For the past several weeks we’ve been prototyping different ideas for a new mobile game. \u00a0Taking the time to “find the fun” through experimental prototyping is one of those Game Development 101 strategies that everybody agrees is a good idea and yet few teams actually have the leeway to implement. \u00a0Very often the schedule is written to assume the game will be fun after a few tests and therefore the team can move into production quickly. \u00a0Instead, what happens too frequently is that the arbitrary schedule forces teams to switch gears before the core bits of fun have been identified, thus complicating the production process (which isn’t really production but just a more expensive extension of prototyping) and sometimes damning the game to mediocrity.<\/p>\n
At Robot Invader our development process is driven by a simple mantra: never compromise on quality. \u00a0If we can’t execute the idea we have at the quality we require, we will simplify it or cut it. \u00a0There’s almost never a good reason to ship something that is half-assed.<\/p>\n
So, with our quality-focused mantra in one hand and our sense of enlightened professionalism in the other, we optimistically dove into prototyping our new game idea. \u00a0The initial concept for the game looked good on paper, but, as we should have anticipated, actually implementing the damn thing revealed a lot of flaws. \u00a0First and foremost, our design called for the user to touch objects in the environment as a character moves through the scene. \u00a0As soon as we knocked together a basic prototype of this mechanic, the core idea upon which we intended to rest the entire game, we found it was basically unplayable: the moving character required a moving camera, and manipulating moving objects on the screen, even when they move slowly, is difficult and frustrating.<\/p>\n
Cue doubt and apprehension. \u00a0Our sense of enlightened professionalism called in sick that week. \u00a0We had an idea, and we made it, and guess what? \u00a0It wasn’t good enough. \u00a0Our mantra for quality requires us to change it or throw it out, so we did.<\/p>\n
With a couple of changes we had something playable. \u00a0We locked the camera in place, changed the level design to use one screen worth of real estate, and shuffled the other components of our initial concept around until it worked. \u00a0And actually, it worked pretty well. \u00a0Within a few days we had a bunch of levels, each with different mechanics, each of which might make their way into a final game. \u00a0It was encouraging progress because we were able to make levels that were extremely difficult without being arbitrary or unfair. \u00a0I think the mark of a good game design is one that can scale up in difficulty without relying on changes to the core rule set, and with our tweaks this design certainly stood up to that test.<\/p>\n
At first we felt good. \u00a0We were back on track with a few minor edits to the original formula. \u00a0But as we worked forward with the prototyping, our excitement waned. \u00a0The design was solid, and we could make a whole game out of it. \u00a0And it would be a fun, if somewhat quaint puzzle game. \u00a0But it wasn’t going to be a big breakout success. \u00a0It was a little underwhelming.<\/p>\n
As we started to prototype the art pipeline we realized that we’d made a trade-off without even realizing it. \u00a0By simplifying our game concept to work around flaws in the original design we’d cut the teeth out of our art. \u00a0With a static camera the scenes that Mike was building became flat and boring. \u00a0There’s nothing wrong with 2D games, but we have a specific style in mind that doesn’t work well with a flat perspective. \u00a0Though it would be wrong to make the game design subservient to art requirements, trading art quality for design hacks is also not acceptable. \u00a0It’s a compromise, and quality is the loser. \u00a0A better game design would work in tandem with the art, not against it.<\/p>\n
So we changed gears again. \u00a0Went back to the drawing board, resurrected some ideas that had landed on the cutting room floor during our previous experiments. \u00a0And this time, it’s clicked. \u00a0The design was easy to prototype and is more fun to play after only a day or two of work than our previous attempts. \u00a0It works with the art style, and in fact has opened up many avenues that we didn’t previously consider. \u00a0The camera is moving, the interface is simple, and it’s able to draw upon game design precedent without losing its personality.<\/p>\n
There are still many questions we haven’t answered. \u00a0Our experimental prototyping work will continue until we can show how the design will scale across an entire game. \u00a0It’s possible that we’ll find some flaw in this new approach, but I don’t think it’s likely. \u00a0The white-box prototypes are fun, there’s a great deal of flexibility inherent in the idea, and it’s going to look awesome. \u00a0We’re excited again, and glad we didn’t settle for a mediocre idea. \u00a0Making the game as good as it can possibly be will require our noses to become intimately familiar with the company grindstone, but the path forward is clear.<\/p>\n
Of course, when we have more to share you’ll hear about it here first.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
For the past several weeks we’ve been prototyping different ideas for a new mobile game. \u00a0Taking the time to “find the fun” through experimental prototyping is one of those Game Development 101 strategies that everybody agrees is a good idea … Continue reading