as Wizardry, Dungeons and Dragons, Ultima, and Bard’s Tale. He should also be able to recognize the differences, and if these similarities or differences are important, the reviewer must elucidate them for the reader. The reviewer can never assume that the reader has as much experience as he has (although the reader may in fact know far more than the reviewer in any particular case). If the dungeons in Might and Magic are like the dungeons in Bard’s Tale, the reviewer should point that out, along with a quick note on which came first.
Lastly, the reviewer has to be able to write. Hopefully, writing is a skill we all acquired back in school, and I won’t have to say much about it. A good review should pique the curiosity of the reader. It is also a splendid platform for the writer to show off his wit, metaphorical abilities, or talk about his personal life. Every review should have at least one outrageous statement in it, just to keep it interesting.
One thing that game review readers should be aware of is the reviewer’s bias. Since we’re all human, we reviewers are all biased in one way or another. Sometimes the bias is skillfully hidden. Sometimes it shows blatantly. For example, I’m lousy at arcade games. My hand-eye coordination is poor, and my reflexes are slow. Because of those limitations I’m never going to be any good at a game like Rambo III or Indiana Jones the Action Adventure. Even if I like the graphics, I’m much less likely to give such games a favorable review than would some other person with better physical skills.
It helps if the reviewer is aware of his own biases. I don’t like arcade games, one-true-path games, and spatial puzzles like Rubik’s cube. I do like role-playing games and sports simulations. I know my biases, and try to compensate for them when I have to review a game that I would automatically tend to like or dislike. I try to compensate. I don’t always succeed. Nor will any other reviewer.
Consider also the magazine’s bias. Most of the professional magazines like PC Games exist solely to sell the computer games to the public. Such magazines are going to focus on the good points of the games they review, and ignore or gloss over the bad points. When the point is to sell games, there’s no point in being too critical about their contents. It’s far better to simply not cover any game that is a real stinker. On the other hand, magazines like QuestBusters and Computer Gaming World are written not for the sake of the game companies, but for the sake of the gamers themselves. These magazines have to maintain a reputation for critical thinking and fair coverage, or they will lose their readership. CGW doesn’t get the kind of distribution that PC Games gets in every supermarket and drugstore in the country.
There are some things that all reviewers should look for when reviewing a game. I’ll try to list and discuss them below.
(1) Game story or rationale: All games should have some sort of story to them starring the gamer. The story may be very simple--race from L.A. to S.F.--or it may be very complex--negate the curse of the azure bonds--, but it should be a story capable of grabbing the interest of the player and keeping it. The longer a story can keep a player’s interest, the better the story, and the better the game.
When considering the story, the reviewer has to look at the elements of the tale. Is it inventive? Are the characters realistic? Does it take place in an interesting world? Is there humor? Is there excitement? Is there fear? Through the use of sound, graphics, animation, and good writing, the game story should engage the curiosity and emotions of the player. The deeper the player is drawn into the game world, the longer he will play, and the better the game is. If the reviewer is drawn deeply into a game while trying to get it viewed and reviewed under deadline pressure, he can safely assume that the players will also be strongly motivated to play and enjoy the game.
(2) Game mechanics: the best story in the world is no good as a computer game if the programming isn’t up to par. Things like smooth scrolling, the ability to manipulate onscreen objects, how fast the bullets travel and what they look like in flight all come under the heading of mechanics. No matter how much I like a game for its story, I’m going to be real annoyed with it if the keyboard locks up every 10 minutes or so because of bugs in the program code. All programmers, and all computers, are not created equal. If all the monsters move real fast, but the player can only shoot or swing his sword very slowly, that’s a serious flaw in the game design, and the players deserve to be told about it before they spend their money.
(3) Game Graphics: Some games don’t require graphics, and I’ll ignore them except to say that the text should then be displayed in a pleasing and easily readable format. Most computer games today have lots of graphics. As a rule of thumb, good art makes good games, though the best art in the world can’t help a game that is deficient in points one and two. The art should also be appropriate to the style of game being played. You really don’t need super hi-res graphics for an enjoyable game of Space Invaders, but the lifelike quality of the pictures is Mean Streets really help you feel like you’ve fallen right into a 21st century detective movie. Sometimes the graphics are animated, and sometimes not. I like a certain amount of animation in the games I play, and if the animation is surprising or humorous, it gets extra credit with me. I’ll never forget the first time a dragon actually flamed at me in Bard’s Tale. I was blown away by it--literally and figuratively as my character suddenly died. The animation in Battlechess from Interplay is the chief reason to use that chess program.
Some game companies or designers however take graphics too seriously. They seem to think that if the graphics are sufficiently gorgeous, they need not worry too much about the other parts of the game. We all like to look at pretty pictures, but no matter how gorgeous the art may be, it gets boring if we have to look at it too often. The reviewer should be aware of how and why the graphics are being used in the game.
(4) Sound (Bells and Whistles): Sound can add a lot to a game, but it is definitely the least important of the factors that go into good game design. The reviewer should look to see how appropriate the sound effect is to the enjoyment of the game. Games that consist chiefly of exploding things and shooting things should have great explosion noises and gunfire sounds. Games that have a lot of conversation in them with other characters really benefit from digitised voices. Reviewers should watch to see that the use of sound is consistent in the games being played, or is it just thrown in here and there as a reward or a demonstration of programmer prowess. One can praise the programmer while knocking the game designer in such cases.
(5) Game intent: Sometimes it helps to ask who the game is for, and how well does it succeed for that audience? This is a form of criticism that maintains that things are not good or bad of themselves, but only in relation to an observer. I subscribe to this viewpoint myself. Game designers seldom come right out and say who their game is designed for, but the audience is obvious enough if you read the game documentation. A game like Ultima VI is aimed at sophisticated role-players, and by Crom, it had better satisfy that audience, or it will get a lousy review no matter how well it does in points 1-4. As a reviewer, stop and ask yourself who the game was written for. If it isn’t obvious, call the game company and ask them. Then slip that information into your review somewhere.
Reviewers also need to be aware that most game designers don’t work in a vacuum. They work with a producer and a game company, and perhaps a team of co-designers. These people all effect how the final product comes out. Decisions made by some jerk in the marketing department may gut or trivialize what started out as a great game. For that reason, a negative review of some game is a commentary on the game company that produced it. I tend to believe that producers and publishers spoil more games than they improve. Don’t be too hard on a particular person when critiquing a game--it may not be that person’s fault, but don’t be afraid to say what is right and what is wrong with the game. If there is enough criticism of a particular aspect of a computer game, the producers and game company presidents will get the idea sooner or later.
Reviewers handle many of these aspects subconsciously when they sit down to write a review. They are trying to tell enough of the game story to interest the reader, but not enough to give away any of the best surprises. They want to give enough hints to make it easy to play and understand the game, without making it unnecessary to play the game. And, sometimes, when the reviewer is not simply a paid PR man for some company, they are trying to improve the overall quality of computer game design through the feedback process. By praising innovation and “good game design” (whatever we may think that is), and by criticizing and condemning copycat ripoffs, poor programming, ugly art, tasteless stories, etc., the reviewer discourages poor game design. On the whole, I think that computer games are getting better all the time. There are many reasons for their improvement--chief of which is the development of better technology, and the personal improvement of various game designers and programmers over time, but I think that the review process has also had a little to do with it. So, if after reading all this, you want to be a reviewer, remember, you have a moral responsibility to help improve the state-of-the-art in computer game design. It’s a never-ending challenge!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Silicon Valley Meets Hollywood
Rob Fulop
Over the last two years, I have been lucky enough to be given the opportunity to produce several interactive entertainment products which can be catagorized as true “interactive movies”. As the principal production company for the ill-fated NEMO project for Hasbro, we were given the task of creating original video programming and program code which allowed a viewer to control the flow of an actual cinematic experience. As producer, my task was a complex one, quite unlike any other type of game work I had previously been involved with. This article will examine the role of producer, based on my experiences and opinions, as applied to the production of interactive entertainment programs based on pictures and sound.
We referred to the NEMO projects as “movie-games”, and quickly found two definite schools of thought as to how such media can be characterized. The computer and game minds regarded the product as “video games, with ultra-realistic graphics”. This simplified metaphor worked for awhile, until we began working with the film community. The film production professionals quickly immersed themselves in the process, but described the end product differently, as “movies that can branch”. These two divergent definitions of the product became the source of highly energized discussions, and eventual tensions. At the time, from my point of view, the answer was clear. This was a NEW process; everyone was half right .... the eventual producer would combine the skills of a game designer and film director to create brave, new media. The interactive producer would create a balance between the story, and the game, as both were equally valid. After producing three such “movie-games”, I have changed my mind.
The reality is simply this... the cinematic portion of the project consummed 97 percent of the production budget. This meant that the visual decisions were far more important than game design decisions, because the visual decisions were much more expensive, and were not reversible. It became clear to me that the really talented interactive entertainment producers will eventually come out of the film community, not the game community. These people already know how to handle large budgets, large egos, and paranoid executives. Game designers and publishers are decades behind, in terms of experience, instinct, and sense of professionalism.
Any computer game designer who fancies themself to be a future interactive movie director in the near future is kidding themself .... it will be far easier for an accomplished film director to learn the neccessary tricks of the game designer’s craft. Now, I am sure the talented people at CinemaWare, or LucasFilm, or Electronic Arts, may disagree; I have met dozens of “interactive designers” and ’executive software producers’ who regard themselves as the Speilberg’s of the future .... the Digital Disney’s of the 90’s. The facts are that if the field of interactive entertainment ever takes off, be it via optical disk or videotape, the entertainment industry proper will dominate the business. It will not be a matter of “Hollywood meets Silicon Valley” .... instead, we will witness “Hollywood cherry picks Silicon Valley”, with the better developers working as technical staff or writers on production teams; and the better ’software producers’ working as technical unit production managers.
The important thing is to be realistic. Right now, it makes no sense for the entertainment community to get involved in interactive entertainment. Why should they? They can make much more money doing what they already do, they might as well wait and let us figure out what types of progamming will eventually work. Then they can hire the people who can bring them the most value. They have access to the money, the talent, and the entertainment properties known throughout the world. We bring to the party valuable information about things like which compiler to use, how to duplicate floppy disks, and the importance of “process intensity”. Some of us have dabbled in visual storytelling, but our efforts to make a computer screen look like a movie are by no means compelling .... and as the resolution increases, our collective inexperience with visual storytelling becomes downright amateurish. This is not meant to be a put-down. Most computer game professionals are only NOW developing awareness of the questions that film professionals have been answering for 50 years.
The producer role for an interactive entertainment project is much like that of a traditional film producer. Basically, you deal with the money, managing the tension between the creative needs of the project, and the anxiety of the financing executives. While it is similar in theory to what goes on in game publishing, there are a few important differences:
Film producers have institutionalized the collaborative process.
The game design community is currently learning that we must combine to form small teams in order to create a competitive product. These teams present new collaborative and management challenges, for both the publishers, and the developers. Film producers repeatedly put much larger teams together and have established processes and infrastructures which allow the work to get done on schedule, and within budget.
Film producers know how to “wheel and deal”
The game design field is full of people with little to no experience at negotiating contracts for creative services that makes sense for both parties. Publishers are slowly learning that getting a developer to agree to a small advance often turns out to be a false economy. A studio advances a film producer the right amount of money to do the job. Developers are slowly learning the importance of business relationships. Film producers are comfortable with the fact that “who you know” is typically more important than “what you know”.
Film producers behave like professionals
There appears to be a growing body of developers who are beginning to understand that they are no different than other creative professionals. They are developing an appreciation for marketing, distribution, and the importance of a licensed property. Unfortunately, there still exists a tremendous amount of unprofessional behavior in the game community ... frustrated ’artists’ who will not accept the financial realities of their profession, and the choices they have made. Film producers understand, and have made peace, with the conflict between the Sylvestor Stallone and Fellini inside of all of them.
I would like to make three suggestions to people who wish to prepare for a career as an interactive entertainment professional:
Study the entertainment business. There are many books written about a community who has faced the same problems we are facing as a community in the game field. Read books about the history of film making, the history of the great studios, about the early days at Disney. Personally, I like learning about someone who had my problems 50 years ago.
Look for opportunities to collaborate with other creative professionals. The best thing about the NEMO project was getting to work with people who exceled at disciplines I didn’t know well. I found that I learned a lot about game design by working with talented writers and visual artists. It was the tensions between disciplines that led to the most learning.
Finally, adapt a professional attitude about what you do. Your manners are as important as your work. There is no place for self-indulgance on a production team, and large production teams are the proper vehicle for interactive entertainment projects. I can hear most people respond “Sure, I’m a great team player, as long as I’m the captain”. As game designers, we are used to having complete control over every aspect of our projects ... many of us will have a difficult time making the transition to a more minor role on a large project. Those that make the transition successfully have the best chances of filling a ’Creative Director’ or ’Producer’ slot in the future. Even more so than film, the interactive medium demands collaboration, as no one person will have enough knowledge of all the disciplines for years to come.
