Battle Plan: Shipping Someone’s Problem Child
In my relatively short time in the industry I seem to have attracted a few fixer-uppers, reboots, ports and all round oh do you mind just finishing it off jobs. Some of the biggest of these I have been Lead Programmer or Lead Designer on. Through mistakes, and successes I now have a rough battle plan for getting these jobs done that I thought I would share as my first post.
To clarify we are not referring to projects with a stable team and direction that you take over, or are promoted in charge of. We are talking about those deals where a wet deposit of mud is dropped on your desk, and you are told to find the diamond inside.
1. Run Away if you can
First off, run away! No seriously escape is your best option. These jobs are scary, messy and with ten hidden problems for every problem you can see. Unless there is a really really good reason to do this then just leave it, its not worth your time.
Okay you think it may be worth your time? First question has someone signed some paper-work and committed you before a full in-depth review, if so slap or knock out the foolish suit with no brains. Try avoid commitments, and deadlines at first, you need some time to inspect this project with your full team.
2. Investigate & Negotiate
Find the stake holders, and if possible the developers originally involved and follow the path that lead to the current state. Treat all previous work on the project as if it was done by a genius savant who forgets his trousers. The people before you are likely to be intelligent and experienced but assume they make silly mistakes.
Find out the stake-holders goals, and what they want from the project. Whittle it down as much as possible and kill any sacred cows you can. The more you have the option to change and throw out the more options you have.
Ask to get back to them, keep the lines of communication open. The most common cause of a project failure of this kind is a lack of communication or vision. Understand what they want, keep them in the loop because I guarantee you that you only understand half of what they want, and they only understand a tenth.
3. Rip & Roar
Is there a playable build? Get some pizza, drinks and your team together. Play it play it and play it some more. Understand the product, read the documentation, pour through the assests and then rip into them.
Give the team a chance to say what is terrible about the game, what should be burned with fire, and stuff that just doesn’t make sense. Be sure to keep them on track with the stakeholder vision, but don’t stop them from tomatoes at the goals, let them question it.
Write all this down in a public space, such as a whiteboard. It keeps everyone aware of the challenges that need addressing.
4. Analyse
Pick through the design, art and code. Often the design of a derailed project will have conflicts, and missing pieces of data. Get your design team to dig deep into the numbers, and systems.
The code review strategy depends on the size of the team. I suggest strike teams of 3-5 programmers with specialist areas, or general on a small team, to attack all the core systems. Compare it to the documentation, if there is any, but more importantly map it out yourselves. Don’t let them do any commits yet, just map out the maze.
I cannot speak for the art process but generally its been a case of compiling a style bible, and clarifying the style. Hopefully someone else can give more advice here ;)
Highlight areas of risk, and I can guarantee for every one you find you missed three. You should now have replaced your rip apart boards, with risk boards.
5. Rebuild
Talk with the team about time-scales and build a plan to rebuild. Leave yourself time to iterate, and for the un-missed risks. This is pretty much like a normal game process just with a very unstable base.
This is normal project management, and I don’t want to tell everyone how to suck eggs. The only real challenge, which is hopefully address by the previous two steps, that the team buy in is much harder to get on a rework than a fresh concept.
6. Set Expectations
Now is the time to go back to the stakeholders and set expectations. The worst mistake you can make, and one I’ve made, is to try gloss over some risks.
Everyone should know the risks, the costs and what they are likely to get at the end of the project. I guarantee the costs are higher, and the risks are higher. The only reason to do this from a business perspective is to recover investment. Don't be afraid to say it's not worth it and kill it now.
Sometimes though the reason is because someone believes there is a diamond in that piece of mud they dropped on your desk. It’s a great feeling to find that diamond, and worth the work.
Also now would be the correct time to sign the piece of paper.
Claire
Postscript:
Here are some general tips for you all, hope they help.
- Lines of Communication are so important in problem projects, be sure of them.
- Don’t pollute the project with blame, hence the rip it sessions. It gets all that negative air out there then rub it out and replace it with plans.
- It’s tempting to throw out massive blocks of code, but a lot of time can be wasted. Instead I encourage decoupling efforts first so you can isolate problem areas.
- Some core design may need to be reworked, but encourage your designers to isolate risk areas first.
- Don’t be afraid to prototype! Yes I know the project has already started but prototypes give a stable clear vision of a problem and a possible solution.
Do Tutorials suppress Play?
So I was listening to Another Castle interview the extremly interesting Eric Zimmerman. They were talking about the subverssive nature of play when my brain started drifting to tutorials, thinking about Limbo. Then I realised that not once on Glo did we ask, do we need tutorials?
Now I know the indie and art games scene has been promoting this concept of subversive play for a long time but I ask you how many developers question the need for a tutorial?
Too many paths
Back in the NES days we had a d-pad and two buttons. The exploration space was tiny and welcoming, the modern game-pad or keyboard offer too many options of exploration. Think of giving a child a set of water-colours, oil paints and pencils along with a blank piece of paper. Often the huge scope scares them and if it doesn't bore them the resulting mess is epic. Think then of a child with a small set of crayons and a colouring book with rough outlines. They are much more keen, the results are better and often they will totally subvert the original drawing.
The rise of the touch interface, a very natural playful interaction and hopefully Kinetic give us a much better understandable scope of play.
Meta Rules vs Mechanical Rules
We made Petanque for the Wii in which we implemented the strict meta-rules of Petanque. Now these rules are very conceptual, like don't step out of the circle or don't throw the ball out of the white lines. There is no real feedback for breaking these rules so there is no way of learning them through play. If you give kids a football they will learn to kick, run and pass through play. It is only months or years later that they are introduced to the stuffy artificial rules we make for the game.
Now imagine instead of white lines we had a massive cliff going into lava, and instead of a circle we had a massive ball and chain. Mechanical rules and feedback, which we could implement in the game space. Now the rules of the game can be learnt much more easily through play.
But I'm confused
I suggest that tutorials are often compensating for overly complex rule sets which are not consistent or evident. For instance in Glo many people struggled with the Frogs. By the end of the project the art and behaviours of the frog were much more clear, and the levels better at exposing them. Though when we first hit the problem the obvious solution was to make sure the tutorial was better and clearer.
I now think we could have removed all the tutorials in Glo, provided a help section if people got truly stuck and removed the post level feedback screen. It would have resulted in a much stronger experience. One in which you can play and explore the game freely.
But the publisher
As Braid pointed out they had a nightmare getting their menu system accepted because it subverted accepted established systems. Mircosoft's stance is understandable, even praise worthy in its goal to keep a consistent experience but ultimately Braid was better for its exploratory nature.
Publisher's will often request non-expertianal things like stats screen, known mechanics, and tutorials. This is not because they are evil but because they wish to reduce risk. It is a games designer job not only to convince the development team of these new ideas and methods of subversive play but also the publisher.
What do you think?
This has all exploded in my brain today, coalescing from many different sources and I still haven't finished processing it. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Podcast #5: Develop Technical Art
I pull in Nick Lewis and Neil Richardson again to discuss some technical art talks from Develop. The main talks we focus on are Jolyon Webb from Blitz games RnD talk, and a talk about the EyePet from James Answer.
We talk about RnD teams, and process. How to get artists into RnD and the advantages of doing more in Maya. Look at the advantages of Facial Bone Rigging vs Morph Target. The right right way or the hacked way. Re-targeting animations for systems like Move & Kinetic.
Next time we will dive into the conversation we touched on at the end, of game drama.
Hope you enjoyed this week. Please provide feedback
- Comment on the Blog Post
- Poke me on Twitter (@EvilKimau)
- Suggest new topics on our Topics Suggestion Page.
Podcast #4: Balancing Art & Code
I pull in Nick Lewis and Neil Richardson to discuss balancing art and code needs. We talk about how to get the best out of both. How programmers and artists can get the most out of each other. Communication between teams, and how to manage it.
We also divert onto terminology, UV scrolling, cell shading, palletisation, and Futurama.
Hope you enjoyed this week. Please provide feedback
- Comment on the Blog Post
- Poke me on Twitter (@EvilKimau)
- Suggest new topics on our Topics Suggestion Page.
Podcast #3: AquAttack
Aqua Attack Facebook Page
So into the hot box I grab Tony Carter and DT to talk about our new release, AquAttack.
Some topics we cover
- Micro Production vs Traditional Console
- Difficulty, Challenges and High scores
- Finding the Fun
- Digital Marketing
- Quality and Innovation balance
- Unique Art style
- Accessiblity and Colour Blindness
- Creating the Advert
Edit: Whoops the correct spelling is AquAttack, fixed.
Hope you enjoyed this week. Please provide feedback
- Comment on the Blog Post
- Poke me on Twitter (@EvilKimau)
- Suggest new topics on our Topics Suggestion Page.



