"I don''t decide on new projects based on what would be most fun for me. Instead I decide what I should be doing based on what will help me achieve my goals, and then I psychologically condition myself to want to do it. That''s how I moved from programming to publishing."


So is it safe to say that if you don''t enjoy playing a game you developed, doesn''t mean that other people won''t enjoy it? How can a programmer tell if their game is going to be fun enough for the customers?

quote: Original post by Mman
So is it safe to say that if you don't enjoy playing a game you developed, doesn't mean that other people won't enjoy it? How can a programmer tell if their game is going to be fun enough for the customers?

I know it's possible to develop a fun game without it being fun for the programmer because I've done it. Dweep is a logic puzzle game, and I designed all the original levels as well as the first expansion pack, so I never had the chance to experience what it was like to play it. The fun of a logic puzzle game comes from figuring out how each object works and how you can combine them to achieve the goal. There isn't much fun in a game when you know exactly how every object works and how every level can be solved. So Dweep was never really fun for me to play. I only "played" levels to verify the solutions I already knew. I verified that the game was fun by watching other people play it while I took copious notes.

Ryan, Dweep's artist, created all the levels for the 2nd Dweep expansion pack, so it wasn't until then that I really got my first chance to play levels that I didn't personally design. That was 6+ months after the original release. That was a wonderful treat for me because I finally got a chance to experience what it was really like to play it, and I did find it quite fun.

Fitznik was a totally different story though. Since I didn't design any of the puzzles, I got to experience the gameplay just like any other player. I personally solved all 63 levels and found the game very enjoyable to play -- and highly addictive.

I've played hundreds and hundreds of different games over the past 20+ years since I first booted up an Apple II, so I didn't find it problematic to develop a game that would be fun for other players but not for myself. I didn't write Dweep because I wanted to play it -- I wrote it because I wanted to sell it. And in order for it to sell, it had to be fun, not for myself, but for the players in its market.

Steve Pavlina
Dexterity Software
www.dexterity.com


[edited by - Dexterity on August 2, 2002 2:03:15 AM]

Damned Steve, you just destroyed my view of the world. *g*

I agree with Jester101''s view. Making games is hard work and if it''s not fun why would you bother? You may as well work a 9-5 job(you''ll hate it just as much). At least in an ordinary job you know you''ll get that pay packet at the end of the week.

No offense Dexterity, but I suspect you have an ulterior motive for your posts on puzzle games. Perhaps you are trying to convince people to make them so you can sell them? I don''t have a problem with your approach as long as both parties are making money.

I reckon its still more fun than working on database stuff. Plus, now that dweep made so much money, steve could spend some time doing a game he really likes without worrying so much about the sales.

http://www.positech.co.uk

Personally I believe in the games as art concept very much and have written several articles about it. I think it can work. There''s a large audience for these games (yes, even a Schindler''s List game). When I released Last Rose (an experimental short game) I was quite surprised by the amount of people who loved the game, and by the amount of people who can''t wait to play my next game. Considering that Last Rose was extremely short and very depressing...
''Art-house games'' can propably never be quite as successful as mainstream games, but there''s a place for them.

-----
Jonas Kyratzes - progressive game design & development
WAHonline - your source for online nonsense

quote: Original post by Davaris
No offense Dexterity, but I suspect you have an ulterior motive for your posts on puzzle games. Perhaps you are trying to convince people to make them so you can sell them? I don''t have a problem with your approach as long as both parties are making money.

A good observation, but not very likely in my opinion. Remember that Steve has been the one going around here giving out all the "secrets" of how he succeeded and what each of us needs to do to be just as successful on our own. I''m sure the information he has given out has empowered or will empower many of us (if we work hard and put the info to good use) to do an end run around him and get our games directly to the customers. If he were really so self serving he would have left out a lot of the information he has handed out over the last year or so.


Ron Frazier
Kronos Software
www.kronos-software.com
Miko & Molly - Taking Puzzle Games to A Whole New Dimension

"A good observation, but not very likely in my opinion. Remember that Steve has been the one going around here giving out all the "secrets" of how he succeeded and what each of us needs to do to be just as successful on our own. I'm sure the information he has given out has empowered or will empower many of us (if we work hard and put the info to good use) to do an end run around him and get our games directly to the customers. If he were really so self serving he would have left out a lot of the information he has handed out over the last year or so."



I agree with LordKronos.


" Making games is hard work and if it's not fun why would you bother? You may as well work a 9-5 job(you'll hate it just as much). At least in an ordinary job you know you'll get that pay packet at the end of the week."

Not everything you do in life will be fun, that's just life



[edited by - Mman on August 2, 2002 10:20:27 AM]

This is the stupidest argument. You people make it sound like Steve sold his “artistic soul” by making puzzle games. People make games for different reasons. For some of you it sounds like your goal is to make an artistic statement. Great, go for it. Just don’t be disappointed if it doesn’t sell. If your goal is to make money, then you have to create a product that consumers want to buy. That means that you need to do some research to find out what sells. That’s just business. Steve discovered that people buy shareware puzzle games. They don’t require a several million dollar budget and are relatively easy to build. If you’re smart (and want to make money) then you might listen to him.

Just because I put the business goals before the artistic ones doesn''t mean I don''t value the art/fun side. With the business goals I set for Dweep, I still had tremendous freedom on the artistic side. I have fun making games, I have fun marketing and selling them, and I have fun building a business. Right now we''re in the process of moving into a new office, and I''ll be hiring more people soon. To me, this is a fun and exciting time.

In the long run, I find it a lot more "fun" to make a game that sells well than to make one that doesn''t. It''s more fun for the players too, since with a hit, there are a lot more of them.

Perhaps my attitude on competition is different than other people''s. I subscribe to John Carmack''s philosophy that this is not a zero-sum game. Helping others doesn''t hurt me. When I first started out in shareware, I learned so much from other people in the ASP, who gave me an abundance of free advice when I desperately needed it. I certainly didn''t figure out everything on my own, and I think it would be a terrible waste if I couldn''t pass on some of what I learned.


Steve Pavlina
Dexterity Software
www.dexterity.com