Skip to Content
 

Preeminence of sharing ideas.

6 replies [Last post]
Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011

There are a couple of things I need to establish before I continue. First off, the best most of us can do when it comes to designing games professionally is to simply make a living. Dreaming of creating a smash hit that makes you very rich overnight is unrealistic on several counts. First off, publishing a game places you squarely in the publishing industry. And the publishing industry has some obvious limits. Perhaps an illustration is in order. Let us take World of Warcraft as an example. This game started in the publishing industry but it has crossed over into online service territory, the type of position facebook and google enjoy. This is obviously where the big bucks lie. WOW did NOT make this move by accident! Boardgames, on the other hand will probably forever occupy a similar (but lesser) position in publishing to novels and cookbooks, way below other parts of the publishing sector, the movies, the music etc. I'm not trying to sketch an overly gloomy picture, but think a bit about the publishing industry before you dive in. On the one hand you have the odd housewife that became a millionaire by publishing her recipes, on the other you have a publisher burning their excess book stock in an abandoned canal outside Buffalo, New York. Success is quite possible, but keep your expectations level headed.

Now, you would not be here if you were not a board gamer yourself. So you can bet the other people on this site also own stacks of boardgames, they always will and they may be the first to buy your game. If you come up with something good. The sooner you start to work with the community, the better. We test games because we know that the ideas we have on paper may look ground-breaking and brilliant, but it is often a shock to see just how impractical and counter-intuitive those ideas become when real people test them. This is why open source software is the next big thing, because of the sheer number of people involved. If you are carefully keeping your ideas under wraps you are missing out on the input of others who would have shared with you more than what you were trying to hide from them. Be warned though, cross-pollination of ideas is inevitable. But this is probably more beneficial in the long run. Once again, we are all gamers, we are collectively mostly interested in buying games that are better than what we already own.

So here is what I suggest: try to design at least one boardgame with the aid of the community on this site. If you hopefully now have level headed expectations instead of the dream of earning millions from your wunder game, and you accept that you still can design many games on your own in the future, what is the worst that could happen?

zipplockbag
zipplockbag's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/12/2012
Great post.

Great points, Aquilius. I would like to add my 2 cents.

Great ideas are born from great visionaries. And they are usually singular visions from extraordinary people who sacrificed and poured their heart into their vision. Witness the vision and success of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and even Linus Torvalds.

Great visions and products are rarely created in committee. It takes the drive and vision, or shared vision of a partnership, to execute their idea.

How does this apply to the gaming world? When play testing, the testers always provide valuable insights and comments about the strengths and weaknesses of games. This is an extremely important and critical process in game development, be it board games or software games. Ignore it at your own peril, and at the success of your game.

However, you can't take every criticism and suggestion and address it the way it was presented. If testers are saying, "this part of the game is too hard and frustrates me, it would be better if we could do this and that or skip it for less points", etc. The value of that criticism is "this part of the game is too hard and frustrates me". Take that and work it out. Remember, the testers want to help you and the way they help is to point out faults and impasses. But YOU are the game inventor, it's your job to alter the game, tweak the game, and change the game to something very close to perfection and that falls in line with your desired goal. Remember every game will have weaknesses. But don't sacrifice on your vision.

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
Ground rules.

You raise an important point: before starting a open boardgame design some ground rules are needed. Otherwise what should have been positive influences can end up hijacking the game development.

heavyrocks
heavyrocks's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2012
Yes, there's always a kernel

Yes, there's always a kernel of innovation that comes from the "creator", but your comparison to the brilliant visionaries of Jobs and Gates are a bad metaphor. Bill Gates ripped off Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs piggybacked off Wozniak, and both of them were just combining ideas that were already available. (Torvald took from Unix). No one person is responsible for anything good, "visionaries" are merely conduits for innovation.

zipplockbag
zipplockbag's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/12/2012
These people were visionaries

These people were visionaries because the excelled at bringing things to the people where there was a need. Your assertion that Jobs piggybacked off Wozniak is beyond laughable. Wozniak was brilliant at being a nerd but he had no interest in selling his computer, marketing it, or producing it. It was a hobby for him. Jobs was the mastermind and denying him that is just... Not right. I don't think you understand how UNINVOLVED woz was in Apple beyond the first year or 2.

Gates, whatever, but I would love to have 1% of his success.

Also, if anyone ever finds the perfect analogy, please let me know. THAT will be something.

heavyrocks
heavyrocks's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2012
Well, I guess it depends on

Well, I guess it depends on how you define being a visionary. I see innovation as more important than marketing. Woz was a creator, Jobs was more of a businessman. For another example, I hold Tesla in a much higher regard than Edison, even though Edison was a lot more "successful". Success in such a context often relies on cut-throat business practices and exploitation more than having ideas or scruples.

Aquilius
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2011
Analogy

I have no real interest in arguing about the recipes that leads towards being a billionaire like Gates, since, as I've pointed out at the beginning, that falls outside the boundaries of realistic expectations. For me Tolkien seems a fairer analogy. His vision became great novels, games and movies. But I do like the mention of Edison, a great inventor. Wasn't it he who claimed success is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration? Some games are designed, others are invented..

But in essence we all seem to be in agreement: vision is important. I could be wrong, but I do believe each of us have a unique individual vision already. And if you volunteer to assist someone with their game design you should take this into account.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut