Lecture
The final lecture for GAM250 focused largely on the developer/publisher relationship, as well as how to best accommodate for trends and a rapidly evolving industry within our design. It also tied everything taught throughout this module together and provided some great points for reflection.
As stated in the lecture, it is highly likely that as designers, we will have to work with publishers throughout our careers. Because of this, it is crucial that we are able to maintain a good relationship with them, so to best serve our team and meet publisher requirements. Nick’s tips on how to best balance publisher relationships with design considerations were invaluable. The emphasis on clarity from the outset seemed to be particularly important, as the effort to minimise miscommunication should be taken through every stage of development. By doing this we can hopefully limit the amount of unrealistic expectations our publisher presses on to us. Understanding the internal politics of a publisher was something I had not considered before. While it is important to stay as neutral as possible, understanding where these politics exist can be useful in ensuring the best for you studio.
As someone looking to enter indie development, the sections on ’boutique publishers’ and how they fit into the publishing landscape a large was beneficial. Similarly to what we have seen in the film industry with distributors such as A24, these publishers each have their own identity and values that are clearly conveyed to players. This can be highly useful to indie studios looking to maximise their audience, as alongside the marketing benefits they offer, their name alone can serve as a stamp of approval and signifier of quality that will likely guarantee an audience.
By the end of the lecture Nick wrapped up the module, tying it all back in to what we have learnt throughout this module. The emphasis on a ‘playcentric approach’ remained true, with the player still being the centre of our crafted experiences. We were encouraged to reflect on what design knowledge we had gained, and how we can use it to be a better designer for our players, our studio, and most importantly, for ourselves.
GDD Work
As this has been the final week before hand-in, my GDD contributions have largely been formatting and grammar checking this week. I also added in my bibliography and full list of figures.
I read through the entirety of the document, ensuring that everything was written as clearly and concisely as possible, converting blocks of text into bullet points where possible. I also added in various links within the document, directing readers to sections that elaborate certain points (i.e. “see chapter 4.1 for further detail”). Lastly, I had friends read over the document, and suggest any areas which they felt were unclear or missing. One area that came up as missing was the lack of detail over the game’s fail states and how they impact the player. I made sure to add these in their own subheading under ‘core gameplay’. Finally, I added a title, contents page, headers and footers. I hope that these additions and refinements have made the document as accessible and digestible as possible. While a design document should be an extensive ‘bible’ that details all design considerations for the team, it should also be easily referred to, with information being presented deliberately.
Individual challenge
As a literal interpretation of this week’s lecture title, the individual challenge tasked us with taking a purely singleplayer game and adding multiplayer elements to it. I chose to turn Hotline Miami (2012) into an intense, fast-paced multiplayer shooter.
==============================================================================
Some amazing singleplayer games have successfully managed to make the transition into multiplayer. Often times they add co-op elements (such as Far Cry 4 (2014), or Unravel Two), and other times they are able to create standalone multiplayer modes that manage to retain the core of the singleplayer experience but move it into a player vs. player context (i.e. The Last of Us (2013)).
My proposed multiplayer game would be a sequel to Hotline Miami. Retaining the design pillars of the original, players would instead fight each other in conflict that moves at breakneck speed.
Some core features:
- The speed of death still applies. You only need to hit your opponent once to kill them, however you only need to be hit once too.
- The lock-on mechanic is no longer present, making shots more skill-based.
- Certain modifiers can be applied to matches such as “melee only”, or “thrown kills only”.
- Progression is tied to the mask system. Every time you level up, unlock a new mask.
- Rounds and matches will be very fast. A perfect game for when you only have limited time.
Match types:
- 1v1. First to score 10 points wins.
- 8 person free for all. First to score 30 kills wins.
- Battle royal. 100 players and last one to survive wins.
==============================================================================
I think that Hotline Miami‘s core gameplay loop would lend itself well to a competitive context. Linking back nicely to week five’s topic, this game would be all about testing player’s twitch skills. Much like the original, the faster your reactions are the more likely you are to survive. There is also an added layer of unpredictability that comes from playing against real people, that would keep things feeling fresh.
Iron designer challenge
Unfortunately, this journal is due before the final iron designer challenge is set to take place, so I will not be able to discuss the submission for this week.
Further reading
In response to this week’s focus on developing for publishers, I decided to look further into industry guidance on the matter. Eventually, I found an informative article on Game Developer (formerly Gamasutra) about healthy developer/publisher relationships (Sumo 2019). This article served as a great follow-on from the lecture, featuring real publisher contacts that were available for viewing. The author went on to break down what each element of the contract meant, clarifying from both a developer’s and publisher’s perspective. He ensured to stress the fact that contracts are almost always negotiable, so “if there is anything that really jumps out at you that you feel is unreasonable, ask for it to be explained and if necessary, changed” (Sumo 2019).
Module reflection
As the GAM250 module comes to a close, I would like to take some time to reflect on what I have learnt and how I have developed as a designer over the past twelve weeks.
Firstly, the lectures were all deeply informative, with Nick’s extensive research, alongside his first-hand industry experience making for great points of learning. Every lecture covered an important topic of game design, and the overall structure of the module meant that each lecture topic flowed into one another well. Every week, I was able to get multiple pages of notes to be referred back to later. This knowledge was then further consolidated in the weekly seminars, in which we were able to discuss the subjects with esteemed industry guest lecturers. It was highly beneficial to hear a variety of professional opinions on design and I gained a lot from the dialogue that was engaged with during these sessions.
The regular individual challenges were a great spark for exercising various design muscles, as informed by the key knowledge I had gained from that week’s lectures. It is true that a lack of constraints is the enemy of creativity, and I found that the challenges given at the start of each week gave just enough limitations and constraint to spark new ideas and design solutions. There are multiple submissions that I could easily see myself developing further into personal projects in the future, which is a fantastic result. In particular, my ‘Bomb Defusal: Clean Up Crew’, and ‘Tic Tac Toe: Current Wars’ game concepts are ones that I am particularly proud of, and would love to take further. My character write up for ‘Seamus Kelly’ was also a lot of fun to create.
The same can be said for the weekly iron designer challenges, which also greatly helped me to actively apply what I had learnt in each week. The added benefit of a group setting made for a constant back and forth of creativity, with many of my teammates proposing great design ideas that I had never considered. These challenges felt like a safe space in which we could throw ideas around, no matter how left field they may be.
Overall, I am happy with my portfolio submission of Slam City Skates. I ensured to work on it consistently throughout the study block, regularly updating it as new ideas were sparked. Because of this, I feel that my GDD was given room to breathe, becoming an ever-evolving document that was updated over time, similarly to how many design documents are formed in professional development. At forty-five pages and 7151 words, I feel that my document was an extensive look at the game’s design and I am proud of the amount of detail that was put into it. In particular, the ‘Mechanics Breakdown’ was a chapter that I feel effectively compartmentalised mechanics in an easily readable way.
I feel that I could have improved my submission by having more visualisations of gameplay features and levels. The two level mock-ups included helped to convey level design much better than my writing could, and I feel that this could be applicable to other aspects of the document. For instance, having visualisations of certain mechanics at play, enemy types, or usable items could have helped to make the document more understandable. This is certainly something to consider as I move forward as a designer.
In conclusion, this entire module has been instrumental to my development as a game designer. Many thanks go to Nick for conducting such a consistently engaging module and imparting his wealth of design knowledge. Through regular engagement with lectures, seminars and weekly challenges I feel that I have learnt a great deal about many key aspects of design. Furthermore, regular research and reflection, alongside weekly reflective blog posts have pushed me to critically reflect on my progression, and my role in the industry as a whole. I look forward to the future of my educational career and beyond, as I take this invaluable knowledge and experience forward and further develop myself a designer.
References
Far Cry 5. 2018. Ubisoft Montreal and Ubisoft Toronto, Ubisoft.
Hotline Miami. 2012. Dennaton Games, Devolver Digital.
The Last of Us. 2013. Naughty Dog, Sony Computer Entertainment.
SUMO, Ryan. 2019. ‘What Does A Healthy Publisher/Developer Relationship Look Like (With Real Contract Details!)’ Game Developer [online]. Available at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/what-does-a-healthy-publisher-developer-relationship-looks-like-with-real-contract-details- [accessed 8 December 2021].
Unravel Two. 2018. Coldwood Interactive, Electronic Arts.
