|
If you're involved in the startup community or even just follow Hacker News, there's a pretty good chance that you've heard about "lean startups" or the "lean startup method." In his bestselling book, The Lean Startup, Eric Ries outlines a framework for small, innovative teams to more efficiently find product/market fit for new products. At its core is a focus on evaluating product design decisions based on user data gathered from scientific experiments. Eric argues that by making "validated learning" your key goal, you shortcut your time to building a wildly successful mass market product.
I recently finished Eric's book, and what struck me was how many of the same principles could be applied to game companies. Eric Ries pioneered the "Lean Startup" method while at a game company, IMVU, yet many people that I've talked to in the game industry feel like this model is more applicable to "startups" than game companies.
I disagree: the product design decisions of a startup mirror the game design decisions of a game company, and both startups and modern game companies use customer analytics to drive their decisions.
There is no reason why game devs shouldn't strive to make games more cheaply, and that can be accomplished by incorporating the Lean Startup method into their production process. I've spoken to many developers who are trying it right now.
So what would a "Lean Game Development" process look like? How can game developers adopt the Lean Startup model to be more appropriate for building a game?
Minimum Viable Game
In The Lean Startup, a minimum viable product is the bare minimum that you need to build in order to test the assumptions of your business. A minimum viable game is similar: you need to build the bare minimum game experience necessary to prove that people find your core game mechanic engaging. What this looks like is going to depend on the type of game that you're creating and what game mechanic you want to test.
So what goes into a minimum viable game?
In order to test the core gameplay mechanic of your game, you need to do less work and spend less money than you think. You just need to build out the first level of the game, which will provide the framework for the experiment and give you valuable feedback on your initial onboarding process. Building this first level should be done as cheaply and quickly as possible so that you can start learning immediately. Here's some tips for staying lean when building your MVG:
Use existing code. To quote Raph Koster, "there must be a 95 percent overlap in what the code does between all FPSes, but somehow FPS developers have giant programming teams."
There's no need for you to fall into the same trap. Use github, open source projects and other resources to cobble together the basic facets of your game quickly and for free. This also gives you valuable perspective on how the system will work together and what parts you need to code yourself later.
Use very basic art and sound. There are great resources out there for free game art, unit sprites, and game sounds that you can use until you get your own IP. You can also get enough art for your first level by doing a small contract with artists that you already know, or reaching out to new ones on artist communities or /r/gamedevclassifieds.
Only include the necessary features. If the feature you're building isn't required for the player to run the game and complete the experiment, then you don't need it. Don't build a save game system, variable graphics settings, or even a starting menu into your MVG. Each of these features wastes your time, increases the number of things that can break, and doesn't contribute to your core goal. Just put the level online and let players have at it.
|
Game designers need to "let go" of the experience a little bit to use this method, but it can yield huge benefits with significantly less work if done correctly.
An established video-game company is not a startup, but a team within that company can act like a startup if it launches a new, uncertain kind of product. Tyler is dead-on with his idea of a "minimum viable game"!
Tyler York:
"Metrics should always be quantitative, because only hard data can give you the definitive answer that you need to make tough decisions"
Koichi Hayashida:
"What we try to rely on is more of that objective feedback that we can see in the expressions on people's faces as they're playing our games"
1) You can test anonymously. This means players who will never meet you and have no idea who you will test your game. This leads to the most honest, direct feedback. Good testers will still give good feedback to friends, but often times they will soften the blow because they're talking to you in person.
2) You can test on demand. Any time you need testers, just fire up Facebook Ads or Google Adwords and you'll have as many users as you want, from all over the world. Scheduling user tests is very time consuming.
3) Data ends arguments. Often times in game development, two people key to the game's design will have a fundamental disagreement about the correct course of action. Qualitatively, there are likely merits to both approaches. However, if one feature iteration performed significantly better than the other in user testing, that ends the argument.
Don't get me wrong, there will always be a place for qualitative testing. But I think there are some pretty serious limitations to it, especially at scale.
By not analysing qualitative measures you're missing out on the most important factor of all, the player experience.
And sometimes, you can drive yourself crazy trying to get just the right stats, when it's easier just to watch a few people play.
My counter to the prototype argument would be that you can launch the game as a MVG in an unbranded, low-fi way that wouldn't jeopardize your actual game's launch. Instead, you'd just have a crappy game that people would test, and then you'd kill it and launch the new game without any association to the test game at all.
The advice of "make something fun first" then design the game around that proven fun mechanic is really good advice. Otherwise the game could end up as a mess with completely superfluous items and abilities... or worse, you will end up with a full, ready to be shipped game that is fundamentally broken and inconsistent. A prime example of this is "Enter The Matrix" where the fun of bullet-fu shooting and wire stunt martial-arting your way through a bunch of military and police is undercut by the radically inconsistent presentation and singularly over powered techniques.
And also on a side note, Enter The Matrix was a seriously disappointing game. I had such high hopes for it but it was garbage (anyone remember the driving mechanics? Oi).
Add some collectibles, some enemies and then a timer for each (so players can race to see who can kill all the enemies/get the collectibles fastest) and you have something a little closer to a minimum viable product. That said, for Mario 64 a minimum viable product would have to have 2 levels connected to a hub level, each with 2 or 3 goals. That gets across all of the major aspects of the larger game: Move around, explore and fight enemies in a 3D space; Play levels to earn stars to open up new levels; Levels can change when they are replayed to earn even more stars. Remove anything and you lose a core mechanic of Mario 64.
A set of tires isn't a minimum viable car, the courtyard of Mario 64 isn't a minimum viable game.
I'm not sure if your car analogy fits so well. It would be more like if you envisage making a business out of offering people the chance to partake in competitive ostrich racing. To test the concept out, would you buy a whole load of ostriches and build a race course for people to try out, or just give people the chance to play about riding a rented ostrich around an empty field? There's no point seeing if people like racing ostriches if they don't like even riding them around randomly. Or the real minimal test for the concept would just be sticking up an advert for ostrich racing online and seeing if you even get any phone calls before bothering to rent the ostrich.
I think the 'lean startup' advice is really only applicable to sandbox/RPG or twitch-style games, which are admittedly in ascendance, but do we want to uphold a development model as an ideal when it only really applies to a few subgenres?
I think all the same techniques would apply for narrative games. Vertical slices are common in the development of AAA story-driven blockbusters... If anything they don't do enough horizontal slices.
This aritlce seems to be for the "games are just products for making money crowd." And "Who needs a passionate and competant designer when you can design by a committee of metrics? "
Don't get me wrong... i think players/testers/focus groups have their purpose in terms of helping tweak and polish a design... but you have to start with someone who has a vision I would hope.
When it comes to running a lean startup, it almost sounds like you're describing an atmosphere where the actual game concept is irrelevant and that it's the process that is the most important thing.
I can't conceive of how someone forms a start up without a clear idea for a game. And I suspect it's relatively rare (not impossible) that a company is founded on the basis of a game idea that turns into something radically different due to feedback.
Now itterative game development.. that makes a lot of sense (more project management oriented and not project design oriented although design benefits from good management). Get your core game playable as fast as you can and then itterate and that's not new. But that sounds substantially different than this notion of "lean startup tatics." That sounds like a mixing of business and design.
Lean startup isn't trying to dictate the design of your game to you through metrics. What it's there to do is tell you what you can expect from your user base. You, the game developer will decide on what market you are targeting, so then data will - likely - come from that crowd. The point of getting data at that early stage is to get an idea of how your game will survive on release. Not only this, but it also helps gain substance with your target market before it's even available.
The difference between Agile and Lean isn't the iterative nature of it, as the two converge at several points. The difference lies with the business focus of testing with Lean and the developer focus of testing with Agile. Neither deny the importance of the other, and it makes sense to combine the two areas.
Though it sounds like a soulless crapfest to just push out an unfinished product, it makes sense if you want to get a reaction from your market. And there's little new about any methodology really. I imagine some of the pioneers of methodologies didn't ever get a mention, as some just had the sense to work different from the status quo, but they become a framework when they gain momentum :)
Course, I'm not great yet, so here's my goal: iterate early; iterate fast; iterate often! I've done products in 4 months, 8 weeks, and 2 weeks. And, recently, I started doing weekend-prototypes. The best lesson I learned is: MORE products is better than a PERFECT product.
Nice article. A bit focused on statistics, but that's a nice looking game. Thanks for sharing!