Profit or Passion?
So I kinda skipped over the obligatory April Fool's post. Just 'cuz the tradition irritates me. Maybe it's because it's the day before my birthday (oh, hey, coincidence... it's my birthday. Happy birthday to me! I'm ancient).

So a bit of a hubub has emerged regarding Dan MacDonald's article "Sustaining Independence." Dan states a point which he has made (but less vehemently) many times before: "An independent developer that wishes to sustain their independence must pursue their own interests in game design and development and give them preeminence over their interests in business and profit. " In other words, independent game developers should be artists and visionaries, ignoring (or at least minimizing) all those horrible business parts like marketing and sales.

In the past, he's also suggested that the only people who can be truly free and independent in their game development are those for whom games are not their primary souce of income. If you are worrying about making the mortgage payment, he implies, you will compromise your vision to improve sales.

I think the arguments result mainly from the polarization of the issue into two extremes: You are either a visionary artist looking to push the medium, or you are a sellout churning out pablum designed for the lowest-common denominator designed to maximize sales. I think it's a false dichotemy, but it's a useful one for spurring conversation. In that purpose, it has succeeded.

Of course, I have to put my two cents into the discussion. I don't think it matters if you are trying to sell your game, or releasing it as "freeware" out on the net - you are creating a game for other people. Ideally, you are creating a game for an audience that includes yourself. Then it's easy - you make a game that you want to play. But even so, I feel you should never lose focus on the rest of your audience. As an obvious example, your target audience isn't going to know how to play it as well as you do, so you'll need to tailor the early part of the game to ease them into it. But there may need to be other ways you need to "compromise" your vision of the "perfect game" to make other players happy.

I can't see this as a bad thing. And I don't see how you can't be creative, visionary, and innovative while doing this. And I'd submit that the lessons learned from making highly polished, successful "casual" games shouldn't be applied to "core" games.

What if you are doing a game where you are not part of the target market? What if you are creating a game for children? Does this mean it's impossible to be artistic or innovative? Well, by looking at most children's games, I'd say the answer is "yes." But I don't think it has to be. I think a good game designer can and should put himself in the head of his target audience, or find ways of otherwise making the audience inclusive of himself. I think Shigeru Miyamoto is a perfect example of this. His games are outstanding games for children, yet they are enjoyable by adults as well. Miyamoto finds the child within himself, and designs games for that person.

I once had dinner with author Emma Russell, in Roy, Utah. If you have never heard of Roy, don't be too surprised. It's a little town near Layton, not too far from Hill Air Force Base. But it's not exactly an exciting, happening town. Ms. Russell told me that when she first moved to Roy, she hated it. It was her impression that the town was absolutely boring and devoid of any kind of character.

Her solution to the problem was unique. She decided to write the book on the town. She did the research, and discovered the stories of the families there and the town itself. In so doing, she came to love the town, and to feel a part of it.

I think I agree with Dan MacDonald insofar as it is something of a sin to create a game without any level of passion in its creation. Paint-by-numbers game design isn't doing our hobby or industry any favors. I know I've been guilty of it in the past, and I know that the mainstream game development biz is full of this. It's because game design is being dictated by bean-counters and businessmen who have come from canned-food industries who have zero passion for games and all their interest in profit. The fact that we have any level of depth and innovation at all on the game shelves at Wal*Mart is because there is a layer of understaffed, underpaid designers who still love games who inject some of that love into the projects that get dictated to them from above.

But I also feel strongly that games should be designed for other people. It's all about the players. Not the money. Not for the artistry. But for the audience - making them happy. If you do that, I think the opportunity for innovation and artistry and feeding your personal creative demons will still be there, and the money will (eventually) come.

Labels: Biz, Indie Evangelism

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:43 AM (Permalink)