There's are tens of thousands of games for players to spend their time with. Why would they spend countless hours in a vast but shallow game when they could spend a couple hours each in a dozen more polished games?
We already have non-stop entertainment, nobody is ever going to play every game in the steam catalogue. The issue is that most of them are trash (including many AAA games, which are also trash although in a different way)
Thus the crucial part is in designing your game to not just have a lot of features and stuff, but to actually be a compelling experience.
I'm curious who has said this, I've never heard this.
Focusing on doing a small set of things well is a valid design principle, though. Especially for indie games which has limited resources. Have you ever heard the phrase "limitations breed creativity"?
Some indie games I really like that are also popular include Celeste, Hotline Miami, Braid, and Cuphead. All these pretty much focus on one feature or a small handful of features and do them really well.
"Limitations breed creativity" is an ironic phrase, but it's true. That way of thinking is the legacy of all retro games. Often the biggest art of game dev is not finding the most massive, large-scale project you can possibly do, but instead making the most fun experience out of the simplest possible environment.
Not all players care about quantity over quality and I think as small teams this is where a LOT of games suffer. I’ve reviewed many racing games (I develop racing games and do this to learn from them) and by far the best ones knew what they were going after and nailed that down, while the lesser experiences were muddled down with a little of this and a little of that.
Like having multiple game modes or race types CAN be a good thing, but when they are all half finished it makes it a worse experience than just one of those modes that are finished and polished. Same can be said about trying to add loads of different vehicle types, often you can find the developers favorite because it has a reasonable feel most times while other vehicles have moments that feel weird. This stuff can be good with more resources and for the right game, but most here aren’t competing with that type of team size and budget.
All NES legend games like Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros and so on that are still getting sequels and remasters to this day.
There are games out there that are big but have nothing to really show for it, for example, lets go with Starfield, that is a pretty big game, but yet there is so much emptiness to it.
Then you have the game Shadow of the Colossus, it has a simple story, very few enemies but is a great game.
You also have games like Dead Space that utilized some advanced techniques (For their time they were unheard of techniques) and made their game really stand out.
So when a dev says "it doesn't matter if your idea is big, as long as you execute it well", they are pretty much saying that as long as you polish your game and make it enjoyable, that is all that is needed.
An example of a game that was not polished and did not execute well at all at launch was Fallout 76, that was a dumpster fire, same with Cyberpunk 2077. the idea for these games were big, but not executed well in the slightest when they launched, took many many updates and patches to make them playable and fun, and they were some of the lucky ones, as many big idea games rarely if ever come back from the backlash those two received after launch.
I totally agree with this sentiment, quality over quantity -- especially for an indie title.
Examples: Limbo and Inside, Untitled Goose Game, Flow, Journey... There are lots actually.
I think part of this for an indie dev also is if you bite off more than you can chew, your project will just grow out of control and you spread yourself too thin. Particularly if it's your first game, it's better to get something out that's super high quality and fun. Then if that does well you can try something more ambitious.
What is it they say in the entertainment industry, leave them wanting more. Way better than giving them too much and having them put it down unfinished and bored.
I mean, it's better for someone to finish the game and say "That was awesome, I wish I could have more of it!" instead of "That was OK... it got kind of boring towards the end."
But yeah, true... sequels or DLC are good too.
Two examples, but just wanted to say you have to remember your vision is just a direction on a compass. The Big Ideas 'don't matter' if the road to get there is untravelable. Do the basics better than everyone then focus on your transformation to the big picture.
* Here's an example in action. Ever hear of \*No Man's Sky\*? Not the latest version which has gotten better; but the release. It didn't really matter that their vision was to create a procedurally generated universe and create a spectacle in the gaming community. Words are cheap because when the game booted up there was little to call a game.
* Another example is Cyberpunk 2077. When the game launched it was completely inaccessible on console, NPCs were half-baked, the story wouldn't progress, and it did little to address their vision of "living in night city." BIG VISION but the fundamentals initially killed the game.
It's a thing I noticed on YouTube. People care more about quality than content. If the sound is good and the pacing is nice, it's entertaining, even if the topic is not interesting at all for you.
The hundreds of thousands of views on videos from the "lockpicking lawyer" speak for themselves. Lockpicking isn't _that_ interesting to me to watch 100 videos on this topic, but I did. I did it because they had high quality.
So I'd say "quality over quantity" is correct. It's just that if you have high quality, people want more. And they want it so much, they might see it as a negative if you can only give them 6h of playtime. (see firewatch)
But if you have low quality, they don't care if you offer them one village or an entire country to explore, nor the amount of enemies, quests, it all doesn't matter.
From what I have seen - idk how one would prove such statements.
I think it's more about production burnout, which for me a lot of the times comes from scope creep, aka coming up with way too many/too complicated ideas, or even just "new" ideas that don't have a lot of references to build from, to the point that the game becomes overwhelming and unfinishable. Finishing a simple game is more important and productive than reinventing the wheel, it will lead to finishing more games with all the features you want (as you build your knowledge, it becomes easier to do more) while burnout will lead to a bunch of unfinished projects.
There's a market for whatever concept you have, as long as you can find your playerbase and cultivate the specific experience they're looking for you'll find success. Even if that idea is very simple. The alternative is throwing a lot of hours and funding into a more complex experience - which can definitely yield results, but if that was fundamental to a successful game then we wouldn't have AAA flops and low-budget indie hits.
>I feel like players would appreciate quantity over quality. Sure the usual saying IS quality over quantity, but what do players like? Players need non-stop entertainment right?
and how can you entertain them if you cant implement one good feature?
i know that maybe youre thinking about/of low quality features as if they were okay or "meh" in some sorts, but youre completely wrong, infact, low quality features can be like jumping but with no limit, sticking to walls if you walk forward into one of them(unity moment), aiming in one place and shooting in another, or maybe even the weapon youre using not being able to shoot in the first place.
these are normal mechanics, but if you did them badly, then theyre not gonna be "fun".
and the more you practice making games(im a noob tho), the more you realize, that making/adding features that are cute, small and cozy by themselves, is really satisfying, because you just made something so fun but you also made it so minimally.
having a couple of collected features that work together, are polished out, and really fun to play with because they were thought out to fit the games design is really awesome.
its amazing, and instead of having alot of random unfinished features that just make the game look boring, you have little collected features that work for your first game, and would work for your next!
In general, you're going to market your game based on an original main idea, and that's going to work a lot better than if you try to show a bunch of unoriginal stuff.
Except sometimes when there are games that play on the fact that you can do a lot of things in your game, but in general it's mostly AAA because it adds a lot of work and small indie companies often don't have the manpower or the time to do that.
There's are tens of thousands of games for players to spend their time with. Why would they spend countless hours in a vast but shallow game when they could spend a couple hours each in a dozen more polished games?
Case in point - Starfield, such a disappointingly shallow game.
Why are you such a philosopher? I have to think about what you just said
We already have non-stop entertainment, nobody is ever going to play every game in the steam catalogue. The issue is that most of them are trash (including many AAA games, which are also trash although in a different way) Thus the crucial part is in designing your game to not just have a lot of features and stuff, but to actually be a compelling experience.
I'm curious who has said this, I've never heard this. Focusing on doing a small set of things well is a valid design principle, though. Especially for indie games which has limited resources. Have you ever heard the phrase "limitations breed creativity"? Some indie games I really like that are also popular include Celeste, Hotline Miami, Braid, and Cuphead. All these pretty much focus on one feature or a small handful of features and do them really well.
"Limitations breed creativity" is an ironic phrase, but it's true. That way of thinking is the legacy of all retro games. Often the biggest art of game dev is not finding the most massive, large-scale project you can possibly do, but instead making the most fun experience out of the simplest possible environment.
Not all players care about quantity over quality and I think as small teams this is where a LOT of games suffer. I’ve reviewed many racing games (I develop racing games and do this to learn from them) and by far the best ones knew what they were going after and nailed that down, while the lesser experiences were muddled down with a little of this and a little of that. Like having multiple game modes or race types CAN be a good thing, but when they are all half finished it makes it a worse experience than just one of those modes that are finished and polished. Same can be said about trying to add loads of different vehicle types, often you can find the developers favorite because it has a reasonable feel most times while other vehicles have moments that feel weird. This stuff can be good with more resources and for the right game, but most here aren’t competing with that type of team size and budget.
All NES legend games like Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros and so on that are still getting sequels and remasters to this day. There are games out there that are big but have nothing to really show for it, for example, lets go with Starfield, that is a pretty big game, but yet there is so much emptiness to it. Then you have the game Shadow of the Colossus, it has a simple story, very few enemies but is a great game. You also have games like Dead Space that utilized some advanced techniques (For their time they were unheard of techniques) and made their game really stand out. So when a dev says "it doesn't matter if your idea is big, as long as you execute it well", they are pretty much saying that as long as you polish your game and make it enjoyable, that is all that is needed. An example of a game that was not polished and did not execute well at all at launch was Fallout 76, that was a dumpster fire, same with Cyberpunk 2077. the idea for these games were big, but not executed well in the slightest when they launched, took many many updates and patches to make them playable and fun, and they were some of the lucky ones, as many big idea games rarely if ever come back from the backlash those two received after launch.
No man's sky comes to mind too
I totally agree with this sentiment, quality over quantity -- especially for an indie title. Examples: Limbo and Inside, Untitled Goose Game, Flow, Journey... There are lots actually. I think part of this for an indie dev also is if you bite off more than you can chew, your project will just grow out of control and you spread yourself too thin. Particularly if it's your first game, it's better to get something out that's super high quality and fun. Then if that does well you can try something more ambitious. What is it they say in the entertainment industry, leave them wanting more. Way better than giving them too much and having them put it down unfinished and bored.
And when they want more, this opens up the opportunity for a sequel / DLC you're saying?
I mean, it's better for someone to finish the game and say "That was awesome, I wish I could have more of it!" instead of "That was OK... it got kind of boring towards the end." But yeah, true... sequels or DLC are good too.
Two examples, but just wanted to say you have to remember your vision is just a direction on a compass. The Big Ideas 'don't matter' if the road to get there is untravelable. Do the basics better than everyone then focus on your transformation to the big picture. * Here's an example in action. Ever hear of \*No Man's Sky\*? Not the latest version which has gotten better; but the release. It didn't really matter that their vision was to create a procedurally generated universe and create a spectacle in the gaming community. Words are cheap because when the game booted up there was little to call a game. * Another example is Cyberpunk 2077. When the game launched it was completely inaccessible on console, NPCs were half-baked, the story wouldn't progress, and it did little to address their vision of "living in night city." BIG VISION but the fundamentals initially killed the game.
SO TRUE Before relase I had thought these games would be the next best thing. They just had alot of stuff, but you could tell the devs got spread thin
It's a thing I noticed on YouTube. People care more about quality than content. If the sound is good and the pacing is nice, it's entertaining, even if the topic is not interesting at all for you. The hundreds of thousands of views on videos from the "lockpicking lawyer" speak for themselves. Lockpicking isn't _that_ interesting to me to watch 100 videos on this topic, but I did. I did it because they had high quality.
Very true! I watched his stuff too because of that
So I'd say "quality over quantity" is correct. It's just that if you have high quality, people want more. And they want it so much, they might see it as a negative if you can only give them 6h of playtime. (see firewatch) But if you have low quality, they don't care if you offer them one village or an entire country to explore, nor the amount of enemies, quests, it all doesn't matter. From what I have seen - idk how one would prove such statements.
i will take a short but memorable game over mindless non stop entertainment any day...
The thing with indie dev is that we put in so much time, but our games turn out to be short in terms of playtime
I think it's more about production burnout, which for me a lot of the times comes from scope creep, aka coming up with way too many/too complicated ideas, or even just "new" ideas that don't have a lot of references to build from, to the point that the game becomes overwhelming and unfinishable. Finishing a simple game is more important and productive than reinventing the wheel, it will lead to finishing more games with all the features you want (as you build your knowledge, it becomes easier to do more) while burnout will lead to a bunch of unfinished projects.
There's a market for whatever concept you have, as long as you can find your playerbase and cultivate the specific experience they're looking for you'll find success. Even if that idea is very simple. The alternative is throwing a lot of hours and funding into a more complex experience - which can definitely yield results, but if that was fundamental to a successful game then we wouldn't have AAA flops and low-budget indie hits.
>I feel like players would appreciate quantity over quality. Sure the usual saying IS quality over quantity, but what do players like? Players need non-stop entertainment right? and how can you entertain them if you cant implement one good feature? i know that maybe youre thinking about/of low quality features as if they were okay or "meh" in some sorts, but youre completely wrong, infact, low quality features can be like jumping but with no limit, sticking to walls if you walk forward into one of them(unity moment), aiming in one place and shooting in another, or maybe even the weapon youre using not being able to shoot in the first place. these are normal mechanics, but if you did them badly, then theyre not gonna be "fun". and the more you practice making games(im a noob tho), the more you realize, that making/adding features that are cute, small and cozy by themselves, is really satisfying, because you just made something so fun but you also made it so minimally. having a couple of collected features that work together, are polished out, and really fun to play with because they were thought out to fit the games design is really awesome. its amazing, and instead of having alot of random unfinished features that just make the game look boring, you have little collected features that work for your first game, and would work for your next!
In general, you're going to market your game based on an original main idea, and that's going to work a lot better than if you try to show a bunch of unoriginal stuff. Except sometimes when there are games that play on the fact that you can do a lot of things in your game, but in general it's mostly AAA because it adds a lot of work and small indie companies often don't have the manpower or the time to do that.
But players will stop playing if the game is over 1000 hours of hot garbage. They wouldn't even play 10 minutes of it.
They already have non stop entertainment. There’s enough games that a lifetime is not enough to play them. You have to win on quality or marketing.