Book Review: 21st Century Game Design

comments 15
Ported Posts / Uncategorized

I recently picked up Chris Bateman and Richard Boon’s new book 21st Century Game Design. Chris is the managing director at the game design consulting group International Hobo (aka ihobo) and has worked on Discworld Noir and Ghost Master. Chris has been kind enough to stop by this website and I’ve always enjoyed his comments.

The major contribution of his book to the dialog on game design is the formulation of a new audience model for game developers and publishers. This is fascinating stuff that certainly got my gears churning.

A more market driven approach
Many of the game design books on the market come are the ruminations of a successful game designer. They are the equivalent of listening to Miles Davis describing in his gravely voice “Sometimes I like to blow the horn like this. And it seems to sound pretty good.” Genius certainly, but such advice is difficult to replicate in any practical fashion.

21st Century Game Design is at its best when it attempts to approach the problem of game design from a perspective that is more familiar to businessman than a creative artist. The fundamental question that the book asks is “how do I make a game design that will sell?”

This is a very different question than “How do I make a good game?” The modern game industry is a Machiavellian place, where naively well-intentioned hard work is not nearly enough to engender success. 21st Century Game Design describes a calculated strategy for getting as many people as possible to play your title. The aim is game designs that are engineered for business success, not ones that succeed through luck alone.

The book provides a thought provoking look at the subject that it tackles. However, it ends up being the start of a much larger discussion. That alone is a worth contribution to the ongoing evolution of the theory and practice of game design.

Whispering sweet cluster analysis nothings in my ear
The backbone of the book is a study intended to provide a better method of categorizing customer wants and needs. A professional statistician would likely take the resulting categories with a grain of salt, but I’m willing to give it all the benefit of the doubt.

The result is a straightforward audience model consisting of four categories that goes beyond the pop concepts of “hardcore” and “casual” that many designers and gamers toss about.

  • Conqueror: The classic goal oriented power gamer, who believes “I win when someone loses”
  • Manager: The more meticulous challenge solver.
  • Wanderer: Someone who treats games like a playground.
  • Participant: Goodness knows, but it involves other people.

Each of these categories is split into a Hardcore and a Casual group. The authors then spend the rest of the book examining the describing how the various groups of game player react to different types of game mechanics and presentations. In essence, the book describes a series of market segments and then discusses how various existing design options serve those segments.
I’ve done a cluster analysis or two in my day and it is worth noting that they are inexact beasts in the best of situations. The Myer-Briggs inventories that underlie much of the books assumptions are based off hundreds of studies using very large populations tracked for many years. The likelihood of the book’s first generation audience model being correct in all its details is approximately nil.
However, that does not limit the value of the attempt. Some of the highlights include:

  • First, it calls out the dark and inbred history of modern game designs. Most of what we consider great games were created by a freakish group of Conqueror miscreants and are poor foundation for serving the needs of the broader population. Publishers, you need to get down on your hands and knees and pay ihobo gobs of money to beat this particular message into your thick, risk averse skulls.
  • Second, by presenting the current audience model, designers are encouraged to think about their target customers and the customer’s needs in a more rigorous fashion that is uncommon in the game industry.
  • Third, a fascinating topic for additional research has been broached. I hope that ihobo and other more academic researchers pursue the topic of audience models vigorously in the coming years.

Is an audience model the right way to go?
As much as I like how an audience model encourages us to think of our target customers, I worry that it only a piece of a much larger puzzle. I’m going to step away from reviewing the book for a moment and look at some of the broader implications.

An audience model is, at its core, an extension of the marketing concepts that drove much of the mass commercialization of music and movies from the 1940’s onward. There are some critical assumptions involved that could be quite dangerous if you are attempting to tap into new opportunities. Some of the implicit assumptions are as follows:

  • There are big broad market segments that are homogeneous and exist (in varying proportions) across territories.
  • These market segments are based on basic human psychology and are therefore quite stable.
  • Game distribution is a one-way push model. If publishers execute in a technically competent fashion, passive gamers will consume it. If a game is sent out and properly promoted, and it meets the generic psychological needs of the target market, then it will do well in the marketplace.

This is a highly defensible perspective on the game industry that fits the classic packaged goods models of entertainment. Within a mature market that requires its participants to play a game of ‘king of the genre’ with highly predictable consumers, the use of such a model is bound to gain a few extra percentage points on the revenue charts.

The book briefly touches upon the economic implications of this model. Each market segment has both an overall revenue and profitability associated with producing product for it. Hardcore gamers might only sell 500,000 copies of a game. This puts limits on the amount of money you should expect from and therefore spend in developing a hardcore title. This is quite reasonable.

Classic problems with an audience model
However, troubles come into play when smart publishers use this model as a technique for maximizing their revenue. They begin to create titles that appeal across multiple market segments. Marginal titles are culled and the portfolio is optimized for maximum profit. Historically, what happens here is as follows:

  • Marketing dictates ‘required’ elements for success. In order to properly cull your portfolio, you need criteria derived from your audience model. A pop record might have a check list that includes: “Pretty young girl + hip-hop inspired beats + epic vocals + sexual lyrics.” The book takes a stab at identifying common genre mechanics that appeal to different audience segments. This is only a short step away from creating a game specific check list. EA is already working towards such a check list with their latest “1 to 2 elements of original game play + 1 major brand + best in class artwork” formulation.
  • Originality is sacrificed because it does not fit into the ‘winning formula’: Games that are outside of the winning formula are instantly dismissed. Often, there will be a list of acceptable game mechanics that are acceptable. When an original game concept does not have an obvious match either the game mechanics or the buckets available in the audience model, the risk adverse action is to toss it and go with something safer.
  • Small market segments are underserved: If a market is not a major ‘acceptable market within the established audience model, it is unlikely to get much attention. There is no room for the long tail in simplistic audience models.

This model is very new to the game industry, but it has been around in a variety of forms for many decades in other media markets. The results are interesting and predictable. Rigorous application ends up with the majority of the publisher dollars funneled into high profit segments of the market. Consolidation trends are accelerated while low profit segments are starved and eventually die off.

In the short term, this firing of undesirable customers by the entire industry results in dramatic industry growth. In the long term, it leads to stagnation. It turns out that all those little low profit markets are the source of the periodic creative renaissances that the larger market requires to grow its revenue base.

Game specific issues with using an audience model
Complicating the picture is the simple fact that games are not traditional media like movies or music. Ernest Adams makes the telling point in his introduction to the book that there are a dozens of unique classes of games. The part that fascinates me is that these games differ radically terms of functionality, not merely content.

Most music is functionally identical. There are differences in taste, but the core psychological benefits that are derived by Jazz listeners are not so different than those derived by listeners of Metal. A game of Animal Crossing, on the other hand serves a radically different purpose than a game of Risk, not merely a different audience.

Who uses the game, how they use the game, where they use the game and the benefit they derive from the game are unique to the each genre. Of course you can’t play a game of Animal Crossing when you have a group of five friends over. It isn’t a multiplayer game.

I come from a background that deals with the concept of ‘product design’, not media marketing. Product design looks at the specific ecosystem of a class of users and identifies unique gaps or opportunities for creating value in that ecosystem. These opportunities are generally composed of an intricate webs of psychological, economic, relationship based needs.

We need to stop thinking of games as disposable entertainment that, like a faceless porn movie, merely services our generic psychological needs. The reason games are so hard to classify is because they entertainment tools, not merely entertainment experiences. Every tool has a different use within a very specific ecosystem.

Some examples:

  • Pokemon acts as pre-teen social networking devices and lives within the rarified ecosystem of GBA’s portable network.
  • Nintendogs appeals to Japanese consumers and other city dwellers who are unable to own a real dog.
  • Galactic Civilizations serves a niche of passionate players burnt by MOO3, but desperate for the glory of MOO 1 and MOO2. They are older gamers that need an entertainment tool that can be paused both mechanically and psychologically when the wife yells that dinner is ready.

The direct application of audience profiling as a concept formulation technique will never directly result in any of the games above. Such models are too vague, too generic. Where in the spectrum of audience markets would you find ‘dog lover?’

Part of a bigger picture
Games, as entertainment tools, are different products than disposable experiences like movies or music. An audience model is still a useful technique, but it must be applied properly. I see as it a secondary technique the can help refine a game concept that stems from an ethnographic or anthropological study.

In short

  • Identify a unique market opportunity or under served niche within an ecosystem.
  • Use an audience model and other profiling techniques (interviews, observation, etc) to identify critical goals for the final product design.
  • Build your game design around those critical goals.

Designers should avoid using audience models as the only determination of economic feasibility and instead rely on market-sizing techniques specific to their game concept.

Next Steps
Chris and crew have kicked off a wonderful discussion and I’m very excited to see where the book goes in subsequent editions. Some suggestions from the peanut gallery include:

  • Additional studies done with more statistical rigor. I want to trust the model that is put forward as reproducible. Ultimately, I would love to see the research side of this book grow to as compelling as business books like “Good to Great” or “Built to Last” by Jim Collins.
  • Exploration of the applicability of audience models to the game design process. How can it be used to enhance both the creativity and success of a product design process?
  • Exploration of the business implications of an audience model: This model is useful for game designs, but it has serious ramifications for the industry as a whole. What are the positive aspects of its application and what are the pitfalls that should be avoided?

Conclusion
Buy this book. You are doing yourself a serious disfavor as a game designer if you don’t understand the central concepts involved in the proposed audience model. The first few chapters alone are worth the price of admission.

Don’t expect the book to answer all your questions. Instead treat it as one of the first vigorous discussions about designing for the modern business-centric game industry. The basic attitude of measuring and asking real customers about their preferences needs to infect the entire industry.

Equally important is that you question the basic assumptions behind the proposed theory. Is it the right philosophy to inform the industry’s future investment strategy? EA is already following, if not the specifics of this book, the general spirit of an audience model driven strategy. They are quite successful. The simple market-based approach has worked for movies and music and seems to also work for games. Is there a better path for the game industry? Or is this good enough?

Our young industry is at the beginning of a very lucrative discussion of how to make game and why games should be made. When books like 21st Century Game Design promote a seductive message of profitability that sparks the interest of both the money men and the creative visionaries, they can shape the future of the entire industry.

I’ll leave you with this delightful quote from a recent article on the radio industry:

“[Lee] Abrams pioneered systematic audience research and “psychographics,” connecting people’s lifestyles to their listening habits. He invented a music format called album-oriented rock, or AOR, which in the 1970s shifted the music industry’s focus from singles to albums and showed radio execs how to hold listeners and attract advertisers – to make money in the new, boundary-free
world of FM.

But his success had a cost. The rise of AOR was the beginning of the end for the brief, storied era of free-form radio and iconoclastic DJs – “some guy in a basement in Brooklyn, burning incense and playing whatever he pleased,” as Abrams describes the late-’60s scene. The format ushered in such airwave dreck as classic rock, teen pop, and … there’s no easy way to say this … smooth jazz.”[1]

The good folks a ihobo are not the first to implement the concept of an audience model in the game industry. That honor belongs to the larger game publishers of the world. However, by writing a book on the subject, they are encouraging all of us to discuss the concept and its ramification in a public manner. Perhaps we can improve on the theories that drive the decisions that occur behind closed doors.

Take care
Danc.

References

15 Comments

  1. The audience model you describe from the book sounds very, very close to Bartle\’s player types. You could probably map the book\’s player types to Bartle.I\’d guess that, were the games industry to start thinking about hitting multiple markets, that they\’d be better served by segregating the market eight-ways and trying to only hit a few markets at a time. Hopefully the indie developers can get some more constant mainstream attention before then, but then they probably wouldn\’t be indie if they did.Was there any discussion of interstatial gamers in the book at all?

    Like

  2. Actually Dan, you mention that the audience model is new, but to my mind that is almost exactly the model followed by the major publishers now (to varying degrees of success).The problem is that essentially the audience driven model leads to the stagnation of the market and lack of innovation.I know a lot of people are taking these issues seriously, I personally like to think that instead of trying to identify the audience, we actually connect with them and test our products with a wide variety of consumers in order to understand thier needs. Doing some rudimentary statistical analysis seems to be a very blunt edged sword for cutting through to the requirements of a number of customers.I don\’t discount books like this, but it always worries me that we are losing some of the artistic rationale when we simply try and couch development in terms of markets, statistics and other analysis methods.Personally, I\’ve been learning more about the concept of positioning as my main concession to actually learning more about how to create products that work in a given niche.It seems to me, if we follow the route of marketing and market research, we lose the spark that creatively sets us apart as a medium. That inspiration that makes us create games with real innovations and artistic flair simply cant, or perhaps more reasonably shouldnt, be thought of in simple \”who does this feature serve\” terms.

    Like

  3. Marketing and market research have a bad rap, because like any powerful tool, they can be easily abused. Two companies that fall heavily into the product design camp (which you may be surprised to discover contains a strong dash of marketing) are Apple and Nintendo. It would be wrong to accuse either one of being less than creative, yet they both do substancial market research. Audience models are certainly not new. Publishers have been using them for years. What\’s important about the book is that it is one of the first public discussions of the concept as applied to the broad range of games on the market. Certainly, take it with a grain of a salt, but it is unwise to ignore it. I guarantee the book will get you thinking about your game designs in new ways. Ignorance is not enough to succeed. Learning the basics of marketing, including the benefits (and detriments) of audience models, gives any developer a useful lead over the competition. Marketing (and most business) has the simple goal of providing value to a customer. Often that customer is not the game developer. Taking steps to understand their needs and build something that fulfills their needs is the most basic activity a game developer can engage in. Happy day, Danc. PS: Glad to see you posting, Zoombapup. You\’ll have to let me know how the game is going. 🙂

    Like

  4. Hey now… Pokemon is cool because it\’s fun, Dang it!Phil? Is that you? I haven\’t heard from you for like… a long long time… I hope you\’re well. All the chief game-purchasing demographic really wants to see is \”Bazooka Toating Bimbos!\” Dang it! Meh. Actually I agree with Phil and Danc (who made this point, even though his conclusion doesn\’t say it). It sounds like though the tools are getting more complex, audience models seems a bit backwards looking. But it is an interesting point of discussion for folks that find marketing interesting… Personally if I was creating a game, I\’d be more tempted to work on distribution channels than evaluating marketing models, but then, if I made a game, I\’d probably not be interested in the profitability as much as most folks are… –Ray

    Like

  5. The same model\’s be used in pen-and-paper RPG-land for quite some time. In fact, I have GM guides dating back to the late \’90s that use almost exactly those terms and definitions.Pen-and-paper RPG designers (those that think about such things) generally call the first type the \”Gamist\”The second type gets referred to as \”Simulationist\”The last two get lumped together into the \”Narrativist\” label.Of course, anyone actually using these labels for anything will include a disclaimer reminding the reader that they are incredibly unrealistic generalizations.

    Like

  6. Actually, thinking about it, I\’m coming off sounding a bit negative there, but my own point of view is probably slanted in that I develop games for the fun of making them, rather than some monitary need.Of course if youre a huge publisher having to develop games for huge profits, then of course marketing and market driven develop definitely is a good thing to be aware of.But as an indie developer, can I really be led by a percieved market? I sure as hell have to be able to market my game after I sell it, but actually developing it FOR a specific market, other than by intuition, is kind of counterproductive.I want to make game mechanics that work. So using some kind of pseudo-science (which is frankly what it would be from us game dev types) is just a prop to help convince ourselves that our chosen game is \”a good bet\”.I\’ve fallen into this trap before. I think maybe the \”to thine own self be true\” brigade actually has a point. At least if you buy into the mechanic youre creating, there is a reasonable chance someone else will.Having said that, theming and delivering and scoping your game to match the intended audience is a good idea. So if youre doing a ship game and you can go pirate or fleet battle routes, choose which audience you are targetting.I\’ve got a load of games I want to create, some are for profit, so they contain very little innovation and are targetted squarely at a certain audience (casual market popcap type audiences). My own \”real\” games are directly trying to target people not directly served by anyone else. The lost gamer I guess. People like myself.How do I identify ME as a market segment? :)Take care guys..

    Like

  7. Anonymous says

    Phiiiiiiil, ye old lard ass! 😀 Why no ICQ love for me no more? 😦 *sniffles* /leinad.

    Like

  8. The problem with targeting yourself as a market segment is that you\’re growing an audience that likes the same things you like, which works in an industry where the sky\’s the limit.Gaming\’s gone past that – it\’s close to mainstream. It\’s got its own moral panic, television news will talk about E3 and people aren\’t embarassed to be seen walking in a game store.What that means is the market of \’you\’ is overserved. The people who got into gaming and wanted a job there are the people who like what you like (hence the proliferation of sci-fi and fantasy settings in games), and there\’s only so many of these people in the world. Tackling a distinctly different market segment is a great way to expose yourself to an audience that wasn\’t even aware of games – The Sims is a great example of a game with a non-traditional market segment.I\’m of the opinion that you don\’t need to be part of a market segment to know what works for that market, unless you\’re incapable with empathising with those sorts of players, and in that case a non-gamer friend or family member is invaluable. Games are a strange mix of story and mechanics, and one part can suggest the other. If you create a setting that works for the market you\’re chasing you can grow the mechanics organically and it should still appeal to those sorts of players.Sorry if this is overly unintelligable, I\’m a bit tired.

    Like

  9. I don\’t think gamers are so radically diverse that if you are creating a game, zoombapup, and it\’s a decent game, chances are there are at least a few dozen people who want to play it. The problem, of course, is finding them

    Like

  10. Leinad! get your ass on msn messenger, thats what I use mostly now… you can always use mail too 🙂 zoombapup at gmail dot com :)The point that Merus states above is interesting actually, that the target market of ME is overserved. Actually, I think my target market isnt really. I think my target market is actually pretty strange.If you imagine ex-hardcore gamers, FPS players and such, you pretty much have it. But now we dont have time to put into these huge FPS games or the likes of WOW.So we want the feeling and intensity of those FPS style games, but with a much shorter play session and without having too much to learn.So I guess almost like the evolution of the top-down shooter fan. What serves us?Also, btw.. I love the sims too, I just havent got the time to devote to it.What do I currently play? right now I tend to play COD. I play with some friends online in multiplayer only games. We use teamspeak to chat while we play. We generally play for about an hour if there are enough of us. Different people drop in and out, but they do it pretty regularly so we get to know each other.the fact that we play COD doesnt mean much, we spenta few months playing an indie game called Need for Speed which was excellent. So we want intensity and multiplayer play, in small sessions with no hoops to jump through before we start having fun!!!Which is why I\’m doing the dogfighting game I am. Because I enjoy that type of game and because it hits this niche fairly well.

    Like

  11. I can think of two titles that fit your needs, Zoombapup. The obvious one is Counterstrike. Pretty much any multiplayer FPS mode fits your definition. Short play times, jump in and gun, etc. The other one that is almost an exact fit is Serious Sam. Simple, fun shooting without a lot to learn. The \’no hoops to jump through\’ is an interesting point. I think you\’ll be seeing a lot of this \’turn on and play\’ multiplayer mentality in several markets: – MMOs- Xbox Live- Nintendo\’s WiFi system. Steam screwed it up. They so desperately need a UI designer to give them a streamlined \’jump in an play\’ UI it isn\’t even fun. The PC in general throws far too many login screens, start up screens, character selection screens, etc in your way. If you must make a player pick their settings, save them and never force them through those screens again unless they want to change something. Happy day, Danc.

    Like

  12. Yeah, I was thinking that counterstrike was pretty similar, in that there really isnt an awful lot to it, but the small amounts of interaction there are are intense and usually of a quick play session nature.I completely agree about steam. I\’ve not bothered installing it at home, because it just is too much work to keep up. We use cod pretty much like counterstrike used to be, but at least it doesnt attract the same bunny hopping.I agree about MMO\’s (the village type you mentioned in your blog before) should likely go down this route. I also see that xbox live and live arcade are both going this way (they are actively wanting simple drop in and play games with almost zero setup).I dont think its just PC\’s with too much setup though, try mario kart or mario tennis for having to go through a billion options before playing a game.I\’m totally with you on making games instantly accessible. However the players also want customisation, so its a cross we have to bear 🙂

    Like

  13. Phil wrote: I think my target market is actually pretty strange.Um… Phil… that\’s cuz yer in it… 🙂 –Ray PS> Hey, Leinad, Swedish huggers to you!! (I\’m moving jobs, my dotcast email account won\’t work soon, but I\’ll try to keep ya posted…) I\’ll actually be working for Disney… but then the company I\’m working for will be spun off in a couple months… it\’s weird… and no, it has nothing to do with movies or animation… it\’s all boring engineering… Bah… PPPS> Danc… don\’t you love how I use your blog comments to conduct my personal business? (So you coming to Thanksgiving Dinner, or what!? We\’ll make Apple Turkeys! Washington Apple Turkeys!) PPPPS> Yes, this is a sad cry for attention… PPPPS> While I\’m at it, here\’s a shameless plug, Buy This Book! This is the publisher that\’s gonna publish my book. It\’s slated to be published next year, of course, and I am expecting to have draft 1 of book 2 done by Thanksgiving… hey… Danc, you could read that one too! muwahahaha…

    Like

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s