Lament of an anti-social gamer

There was a primer posted on Gamasutra a couple of weeks ago about the growing role of social communities in games (and the challenges of building one that works). It's probably obvious by now that there are huge advantages to building an online social community around games -- give your players a place to compare notes and shoot the breeze with other players, and you've got an almost surefire hit, particularly if the game already has a fanbase. Even games that are entirely played online anyway (say, World of Warcraft) have thriving internet communities because they give players another reason engage with each other while they should be working.

But is it possible to provide too many social options for players? It's a lot of work to set up such things, and there may be a point at which actual gameplay can be sacrificed for the sake of "social" features. The case in point is Spore. I was pumped about Spore before it came out. I bought it within a week after release. It's a great game, and it's revolutionary in several ways, but when you really dig into it, there's not much game there.

The Spore experience is so focused on encouraging players to share their creations with each other that I felt from the beginning as if I were missing half the game because I didn't care about looking at other people's creations. I love that other creations are pulled into my universe automatically, but I haven't spent a single minute looking at sporepedia online or making friends in the online Spore community.

(Full disclosure time: I'm not a heavy user of social media. I get it, and I think it's changing the nature of the internet before our eyes. But I lead quite an anti-social online life.)

It's becoming accepted generally that, if you don't build social features into your game, you better do it online. In fact, one of the suggestions I've heard for indie developers is to focus lots of attention on your online social presence. Make your game about connecting, not just playing, say the experts. They're probably right--all my favorite and most enduring entertainment experiences have thriving communities. My lack of participation doesn't mean it isn't there.

What I'm trying to find, being an ultra-indie, is the right balance. I can't build or support a big-time social platform to supplement my games. Even if I could, it would almost certainly seem incongruous with the scope of the games themselves. Nor can I hope to compete with the big casual game sites (which naturally have full-featured social elements).

Probably, as with most things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Create a game with in-game social elements (like multiplayer) and then give players a simple way to connect with each other outside the game using existing platforms like Facebook apps or embeddable web site widgets. Guess I'll add those to the list of things to learn.

Puerto Rico and The Fountainhead

My wife and I got back from Puerto Rico a few days ago. It was a fun trip, very relaxing, and much needed. Basically the only thing I did while in the Caribbean was sit by the pool and read (with some eating, drinking, and snorkeling thrown in).

In my pre-trip search for a book to read, I stumbled on an old copy of The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand that I got from my father several years ago. It's hard to say what drew me to it, not knowing much about Rand or her books, except that I had never read it, and everybody says it's a classic. I'll forego a full review, but I will say that it started out really well, with interesting, complex, and often surprising characters. Unfortunately the story quickly took a back seat to a lot of preaching about the eternal struggle between society and the individual.

Any Ayn Rand critics who happen to be reading this, don't worry. I haven't turned into a raging Objectivist. Nevertheless, Rand's perspective (it's not hard to make a connection between the author's ideas and those of Howard Roark, the protagonist) did strike a chord with me. The notion of the self as humankind's quintessential trait and most valuable asset is hard to refute -- self-awareness being what separates us from the the animals, etc. But more than that, her portrayal of mass media and its influence on unthinking hordes of people was eerily reminiscent of today's reality TV culture.

The Banner (a newspaper in the book) used sex, violence, and gossip the same way CSI uses the shiny object effect ("it's...so...pretty") to draw millions of viewers, and ridiculous editorials in the book's fictional newspaper affected public opinion like today's 24-hour news stations, both of which spew nonsense because they know people just want to be told what to think. There's even a character who bears a healthy resemblance to Jerry Bruckheimer or Rupert Murdoch -- a media mogul who made his fortune by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

So what does any of this have to do with game development? Directly, nothing. But it's easy to make the same arguments about the money-grubbing and lack of originality in the video game industry as Rand made about architecture in The Fountainhead. Ultimately, I wonder if there's anything truly original to be gained from big studios whose collective goal is to rehash past success as quickly as possible. Rand places all her hope in lone, single-minded, and frequently outcast geniuses (Copernicus, Galileo, DaVinci) to move the human race toward a greater future.

Will some indie game developer take the industry in a whole new direction? With the ballooning budgets and shrinking quality of most games today (and art in general), it seems the indie scene is the only place left to look.

iPhone development tips

As a follow-up to my last post, Game Career Guide just published an article on iPhone game development tips. there's some good info there, particularly about the general immaturity of the market and some of challenges for designing control schemes for the iPhone. The accelerometer, in particular, is one of the phones most unique features and also, I'd guess, one of the trickiest things to use effectively.

The article also warns against using the touch screen to simulate directional pads or joysticks, since there's no force feedback to tell you when you've slipped off the controls.

I'm still not sold on the idea of iPhone game development, but I have to say it's looking more interesting every day.

The future of gaming on the iPhone?

Unity Technologies announced last week the details of their iPhone development license for Unity. I've been waiting for this since they first said it was coming, and the specifics are about what I expected:

• The iPhone development license is an add-on to an existing Unity license.
  
• There are two versions of the license -- one that clearly targets indies and one for larger studios. The indie version is significantly less expensive, but it comes with some limitations, including a mandatory Unity splash screen as the game loads.
• There is no limit on the number of games you can create with a license (as opposed to the Wii development license for Unity, which has a per-title fee).

With iPhones selling like hotcakes and the complete distribution channel Apple has set up with the App Store, it's quite tempting to get myself a basic license and start work porting SPUDZOOKA.

I can't help but wonder, though, how much of a future the iPhone has as a gaming platform. Certainly it's a great device. The accelerometer and multi-touch display make it perfect for simple, addictive games. But how much is just a novelty? Will every new iPhone owner buy a couple of games because they can and then play them for a grand total of five minutes? Everyone I know that owns an iPhone is constantly messing with it, sending texts or looking things up on YouTube. But when do they play games? During the morning commute? On planes? Though where does any adult play mobile games?

Still (can you tell I'm undecided?), the cost of entry is pretty low -- just a few hundred dollars, which, if you consider it the cost of starting a small business, is unbelievably small with very little risk. And, considering that Unity is perfect for developing games quickly, you can't really go wrong.

For a small team with limited resources, there are remarkably few reasons not to develop games for the iPhone. But the one that makes me hesitate is a big one: in another year, will anyone still be buying games for their phone? What do you think?

A whole new look

Hi folks. Believe it or not, I'm still here. In case you didn't notice, I updated the look of the blog. I'm going to be making some more changes soon; this is just a starting point. Among the changes: blogging more often. I have no excuse but laziness for my long lapses lately. Things have certainly been busy, and you'll be happy to know I haven't just been sitting around. Anyway, I hope you like the new look. Stay tuned for more.