Making Games: Lubricating with a GIMLET

Posted by Rampant Coyote on November 3, 2010

Not too long ago, I read The E-Myth Revisited. While not the final word on why businesses survive or fail, it was packed with a lot of ideas. And I immediately used it as a yardstick to measure every video game studio I have familiarity with. And explains why so many fail. Unfortunately, the principles in the book are better applied to a service or manufacturing company, and are more difficult to apply to creative or entertainment businesses.

I get an automatic resentment towards any management philosophy that tries to treat creative production like a widget factory. Which is, I think, ANOTHER major reason game companies fail as they expand and get new, more professional management.

This was brought back to mind when I re-read Allen Varney’s article, “The Conquest of Origin” last week as I was working on my post on Origin Systems. The quote that struck me was from Stephen Beeman: “You’d like to think a marriage of EA and Origin would result in a merger of their strengths. But instead of combining EA’s execution with Origin’s creativity, the end result was more like Origin’s execution with EA’s creativity.”

As a dude sinking an insane amount of my “free” time and a not-inconsiderable amount of out-of-pocket money that could go to my kids’ education into making games and running this website, this is sobering stuff. I mean, sure, I am doing this ‘cuz I love it – I seriously do enjoy making games more than playing them (well, most of the time…)  And as a part-timer (so far), it’s not like a failed game will likely mean not being able to pay the mortgage or put food on the table. But it does make me realize how far I am from making a go at this as a full-time job, and brings up some issues from the book that I’m trying to reconcile in my head and development style (such as it is).

What it comes down to, I think, is that some parts of game development do need to work like a widget factory. Yes, I am horrified to admit it. But if you run a game development business, like all software development, it needs to run as a business. This means predictability and consistency. It means some level of repeatable process. At the very least, it means being able to come up with a somewhat accurate estimate of the time and resources needed to complete a product, and some concept of what kind of return can be anticipated to make it worthwhile. That’s the business side of things.

And maybe it doesn’t need to suck all the fun out of making games.

Sadly, in spite of years of professional experience making games, I fail here. I guess Rampant Games is not yet ready to become a full-time endeavor. My development process is still pretty haphazard. How do I measure project velocity? How do I make sure it’s heading in the right direction? And how do I gauge quality? And once I am able to measure these elements, what can I do to improve? Obviously, if I don’t have a process in place, it’s hard to improve upon it, or build the tools necessary to do so.

I think one of the failings in the software industry is that it keeps searching for a “one size fits all” solution.  Games are different from customer management software. Downloadable games are different from web-based social games. RPGs are different from action games. I probably work differently from Thomas Riegsecker. A single, supposedly objective uniform process isn’t going to work best for all of us.

So I’m working on that. Making a process, a methodology for doing some things that will hopefully allow me to be more consistent, automate some parts, maybe even offload some responsibilities at a later date, and most importantly allow me to concentrate more time on the fun stuff.

Then there’s the quality aspect. One thing I’ve found in all game projects is that its easy to lose sight of quality while neck-deep in production. When I do that in Frayed Knights development, I sometimes go back and discover that I’ve gone and set up three almost identical combat encounters one right after another, or some other stupid thing like that. Or – just as bad – I’ve put hours and hours into working on something that going to make very little difference in the game (AKA “Gold-Plating”). Having some kind of pattern in place to help me make sure I’m working on the things that *I* consider important for game quality would be helpful, especially on those nights the creative part of my brain has gone into autopilot.

I’ve a sneaking suspicion that a gimlet might help. Or rather, GIMLET.

I’ve been delighted reading The CRPG Addict’s Blog, and Kevin made me a more readable / printable PDF of the GIMLET RPG Rating / Ranking System that the CRPG Addict came up with to try and find a common system for evaluating RPGs with extreme differences in technology and style. I printed it up and hung it in my office, near my framed cloth map from Ultima V. It’s a subjective system, which is actually just fine by me.

I’m mentally tinkering with the system, considering how I might personally use something similar as a yardstick for not only measuring my games, but actually as something of a template for design. Not to “game the system” or just check boxes. That would be silly, as it will be an unrecognizably modded-up system vaguely based on something only used by one guy on a blog somewhere who will never review my games. But the point is to provide focus and structure as I move forward – a system for evaluating the design and results. To turn it into a recipe for my “secret sauce.” Or something.

I’m still in mulling / experimentation mode here. We’ll see how it turns out. But if any other indie devs are reading this and have insight into this, please speak up! Hopefully this will help. I’d love to share anything that helps other indie devs improve their chances of success in a field where failure is, unfortunately, the norm.

Oh, and to The CRPG Addict: Thanks for the GIMLET! We’ll see if it helps Frayed Knights 2…

Filed Under: Biz - Comments: 8 Comments to Read



top