Blog | Adrian Gaudebert - Tag - jeu vidéoLe blog d'un ingénieur Web qui fait des jeux vidéo.2024-03-11T10:02:06+01:00Adrian Gaudeberturn:md5:9d1ca1cfaddd27f70c5e39a3ee659873DotclearKilling two birds with one deck in Dawnmakerurn:md5:9da4cb3d0e5484f8ca5ab74782c4da812024-03-11T11:00:00+01:002024-03-11T11:02:06+01:00AdrianDawnmaker<p data-pm-slice="1 1 []">Let's face it: Dawnmaker still has some important flaws. We're aware of that, and we are working on those flaws. One of the biggest remaining problem with the game was that one of its core mechanics, the oppression of the Smog, was… well, not explained at all. If you didn't have a developer behind your back to tell you, there was almost no way you could understand it.</p> <p data-pm-slice="1 1 []">What's the oppression of the Smog, you ask? It is the fact that the Smog gets stronger the more the game progresses, and thus makes you consume luminoil faster. It's a simple formula that grows every time you shuffle your deck of cards: when that happens, your luminoil consumption increases by the level of your aerostation. We tried a few, small things to explain that mechanism: we added an animation to the Smog, making it grow darker and closer to your city, when the oppression increases. We also had a line in the luminoil tooltip showing how much luminoil is consumed by this oppression. But that was not nearly enough, and I started thinking about how to solve this with a complex UI inspired by Frostpunk. I am glad I did not go with that, as it would have been a nightmare to implement, and I now believe it would not have helped much.</p>
<figure style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;"><img alt="An attempt at explaining the Smog's oppression in Dawnmaker" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/dawnmaker-oppression-ui-fail.jpg" />
<figcaption>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>I sure am glad I did not try to implement this…</em></p>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, while I was busy not solving this problem, another one got to the front: the progression issue. You see, we have been struggling a lot with the meta progression we offer in Dawnmaker. We've made attempts at doing it Slay the Spire-like, with a map of limited paths and rewards after each stop. That doesn't work very well, the roguelike structure (the progression on the world map) around an already roguelike structure (a single region / city) was weird and sometimes frustrating. So we started thinking about doing it differently, more like Hades does it with its mirror. There would be a new resource that you'd gain after securing each region, and that resource could be spent in order to improve your starting party, making each new region a tad easier to secure.</p>
<p>We like this idea, but it causes another problem: if the game gets easier and easier, there will come a point when it will become boring, as the challenge will be lost. We thus need to have a progression in the difficulty just as we have one in the player's strength. Hades does that with the Heat system, where you can choose how you increase the challenge each time you play. We cannot easily do something similar, so I once again started thinking about a complex question: how can we increase the difficulty of the game? What levers to we have to do that in a way that is challenging and doesn't feel too artificial or frustrating? There's an easy answer to that: the length of the game and the number of lighthouses, which we use in the currently called "Discovery" game, where we increase both the level to reach and the number of lighthouses to repair in order to win a game as you progress on the map. But that is not enough for a long-term progression, as it would quickly feel completely artificial. Luckily, there was another feature we could use, and did not: the oppression of the Smog. That is were those two problems converged, and led me to a single solution solving both: turning the Smog's behavior into a deck of cards.</p>
<p><img alt="Current representation of the Smog's behavior in Dawnmaker" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/dawnmaker-smog-deck.jpg" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p>Using cards to represent the Smog's behavior increases the affordance of the game: Smog cards look like buildings cards, and they sort of work like them. It's a card that has an effect, that you can read at any time, and because it uses the same wording, abilities and display as the buildings, it's easy to interpret it. Changing the behavior simply means changing the card, and we can do a whole bunch of animations there to show that happening. We can also add tooltips around those elements to explain them further. That's a first big win! Now the second one is that we create and handle those decks in our content editor, and we can create as many cards and decks as we want. There we have it: near infinite difficulty progression, simply by making different Smog cards, and assembling them differently in various decks!</p>
<p>Note that we haven't done anything like that yet. So far we have only reproduced the previous system with cards. But the potential is here: when we start working on the meta progression, we can be confident that we'll have the tools to make the difficulty progress as well.</p>
<p>We definitely killed two nasty, vicious flying creatures with one deck. Neat!</p>
<hr />
<p>This piece was initially sent out to the readers of our newsletter. Wanna join in on the fun? Head out to <a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en">Dawnmaker's presentation page</a> and fill the form. You'll receive regular stories about how we're making this game, the latest news of its development, as well as an exclusive access to Dawnmaker's alpha version!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en" style="display: inline-block; border-radius: 1em; background-color: #C8D6AF; padding: 1em 2em; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.1em;">Join our community!</a></p>http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/Killing-two-birds-with-one-deck-in-Dawnmaker#comment-formhttp://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/feed/atom/comments/187Dawnmaker a une page Steam ET un trailerurn:md5:b28281a678ed6b0b05a57d494c7a13022024-02-08T15:16:00+01:002024-02-08T15:50:27+01:00AdrianDawnmaker <p>Dawnmaker, le jeu sur lequel je travaille dans le cadre d'<a href="https://arpentor.studio/fr/" hreflang="fr">Arpentor Studio</a>, depuis plus de deux ans, a désormais une <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/2749100?utm_source=adrian.gaudebert.fr&utm_campaign=announcement">page Steam</a> et <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJpfUVW-IWo">un trailer</a>. Je vous laisse découvrir ça :</p>
<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="540" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gJpfUVW-IWo?si=QXXogxptLSO5GVMu" title="YouTube video player" width="960"></iframe></p>
<p>Ça vous a plu ? N'hésitez pas à <strong><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/2749100?utm_source=adrian.gaudebert.fr&utm_campaign=announcement">ajouter le jeu à votre liste de souhaits sur Steam</a></strong> !</p>http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/Dawnmaker-a-une-page-Steam-ET-un-trailer#comment-formhttp://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/feed/atom/comments/186L'état de l'Adrian 2023urn:md5:07f4c9271f22fe550a3ea9bad9e316752024-01-18T14:00:00+01:002024-01-18T17:07:23+01:00AdrianActualités<p>L'année 2023 est terminée, donc comme depuis trois ans, c'est l'heure de dresser un bilan de ce que j'ai fait ces douze derniers mois. Je démarre cette retrospective avec la sensation de n'avoir « rien » fait, mais c'est parce que je me suis concentré essentiellement sur un seul et unique projet, notre jeu Dawnmaker. Vous allez le voir, l'année a en fait été bien chargée pour moi. En route pour le bilan !</p>
<h1>Projets principaux</h1>
<h2>Arpentor Studio</h2>
<p><a href="https://arpentor.studio"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/.Arpentor_s.png" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>Notre société, cofondée avec Alexis, a stagné cette année. Nous sommes toujours deux, même si nous avons été trois à deux moments dans l'année, avec Aurélie au sound design en début d'année puis Agathe au UX / UI design pendant deux mois. Nous n'avons quasiment aucune entrée d'argent, nous ne nous payons pas, et avons également réduit au minimum les dépenses de fonctionnement pour tenir le plus longtemps possible.</p>
<p>Mécaniquement, la gestion du studio m'a demandé moins de temps cette année. J'ai dû faire un dossier de demande de solde pour une subvention de la Région, plusieurs itérations sur le budget de Dawnmaker pour des négociations (qui n'ont malheureusement mené à rien) avec un éditeur, et l'entretien administratif mensuel — envoyer les factures à notre expert-comptable, essentiellement.</p>
<p>La principale erreur sur laquelle j'ai appris, et redressé la barre, en 2023 porte sur la stratégie d'édition de notre jeu. Depuis début 2022, nous avons établi une feuille de route qui implique l'arrivée d'un éditeur, partenaire qui prend en charge le financement et la publication de Dawnmaker. C'est, je crois aujourd'hui, une erreur, <em>a fortiori</em> dans le contexte actuel de l'industrie du jeu vidéo : les éditeurs traversent une période de disette financière, liée à de nombreux facteurs — bulle financière de 2021 suite au COVID et à la forte augmentation des habitudes de jeu, de nombreuses très grosses sorties en 2023, décalées là aussi à cause du COVID, qui ont phagocyté les ventes de jeux indépendants, et bien sûr les taux d'intérêts bancaires qui ont explosé. Résultat, en 2023, les éditeurs sont frileux et il est devenu très difficile de leur vendre son jeu.</p>
<p>Baser la stratégie financière de son entreprise sur l'apport d'un partenaire externe, sur lequel nous n'avons aucun contrôle, me paraît donc un risque énorme. C'est pourtant la stratégie de l'immense majorité des studios de jeu vidéo aujourd'hui, pour une raison très simple : <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-game-like-dawnmaker3">ça coûte très cher de produire un jeu vidéo</a> ! De notre côté, nous avons la chance aujourd'hui de pouvoir travailler sans salaire, grâce notamment au RSA. C'est cependant une situation qui n'est ni enviable, ni viable sur le moyen terme.</p>
<p>Face à tous ces éléments, j'ai décidé de modifier notre stratégie pour Dawnmaker. Nous ne planifions plus le fait de trouver un éditeur. Notre plan principal, désormais, est de sortir le jeu nous-même (en « auto-édition »), dans un délai qui nous permet à la fois de le mener vers une qualité satisfaisante pour un produit commercial, et de ne pas nous couler financièrement. Nous avons donc deux échéances : début mars, nous devons avoir terminé la <em>vertical slice</em> du jeu, une version qui contient tous les systèmes du jeu mais avec une partie seulement de son contenu. C'est un produit de très bonne qualité, proche de l’état final attendu, et qui est donc représentatif de ce qu'on veut faire. On se donnera ensuite environ trois mois pour chercher à nouveau un éditeur, tout en menant une campagne marketing et en ajoutant quelques améliorations au jeu en fonction des retours de nos testeuses et testeurs. Si courant mai nous n'avons pas sécurisé de financement, nous sortirons alors le jeu nous-mêmes — très probablement fin juin. Ce sera une version « amputée » du jeu, loin du contenu que nous souhaiterions avoir, mais une version malgré tout fonctionnelle et de qualité professionnelle. Et bien sûr, si un éditeur s'engage sur notre jeu et le finance, nous reprendrons le plan secondaire, qui consiste à faire une vraie phase de production, recruter quelques personnes en plus, et sortir, probablement début 2025, une version complète du jeu.</p>
<p>En conclusion, Arpentor Studio avance, mais c'est difficile. 2024 sera une année décisive pour le studio, avec soit l'arrivée d'un éditeur pour notre premier jeu, soit sa sortie. Dans tous les cas, ça devrait faire entrer de l'argent dans l'entreprise, ce dont j'ai hâte !</p>
<h2>Dawnmaker</h2>
<p>Le projet Cities of Heksiga a changé de nom et s'appelle désormais <a href="https://arpentor.studio/fr/jeux/dawnmaker/">Dawnmaker</a> ! J'ai passé l'essentiel de mon année 2023 à travailler dessus, sur trois aspects principalement : la programmation, le Game Design — la conception des règles du jeu et de son contenu — et le marketing.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://arpentor.studio/fr/jeux/dawnmaker"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/Truecapsule616x353.png" alt="" /></a></p>
<p>Dawnmaker a beaucoup changé pendant cette année. Le jeu est passé d'un rendu 2D très (très) basique à un rendu en 3D en début d'année, puis est revenu vers la 2D pendant l'été. Le passage du jeu vers la 3D était prévu de longue date, mais s'est avéré être une erreur. Quasiment tous les éditeurs à qui nous avons montré le jeu nous l'ont fait remarquer. La question qui nous a fait revenir en arrière a été : « quelle est la valeur ajoutée de la 3D pour le jeu ? » On a eu bien du mal à y répondre…</p>
<p>Nous avons donc fait machine arrière — pas vraiment, puisque j'en ai profité pour coder tout le rendu avec une nouvelle techno optimisée pour la 2D. Grand bien nous en a fait : le jeu est vraiment beaucoup plus beau maintenant ! Il tourne également mieux sur ma machine vieillissante, ce qui est un bon signe pour le sortir sur téléphones portables. J'ai aussi amélioré notre éditeur de contenu pour qu'Alexis soit le plus autonome possible sur l'intégration des assets des bâtiments.</p>
<p>Voici une petite fresque de la progression du jeu en 2023 :</p>
<p>
<a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-01-12_Screenshot_of_Cities_of_Heksiga.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.2023-01-12_Screenshot_of_Cities_of_Heksiga_m.png" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a>
</p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">En janvier</p>
<p>
<a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-05-10_at_12.09.31.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.2023-05-10_at_12.09.31_m.png" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a>
</p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">En mai</p>
<p>
<a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-11-10_at_12.06.43.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.2023-11-10_at_12.06.43_m.png" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a>
</p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">En novembre</p>
<p>Au delà de l'aspect graphique, nous avons ajouté beaucoup de contenu (une quarantaine de nouveaux bâtiments, une vingtaine de nouvelles cartes), des mécaniques importantes (notamment une boucle de progression à la roguelike), et beaucoup de choses pour améliorer la jouabilité du jeu (de nouvelles interfaces, notamment grâce aux contributions de <a href="https://www.amametz.fr/">Menica Folden</a>, du drag&drop pour jouer les cartes, des petites animations un peu partout… ).</p>
<p>Comme annoncé dans ma retrospective 2022, Dawnmaker a énormément progressé cette année, et il est passé d'un prototype à un vrai jeu vidéo. Il reste cependant encore beaucoup de choses à régler : la boucle de progression n'est toujours pas fonctionnelle, il n'y a aucun accompagnement à la prise en main pour les nouveaux joueurs, il faut retravailler encore une grosse partie de l'interface du jeu… Et tout ça, idéalement pour mars 2024 ! Autant vous dire que : c'est chaud. Mais la sortie du jeu approche, et ça, ça fait plaisir ! Peut-être que vous pourrez acheter Dawnmaker en 2024 ?</p>
<h1>Projets secondaires</h1>
<h2>Souls</h2>
<p>Comme l'année dernière, je n'ai quasiment pas eu l'occasion de toucher à Souls, mon vieux projet de jeu de cartes compétitif. Mais : « quasiment », car oui, je l'ai tout de même ressorti de sa boîte, et j'en ai fait une partie. Ça été l'occasion de me remémorer là où j'en étais, et surtout tous les défauts de la version en cours. Je ne travaille toujours pas activement dessus, mais j'ai bon espoir de m'y remettre un peu en 2024.</p>
<h2>Blog</h2>
<p>En début d'année, je me suis mis l'objectif de publier 6 articles sur ce blog, un tous les deux mois. L'objectif est presque atteint : j'en ai publié 5.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/l-etat-de-l-adrian-2022">L'état de l'Adrian 2022</a></li>
<li><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-game-like-dawnmaker3">How much does it cost to make a game like Dawnmaker?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/Dawnmaker-s-endless-conundrum-of-infinite-replayability">Dawnmaker's endless conundrum of infinite replayability</a></li>
<li><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/Removing-Dawnmaker-s-3rd-dimension">Removing Dawnmaker's 3rd dimension</a></li>
<li><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/The-ruins-of-Dawnmaker-s-lost-continent">The ruins of Dawnmaker's lost continent</a></li>
</ul>
<p>La majorité de ces articles est en anglais, car ils ont également servi de contenu pour la <a href="https://arpentor.substack.com/">newsletter d'Arpentor Studio</a>, lancée cette année.</p>
<p>J'ai eu un peu de mal à me lancer dans l'écriture régulière, mais je me suis créé un système en cours d’année — en gros, un rappel tous les deux mois — et depuis, je m'y tiens correctement ! J’ai bon espoir de continuer sur ce rythme en 2024, pour continuer à partager avec vous mes expériences.</p>
<h2>Autres jeux</h2>
<p>En 2023 j'ai enfin rejoint une association locale de créateurs de jeux, la Compagnie des zAuteurs Lyonnais (CAL). C'est un groupement informel d'auteurs et autrices de jeux de société, qui se réunit dans les bars à jeux lyonnais régulièrement. Ce fût l'occasion pour moi d'enfin entrer dans ce milieu, de tester des prototypes très chouettes, et surtout de montrer les miens, de prototypes. Parce que oui, j'ai malgré tout continué à travailler, épisodiquement, sur des protos de jeux.</p>
<p>Le premier a pour nom de code « Little Brass Imhotep », car il est conçu pour être à la croisée des expériences de jeu de <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/241266/little-town">Little Town</a>, <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/224517/brass-birmingham">Brass: Birmingham</a> et <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/255674/imhotep-duel">Imhotep: The Duel</a>. Le concept central est le suivant : il y a un plateau de 5 par 5 cases, sur lequel les joueurs vont construire des bâtiments. Ces bâtiments peuvent être activés pour donner des ressources ou des points de victoire. Les joueurs disposent d'ouvriers, qu'ils vont placer à l’extrémité d'une ligne ou d'une colonne, et ce faisant vont activer tous les bâtiments de la ligne ou colonne. Construire un bâtiment permet de marquer des points de victoire et de créer ou d'améliorer un moteur, mais donne aussi des opportunités à l'adversaire de l'exploiter.</p>
<p>
<a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-03-30_-_Proto_test_1_avec_Laura.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.2023-03-30_-_Proto_test_1_avec_Laura_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a>
</p>
<p>Les premiers playtests ont fait apparaître de nombreuses lacunes dans le système de jeu, notamment une trop grande symétrie sur les ressources et les effets qui rend la mécanique principale, construire des bâtiments, peu attirante. Le prototype en est pour l'instant resté là.</p>
<p>Mon second prototype de l'année est né de la volonté de croiser l'expérience d'un draft de Magic — probablement mon expérience de jeu préférée — avec le cycle de <em>feedback</em> très court d'un autochess. La première version du jeu, nom de code « Cube Light » (oui je sais je suis nul en noms), donne ceci : sur une table de 8 joueurs, chacun⋅e reçoit un deck de 4 cartes (les mêmes pour chaque personne), puis va commencer à drafter des paquets de 4 cartes. Ensuite, chaque joueur se constitue un deck de 7 cartes, en jetant une de ses cartes. Puis on joue un match en 1 contre 1 : chaque joueur pioche trois cartes, puis simultanément va répartir ses 3 cartes, face cachée, sur trois lieux disposés au milieu de la table. Une fois les cartes placées, on les dévoile chacun son tour. Bien sûr, chaque carte a des effets variés, de même que les lieux, il faut donc placer ses cartes au bon endroit, et anticiper les prochaines cartes que l'on piochera, pour créer des combinaisons puissantes. À la fin du deuxième tour, la manche est terminée, et on compte la puissance cumulée des personnages joués sur chaque lieu. Un joueur qui a strictement plus de puissance que son adversaire sur un lieu contrôle celui-ci, et le joueur qui contrôle le plus de lieux gagne la manche. On recommence ensuite une nouvelle phase de draft, en ayant changé les places des joueurs. On construit un deck de 10 cartes, on fait une manche en trois tours. On répète ça sur 4 manches, et à la fin de la dernière manche le joueur qui a le plus de points de victoire remporte la partie !</p>
<p>
<a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-08-20_-_Cube_Light_prototype.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.2023-08-20_-_Cube_Light_prototype_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a>
</p>
<p>Je me suis rendu compte, pendant que je produisais ce prototype, que ça se rapproche énormément de <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/359970/challengers">Challengers</a>, un excellent jeu sorti en 2022, et dont le pitch est assez proche du mien — reproduire l'expérience d'un autochess en jeu de plateau. Mon objectif cependant est d'avoir une expérience plus proche de celle de Magic, c'est-à-dire d'avoir plus de décisions stratégiques, à la fois pendant le choix des cartes (la phase de draft) et pendant les manches.</p>
<p>Le premier playtest a laissé apparaître de nombreux axes d'améliorations, mais le cœur du jeu fonctionne bien et constitue une base solide. J'espère prendre du temps cette année pour reprendre ce prototype et en faire un jeu fun, au moins pour mon groupe de joueurs de Magic.</p>
<h1>Mes recommandations de l'année</h1>
<p>Et voilà pour le bilan de mon travail sur 2023 ! C'est l'heure de terminer ce bilan par une partie plus fun. Cette année à nouveau, j'aimerais vous partager les quelques découvertes culturelles que j'ai le plus appréciées ces douze derniers mois.</p>
<h2>Mon jeu vidéo de l'année</h2>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.bg3_m.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p>2023 a été une année pauvre en jeux vidéo pour moi. Peut-être est-ce le fait de passer mes journées à travailler sur un jeu qui m'empêche d'apprécier pleinement les autres ? Peut-être est-ce parce que j'ai utilisé beaucoup de mon temps de jeu à étudier des jeux en lien avec Dawnmaker ? Ou bien est-ce un simple concours de circonstances qui fait qu'aucun jeu ne m'a vraiment happé, ou marqué, cette année ?</p>
<p>Quoi qu'il en soit, le meilleur jeu auquel j'ai joué cette année est <a href="https://baldursgate3.game/">Baldur's Gate 3</a>. Je suis un immense fan des deux premiers titres, sur lesquels j'ai passé énormément de temps étant ado. J'abordais le troisième opus avec beaucoup d'appréhension, mais il ne m'a pas déçu. Le jeu donne vraiment la sensation de jouer à un Baldur's Gate pur jus, mais moderne. Certains personnages sont très attachants, l'histoire est prenante, et le contenu est gigantesque. C'est presque le seul vrai point noir pour moi d'ailleurs : je n'aime pas passer à côté de quelque chose dans un jeu, du coup j'ai passé trop de temps à tout fouiller. Et je sais que j'ai malgré ça raté des tas de choses, parce que le jeu est ainsi conçu.</p>
<p>Bref : Baldur's Gate 3 mérite son titre de Game of the Year.</p>
<h2>Mes jeux de plateau de l'année</h2>
<p>Trop difficile de choisir un seul jeu cette année, alors en voilà deux : Spirit Island et Brass: Birmingham ! Deux gros jeux, dans lesquels il faut beaucoup réfléchir, l'un coopératif et l'autre compétitif.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.spiritisland1-2048x2048_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></p>
<p><a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/162886/spirit-island">Spirit Island</a>, jeu coopératif donc, vous met dans la peau des esprits protecteurs d'une île qui se fait envahir par des colons. Chaque esprit a un gameplay différent, des capacités spéciales, et un lot de cartes de départ uniques. En solo ou avec vos alliés, vous devez développer vos ressources (gagner plus d'énergie pour jouer vos cartes, obtenir de nouvelles cartes plus puissantes… ) et utiliser vos cartes pour détruire les envahisseurs, les empêcher de construire des villages ou des cités, et de répandre la désolation sur votre île luxuriante. C'est vraiment un jeu excellent, dans lequel chaque tour est un gros puzzle à plusieurs, où il y a des interactions entre les capacités des joueurs. Et bonus : sa complexité limite assez fortement l'effet « joueur alpha », quand un joueur dirige tous les autres.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.birmingham1_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p><a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/224517/brass-birmingham">Brass: Birmingham</a>, à l'inverse, est un jeu compétitif dans l'Angleterre de la révolution industrielle. Pur jeu de gestion, il faut y construire des bâtiments — mines de charbon, fonderies, usines, manufactures… — pour développer ses ressources et marquer des points de victoire. On y construit également des canaux ou chemins de fer, on y vend des ressources, et on s'adapte aux cartes de sa main pour se positionner sur la carte. Il y a un gros aspect planification qui est contrebalancé par l'importance d'être opportuniste par moment. Ce n'est pas le jeu <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgame">numéro 1 sur boardgamegeek</a> pour rien !</p>
<h2>Ma BD de l'année</h2>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.nice-house-on-the-lake-8211-edition-integrale_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></p>
<p><a href="https://www.urban-comics.com/nice-house-on-the-lake-edition-integrale/">The Nice House on the Lake</a>, tomes 1 et 2, gagnent la palme d'or de la BD 2023 ! C'est un comic — une bande dessinée américaine — de science fiction, un huit clos qui démarre très simplement et tourne, très rapidement, vers quelque chose d'angoissant. Il y a des interludes qui montrent un futur dramatique, un personnage très énigmatique qui est au centre de l'intrigue, des enjeux qui se développent progressivement pour atteindre une ouverture, à la fin du tome 2, qui donne vraiment envie de lire la suite ! Difficile d'en dire plus tant tout le plaisir de la lecture se trouve dans la découverte de cette intrigue, mais grosse recommandation de ma part.</p>
<h2>Mon livre de l'année</h2>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.smart_notes_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p>Chose incroyable, en 2023, mon livre préféré n'est pas une fiction, mais un livre de productivité : <a href="https://www.soenkeahrens.de/en/takesmartnotes">How to take smart notes</a>. L'auteur y présente une méthode de prise de notes créée par le sociologue <a href="https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann">Niklas Luhmann</a>. La méthode est simple, mais demande une certaine assiduité pour qu'elle développe tout son potentiel. En résumé : prendre des notes temporaires, constamment, puis régulièrement les transformer en notes « permanentes », des notes autosuffisantes, rédigées, et surtout systématiquement mises en lien avec d'autres notes. L'idée est de se constituer une base de notes, qu'on relit régulièrement, en suivant des liens et surtout en en créant de nouveaux à chaque fois que c'est pertinent. C'est à la fois une manière de mieux apprendre, en se forçant à écrire ce qu'on apprend et les idées qu'on développe, et à la fois une manière de structurer sa pensée et d'articuler ses idées, pour les transformer et en faire des outils novateurs et impactant.</p>
<h1>Conclusions sur l'année 2023</h1>
<p>Bon, ben, quelle année bizarre — comme prévu. Bosser aussi longtemps sur un unique projet, ou presque, c'est éreintant. Heureusement, on a pu montrer du concret au cours de l'année, grace notamment à notre serveur discord et à la newsletter que j'ai lancée. Mais à l'heure du bilan, l'impression que rien n'a avancé est vraiment forte, bien que totalement fausse. Fin 2022, je déclarais que j'avais encore beaucoup d'énergie, là, je dois avouer que c'est moins le cas. Je compte sur cette année 2024 pour chambouler un peu tout ça et me rebooster !</p>
<p>Sur ce, je vous remercie chaleureusement de m'avoir lu, je vous souhaite une très bonne année 2024, et je vous dis à bientôt sur ce blog pour une grande annonce sur Dawnmaker !</p>
The ruins of Dawnmaker's lost continenturn:md5:2e148b017b5144258fc2daf0c83fb9622023-11-27T10:00:00+01:002023-11-27T10:00:00+01:00AdrianDawnmaker<p>Today we are releasing a new version of Dawnmaker, with two big changes. The first one is the 2D board, which I talked about in my <a class="ref-post" href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/Removing-Dawnmaker-s-3rd-dimension">previous blog post</a>. The second one is a new feature called "Ruins and Rewards". That feature… adds ruins and… changes rewards. Yeah. Pretty good name, right?</p> <p data-pm-slice="1 1 []">As with everything we do in this game, there is a good reason. So let's start with why we're changing things: feedback from our players! (But also feedback from a publisher, and observations from watching people play, but hey, ultimately it's players giving feedback directly or indirectly.)</p>
<p>There are four (4!) issues we're trying to address with this new feature:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>The first decision in a run is too complex: you need to choose which buildings you'll want to have for your next game, before you've even got to play with your current buildings.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>During a game, there are no decisions impacting the overall run. The game lacks interactions between the micro loop (building a city to secure a region) and the macro loop (improving your tools to reach the last region of the continent).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>There are not enough variations between games, the board is always the same (with the small exception of lighthouses).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The game lacks an experience, a moment that is truly exciting, memorable, something that players can enjoy and tell their friends about.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>Ruins</h2>
<p>The first thing we decided to add was ruins. It was supposed to be part of a bigger feature that we call "the terrain", where we wanted to add various types of tiles throughout the board, like lakes, mountains, swamps, things like that. To reduce the scope, we chose to add only the ruins for now.</p>
<p><a class="media-link" href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/ruin-focus.png"><img alt="" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.ruin-focus_m.png" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a></p>
<p>So how to they work? Ruins are scattered on the board when you start a game, but you'll never find one directly next to your Aerostation. Once you've brought light to a tile containing a ruin, you can explore it. It costs you two elders (the action points) and gives you a choice between three options:</p>
<p><a class="media-link" href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/exploring-a-ruin.png"><img alt="" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.exploring-a-ruin_m.png" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></a></p>
<p>The first option unlocks a new building. It is added to your roster of buildings, and you will be able to find it in your market (if you have reached the level of that building). You'll keep it until the end of the run, so it will be available to you in your next games, until you either defeat the final region or lose.</p>
<p>Sometimes you might not be interested in that new building, or you might have more short-term objectives that require resources. The other two options cover that: you can choose to not gain the new building (and you won't have another chance to unlock it during this run) and instead gain materials immediately, or science over the next three turns.</p>
<p>You never know what you'll find in a ruin until you explore it, so there's a bit of mystery there. You also have to make a decision between short-term goals and long-term development, improving the interactions between the micro and macro loops. Finally, we're hoping that exploring a ruin will be a good step towards making the game more exciting and memorable — but we'll need to add more juicy effects to truly make it sensational.</p>
<h2>Rewards</h2>
<p>Adding this ruins feature, and especially the part that gives the player new buildings, means that we need to re-think our rewards. Which is a good thing, because as I said in the intro, the first decision of the game (choosing between three packs of buildings) was too hard. It was also confusing players that they did not get to play the buildings they had chosen immediately.</p>
<p>So we've completely changed the rewards you get after securing a region: no more buildings — you need to explore ruins to get them. Instead, you get a choice between replacing a card from your starting deck with a new, better one (chosen amongst three options), or permanently removing a building from your roster — meaning it will not show up in your market anymore. This makes the first decision much simpler. We intend to add more types of rewards later on, but we wanted to playtest this simple version first.</p>
<p>And that's all I have for today! We're hoping this new feature will make Dawnmaker more enjoyable, and we'll be back soon with more good stuff for our game.</p>
<hr />
<p>This piece was initially sent out to the readers of our newsletter. Wanna join in on the fun? Head out to <a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en">Dawnmaker's presentation page</a> and fill the form. You'll receive regular stories about how we're making this game, the latest news of its development, as well as an exclusive access to Dawnmaker's alpha version!</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en" style="display: inline-block; border-radius: 1em; background-color: #C8D6AF; padding: 1em 2em; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.1em;">Join our community!</a></p>Removing Dawnmaker's 3rd dimensionurn:md5:d369638bde4fd878678aae3ec04972342023-10-10T10:00:00+02:002023-10-10T10:00:00+02:00AdrianDawnmaker<p>If you've played Dawnmaker in the last 6 months, you will have noticed, hopefully, that the board was rendered in 3D. After having received a lot of questions and criticism about that feature, we've decided a few months ago to redo the whole board rendering in 2D. After two months of work, I am proud to announce that Dawnmaker will soon have a new version containing only two dimensions! Today we're going to dig deeper into the why and how of this transition.</p> <h2>The point of 2D</h2>
<p>The debate of doing 2D or 3D has been a long discussion internally. What turned the tides was the Game Camp: we showed the game to a few publishers who almost unanimously criticized the fact that the game was in 3D. One question that really struck with me was: what value is 3D bringing to the game? We honestly struggled to answer that question, and so went back to the drawing board, wondering what it would take to switch the game to a 2D rendering engine, how long it would take, and what long terms benefits it would bring.</p>
<p>There were 3 main reasons why we decided to do 2D. First, over the course of the rest of the game, it would cost us less to get to the level of quality we wanted to reach. It is easier to do pretty assets in 2D than it is in 3D: in 2D, most of the rendering is done outside of the game, whereas in 3D the game itself has to do a lot of work to render pretty things. Doing 2D removes a lot of programming work, from complex rendering pipelines to optimizations.</p>
<p>The second reason is that doing 2D is intrinsically less uncertain. Rendering things in two dimensions is a lot easier than it is in three, and programming is also a lot simpler. Doing 2D reduces the potential for bugs, inconsistencies between different computers, operating systems, etc.</p>
<p>The last reason is that we intend to release Dawnmaker on mobile phones. And phones are a lot less powerful than PCs. Doing 3D on a phone requires another level of optimizations, especially regarding graphics rendering. We'll have different problems for mobile platforms with our 2D rendering (I'll get back to that), but we expect they will be a lot easier to manage than having to deal with advanced 3D rendering techniques for smaller devices.</p>
<h2>Rebuilding the board</h2>
<p>So we moved our game to a 2D rendering system. What did it mean? First, a lot of re-programming features of the game: showing the board, animating things like the creation of a building, redoing the Smog entirely (but in a better way, so that's good). It also means re-thinking our assets production pipeline. With 3D rendering, Alexis could work on a building in 3D, export it with its animations, and we could quite simply import it into the game and render it. With a 2D rendering system, it gets a bit more complex. Animations require using a large number of sprites (or images, it's the same thing), that you show one after the other to create movement, just like a movie. But loading many images can take a lot of memory really fast. So, we have to be smart about how we do animations: we cannot have 200 sprites for each building of the game — we intend to have about 150 buildings in the final game, meaning about 30,000 images to load. That would be too much for many devices, including computers. Instead, we are going to split the buildings into separate elements: the base of the building, and a few animations that we'll reuse on several different buildings. This way, we intend to have one unique sprite for each building, and a few dozens of animations, vastly reducing the size of the game and the memory load.</p>
<p>OK, that was a bit technical, my apologies to those of you who don't care much about that level of details. Here's a treat for you to thank you for reading our newsletter: a glimpse into the new 2D board! We've changed the artistic direction a bit, using this opportunity to improve some textures and decorations, like grass and trees.</p>
<figure style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;"><img alt="Dawnmaker board in 3D, oct. 2023" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-10-09_board-3d.jpg" />
<figcaption>
<p><em>The board in 3D, as currently available in our demo.</em></p>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<figure style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;"><img alt="Dawnmaker board in 2D, oct. 2023" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/2023-10-09_board-2d.jpg" />
<figcaption>
<p><em>A glimpse of the new 2D board, that will be released in a future version of the demo.</em></p>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr />
<p>This piece was initially sent out to the readers of our newsletter! Wanna join in on the fun? Head out to <a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en">Dawnmaker's presentation page</a> and fill the form. You'll receive monthly stories about how we're making this game, and the latest news of its development.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en" style="display: inline-block; border-radius: 1em; background-color: #C8D6AF; padding: 1em 2em; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.1em;">Join our community!</a></p>Dawnmaker's endless conundrum of infinite replayabilityurn:md5:2ddc0eb0dfa7935e0edd9c0e3c9038c52023-08-03T10:00:00+02:002023-08-03T10:00:00+02:00AdrianDawnmaker<p data-pm-slice="1 1 []">Over the last few months we've had the opportunity to show Dawnmaker to a lot of people, and notably a few publishers. We had the good fortune of receiving very valuable feedback on the game, which allowed us to identify two important problems with it, or at least, with its demo. The first problem is that our artistic direction isn't compelling enough, but that will not be today's topic — though we are, of course, working on it.</p>
<p>The problem we're going to discuss today it that of replayability. Some of our players, and most of the publishers we talked to, have expressed that they do not feel inclined to restart a game after they lose. Once you've understood the patterns of the game, restarting a new game feels like doing the same thing again, and it is boring. That feeling was especially pronounced for players losing in the 2nd or 3rd region of the demo: you have to restart at level one, a level that you have already mastered and don't feel like going through again.</p>
<p>This is a pretty big problem for a game that wants to have a high replay value, which is what we're aiming for. So today, I'm going to tell you about the key thing we're currently adding to the game as a first step to solve this issue.</p> <h2><a class="media-link" href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/city2.png"><img alt="" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.city2_m.png" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a>The Challenge Mode</h2>
<p>The challenge mode is the "roguelike" way of playing Dawnmaker, and is aimed to be the main play mode for players who are familiar with the game. It is composed of 2 main parts. First, each time you start a new run, you get a (semi)random roster of buildings. "Semi" because we want to make sure you can still win and have some fun, so we're making sure you won't have a list of buildings that is just unable to win. But, apart from a few checks, that roster will be random and you will have to deal with what you've been given. Sometimes you'll have obvious synergies, other times it will be harder to figure out a way to victory. We're fine with that, as that means each run will be different.</p>
<p>The second element is: rewards! Each time you finish a city and secure a region, you'll get two main rewards. The first one is a booster of buildings. You will receive 3 new buildings, that get added to your roster and thus will become available in your market starting with your next city. The game will feature a world map, allowing you to choose which region to go to next, knowing what buildings you will receive — somewhat like the map in Slay the Spire.</p>
<p>The second reward you'll receive is a card to add to your starting deck. You'll get to choose a card that was in your deck at the end of the last city, and put it in your starting deck, while removing another card from the deck. We expect this will make the early game much easier. Generally the first level becomes less interesting as you progress: by giving you stronger starting cards, you should be able to upgrade faster. We also hope this will lead to interesting and unexpected situations.</p>
<p>We are doing three things with this challenge mode: adding more randomness, which increases the diversity of situations ; adding more choices, which is what players strive for in strategy games ; increasing the power of your starting deck, reducing the time to get to the interesting parts in the later regions.</p>
<p>Our first internal playtests indicate that it's working as intended: the game is more enjoyable for us (players who have already played the game a lot), more challenging, and has a lot more depth. We're looking to having that feature ready in a few short weeks, and when it's ready we'll roll it out in the demo and let you all have a go at it!</p>
<p>Lastly on this topic of replayability, we have another feature cooking up to increase it: random terrain! How about having some lakes, mountains or ruins on your map when you start your new city? We're preparing that, but it will be a topic for another newsletter.</p>
<p><em>(I hope y'all enjoy my attempts at doing cliffhangers in a newsletter!)</em></p>
<hr />
<p>This piece was initially sent out to the readers of our newsletter! Wanna join in on the fun? Head out to <a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en">Dawnmaker's presentation page</a> and fill the form. You'll receive monthly stories about how we're making this game, and the latest news of its development.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en" style="display: inline-block; border-radius: 1em; background-color: #C8D6AF; padding: 1em 2em; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.1em;">Join our community!</a></p>How much does it cost to make a game like Dawnmaker?urn:md5:1ad2a36d5c989b4787823a82c490b5c22023-07-04T10:00:00+02:002023-07-04T10:36:53+02:00AdrianDawnmaker<p><img alt="" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.logo-01_t.png" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" />While we were preparing for this year's Game Camp in Lille, we had to work on our pitch for publishers. Part of that was refreshing our budget and making it as accurate as we could, so that 1. we know exactly how much money we need to ask for in order to comfortably finish our game and 2. publishers can see how much the game would cost and compare that to their revenue estimates.</p> <p>So, how much does it cost to create a video game like Dawnmaker? I thought it would be interesting to give you a breakdown of our current numbers.</p>
<p>Even a rather "small" game like Dawnmaker costs a lot of money to make. Our current estimation is that the game will require, from its beginning to its official release, 520k€ to make.</p>
<h2>The art of not paying ourselves</h2>
<p>At the time of writing, we have invested about 170k€ in the game. Does it mean we have actually spent all that money? Nope, because for most of the duration of the project until now, Alexis and I haven't paid ourselves. But that doesn't mean we're working for free: our work is still valued, and enters the budget. I estimate that we have currently not-paid ourselves 90k€ — that's what the company should have paid for our salaries : remove about half of it in various social contributions and taxes to get what we would have received.</p>
<p>The remaining 80k€ is money that we've actually spent. We've had a few freelances and employees that we paid. We've moved to some events (like the Game Camp this month) to talk to publishers and show our game. We're paying for services, like our documentation system, our email system, etc. And then there's the rest, all the little things that you don't necessarily think about but that add up to a significant amount of money: lawyers, accountants, payroll, insurances and so on.</p>
<p>Where did that money come from? A big chunk of it is personal savings put into the company by Alexis and I. The rest is public funding: we've received financial help from the BPI (the French Investment Bank) and the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region. We're quite lucky in France that we have a good ecosystem of public funding, mainly with the CNC (National Cinema Center) and the BPI, and those days with more and more regions contributing as well.</p>
<h2>On to the future</h2>
<p><img alt="" class="media" src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.found_s.png" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" />I said earlier that our estimated total budget was of 520k€. If we remove the already "spent" 170k€, that leaves us with a remaining 350k to spend. Those are mostly composed of salaries: ours of course, but also those of the team we want to assemble. We intend to grow to a team of 7 people in order to take Dawnmaker to the finish line. Our ideal team would be: a game designer (that's me), an art director (that's Alexis), a programmer, a 3D modeler, a UX / UI designer, a community manager and a producer. Of course, this is a projection given our current vision for the game, and it might evolve based on, well, many things: our vision, our finances, our partners, various opportunities, etc.</p>
<p>Anyway, my point is that it takes a lot of people to make great video games (there are exceptions of course — I'm thinking about you <a href="https://mijugames.com/pages/planetcrafter/presskit.html" hreflang="en">Miju Games</a>), and people need to be paid for their work. We also have a principle that we want to pay people, and ourselves, decently. Hence, each individual contributor would cost between 3.5k and 5k€ to the company monthly. Multiply that by 7 people, over about 10 months, and you get an estimate of 300k€. The remaining 50k are for running the company, as I mentioned before: paying services, moving folks around, and so on. The more people you have, the more those little things add up!</p>
<p>After we've released Dawnmaker, I want to write another post about cost and compare what I wrote here today with what the actual cost of the game will be. We all have a tendency to under-estimate costs, let's see how we will turn out!</p>
<hr />
<p>This piece was initially sent out to the readers of our newsletter! Wanna join in on the fun? Head out to <a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en">Dawnmaker's presentation page</a> and fill out the form. You'll receive monthly stories about how we're making this game, and the latest news of its development.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://arpentor.studio/games/dawnmaker/" hreflang="en" style="display: inline-block; border-radius: 1em; background-color: hsl(60, 10%, 80%); padding: 1em 2em; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.1em;">Join our community!</a></p>L'état de l'Adrian 2022urn:md5:5be2844423728d6681490b934e41b1252023-02-08T15:00:00+01:002024-01-18T11:27:45+01:00AdrianActualités<p>Il est l'heure, tardive, de faire le point sur mon année 2022 ! Vous allez le lire, l'année a été chargée, ce qui explique que j'ai un peu de retard dans la rédaction de ce billet… Mais pour me faire pardonner, je vous ai mis quelques recommandations culturelles à la fin !</p>
<p>Voici donc un résumé de ce que j'ai fait en 2022…</p>
<h1>Projets principaux</h1>
<h2>Arpentor Studio</h2>
<p><a href="https://arpentor.studio"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/.Arpentor_s.png" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>Mon projet principal en 2022 a évidemment été le studio de jeu vidéo que nous avons créé avec Alexis. J'ai raconté l'essentiel de l'histoire dans mon billet <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/starting-a-game-studio">Starting a Games Studio [en]</a>, mais je voudrais revenir ici sur d'autres aspects de cette aventure, notamment sur certaines erreurs que nous avons faites.</p>
<p>En début d'année, nous avons rejoint l'incubateur <a href="https://gameonly.org/lets-go-lincubateur-jeu-video-2">Let's GO</a>, porté par l'association régionale Game Only. Ce fût une excellente décision que de postuler, ce programme nous a apporté énormément de connaissances, de contacts, d'opportunités, et puis des bons moments de fun aussi ! Mais ça nous a mené à faire une erreur fondamentale : nous nous sommes laissés porter par les connaissances qu'on nous livrait, sans nous demander si c'était vraiment pertinent de s'en servir à ce moment-là.</p>
<p>Concrètement, nous avons modifié notre plan initial. Nous voulions nous concentrer sur la création d'un jeu relativement rapidement, entre un an et un an et demi. Entraîné par les formations, notamment sur les financements, nous avons révisé ce plan pour le faire grossir, impliquer plus de gens, dépenser plus d'argent pour pouvoir en demander plus, etc. Ce changement de stratégie a eu plusieurs conséquences :</p>
<ol>
<li>Nous avons passé énormément de temps à faire des dossiers de financement, des pitch decks et autre documents de recherche d'argent, et pas assez à travailler concrètement sur notre jeu. Nous avons du coup pris beaucoup de retard sur la production de celui-ci. Hors sans jeu un minimum abouti, sans une vraie démo qui montre notre savoir-faire, impossible d'espérer signer un contrat avec un éditeur — ce sans quoi nous ne pourrons de toute manière pas terminer notre jeu.</li>
<li>Nous avons anticipé sur l'arrivée de financements qui, il s'avère, n'étaient pas aussi faciles à obtenir que prévu. Nous avons commencé à nous rémunérer Alexis et moi, nous avons recruté une employée, nous avons engagé des frais de déplacement sur des salons… Le fait de n'avoir pas obtenu le principal financement public sur lequel nous comptions nous a mis face à une situation qui aurait pu devenir critique : la faillite. Heureusement pour nous, nous avons su nous rattraper suffisamment tôt. Malheureusement, ça impliquait de nous séparer de notre employée, d'arrêter de nous salarier, et de réduire nos frais dans le futur.</li>
<li>Nous avons fait grossir notre jeu, ajoutant de nombreuses fonctionnalités, jusqu'à atteindre un point où j'estimais qu'il nous aurait fallut une équipe de plus de 10 personnes pendant un an et demi pour réussir à finir le jeu. Là aussi, nous avons su largement réduire la taille du jeu et revenir à quelque chose de plus raisonnable pour nous, sans (trop) compromettre la vision que nous avions.</li>
</ol>
<p>Cette année a du coup été éprouvante pour moi, à faire un peu les montagnes russes : on a passé une partie de l'année à rêver d'une grosse production, de financements faramineux, de faire un jeu très ambitieux. Et puis <a href="https://twitter.com/bouletcorp/status/410390478526242816">le parpaing de la réalité s'est écrasé sur la tartelette aux fraises de nos illusions</a>, et il a fallut revenir à des choses plus raisonnables, prendre des décisions difficiles, faire du mal à des gens.</p>
<p>Malgré tout ça, ou grâce à tout ça, j'ai énormément appris en 2022 : sur la production d'un jeu, la stratégie d'entreprise, le recrutement, les relations avec les éditeurs… Le timing n'était pas toujours le bon pour apprendre ces choses-là, mais je sais qu'on s'en souviendra le moment venu, et que ça n'aura pas servi à rien. L'essentiel, comme me disait récemment un grand homme, ce n'est pas de ne plus faire d'erreur : c'est de toujours faire de nouvelles erreurs.</p>
<p>Si je devais recommencer demain, je ferais en sorte de garder ce plan de commencer petit, et de grossir tout doucement. Commencer par faire quasiment des jeux de Jams, en quelques jours seulement, puis faire un jeu en un mois, puis en deux, puis en quatre, etc. L'idée étant de monter en compétence doucement mais sûrement, sur toute la chaîne de production d'un jeu vidéo, et de se faire connaître en sortant régulièrement du contenu. C'est un modèle qui a bien fonctionné pour d'autres studios, et qui me semble vraiment sain pour quelqu'un comme moi qui n'a pas 10 ans d'expérience dans l'industrie. C'est aussi, je crois, une bonne manière de créer une entreprise financièrement stable dans ce milieu difficile.</p>
<p>Pour conclure, Arpentor Studio va bien. En fin d'année, nous avons fait en sorte de bien redresser la barre, et nous nous dirigeons actuellement vers un cap qui nous semble plus cohérent, plus sûr. On ne sortira probablement pas de jeu en 2023, mais progressera énormément dessus, on fera grossir l'équipe, et on mettra en place tout ce qu'il faut pour sortir le meilleur jeu possible en 2024.</p>
<p>État : <strong>en cours</strong>.</p>
<h2>Cities of Heksiga</h2>
<p>Qui dit studio de jeu vidéo dit forcément jeu vidéo. Ça n'est pas vraiment un secret (même si j'en ai peu parlé), nous travaillons depuis un peu plus d'un an sur un jeu que nous appelons actuellement <em>Cities of Heksiga</em>. C'est un jeu de stratégie solo, pour PC et mobile, qui se déroule dans un univers de Fantasy Steampunk. C'est en quelque sorte un jeu de plateau numérique, à la Terraforming Mars par exemple, qui mélange deck building (améliorer un deck de carte au fil de la partie en acquérant des cartes de plus en plus fortes ou synergiques) et pose de tuiles sur un plateau. Je ne vous en dit pas plus pour le moment parce qu'on a encore beaucoup de choses à stabiliser, mais ça viendra bien assez tôt. Sachez qu'on vise actuellement une sortie pendant la première moitié de 2024.</p>
<p>Sur ce jeu, je suis responsable de la programmation (le jeu est codé avec des technologies du Web, en TypeScript, avec une interface qui utilise Svelte) mais aussi du game design, c'est-à-dire de la conception des mécaniques du jeu. Alexis quant à lui est responsable de la direction artistique, de la création de tous les assets graphiques, et de la narration du jeu. Nous sommes également accompagnés par <a href="https://www.aureliemoiroud.com/">Aurélie</a>, qui créé la musique et tous les effets sonores qui viennent embellir l'expérience.</p>
<p>En 2022 j'ai travaillé sur plusieurs prototypes du jeu (j'en compte au moins une douzaine d'après notre documentation), itérant chaque fois sur les mécaniques centrales du jeu pour trouver une formule qui fonctionne. J'ai fait quelques prototypes papier, mais je suis rapidement passé sur des versions numériques, parce que nos mécaniques impliquaient tout un ensemble de calculs et d'actions automatiques difficiles à effectuer manuellement.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/.2023-01-12_Screenshot_of_Cities_of_Heksiga_m.png" alt="Capture d'écran du prototype de Cities of Heksiga au 12 janvier 2023" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Le prototype de Cities of Heksiga au 12 janvier 2023</p>
<p>J'ai également travaillé sur des outils, notamment un outil de gestion du contenu du jeu : j'ai une interface très simple qui me permet de créer rapidement un nouveau bâtiment, ou de mettre à jour un bâtiment existant, puis d'exporter ça en un seul clic. Le fait que nous utilisions des techno Web me permet d'être très efficace là-dessus, et j'ai bon espoir de mettre en place un workflow de game design aux petits oignons d'ici quelques mois.</p>
<p>Fin 2022, nous terminons, enfin mais difficilement, notre phase de prototypage. C'est-à-dire que nous avons consolidé les mécaniques centrales du jeu, que nous les avons validées (bon, pas vraiment, mais c'est en cours et j'ai confiance) et que nous pouvons maintenant passer à la suite : créer une vraie démo qui déchire, et étoffer doucement le jeu en ajoutant de nouvelles mécaniques et du contenu.</p>
<p>Comme je l'ai dit dans la partie précédente, nous avons passé trop peu de temps à travailler sur ce jeu cette année. Mais ça a présenté un avantage : nous avons eu le temps de le faire tester, de prendre des retours posés et construits sur les forces et les faiblesses de nos différents prototypes. Au final, nous avons pu identifier des problèmes fondamentaux et les corriger, ce qui aurait été plus difficile si nous avions eu plus la tête dans le guidon. Un mal pour un bien !</p>
<p>En 2023, Cities of Heksiga devrait vraiment prendre forme, et passer d'un prototype à une véritable démo, puis à une vertical slice, une version représentative de ce que nous voulons que le jeu final soit. Nous prévoyons actuellement de sortir le jeu dans la première moitié de 2024.</p>
<p>État : <strong>en cours</strong>.</p>
<h1>Projets secondaires</h1>
<h2>Souls</h2>
<p>Souls, mon jeu de cartes compétitif en ligne, a fait une grosse pause en 2022. Au milieu de tout le reste, je n'ai tout simplement pas eu le temps de me remettre dessus. Mais tout mon travail à côté a pour objectif de monter en compétence et de créer un contexte dans lequel il sera possible de faire de Souls un succès. Donc quelque part, ça avance quand même !</p>
<p>État : <strong>en pause</strong>.</p>
<h2>Board Game Jam 2</h2>
<p>Voici mon gros projet secondaire de ces derniers mois : l'organisation d'une Jam de création de jeux de plateau. C'est une idée que mon ami Aurélien et moi avions depuis trèèèès longtemps, qui s'est enfin concrétisée début 2020 via l'association Game Dev Party… mais qui s'est fait couper en plein milieu par l'annonce du premier confinement. Je suis donc très heureux d'avoir enfin pu mener une vraie Board Game Jam jusqu'au bout !</p>
<p>Mais qu'est-ce que c'est que ce truc, me demandez-vous ? Une Jam, c'est un événement de création, initialement de jeu vidéo, en équipe, en général sur un week-end. On réunit une cinquantaine de personnes dans un même lieu physique, ils se répartissent en groupes et passent leur week-end à créer de toutes pièces, depuis zéro, un jeu vidéo. À Lyon, l'association Game Dev Party a fait de l'organisation de ces événement sa spécialité depuis 2011 — et j'en suis membre organisateur depuis 2012. Une Board Game Jam, c'est le même principe, mais pour les jeux de société.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/.2023-01-15_-_Board_Game_Jam_2_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">La table de matériel mis à disposition des participant⋅e⋅s</p>
<p>L'événement a eu lieu mi-janvier, et s'est soldée par une franche réussite : environ 40 participant⋅e⋅s pour <a href="https://gamedevparty.fr/retour-sur-la-board-game-jam-2/">9 jeux créés pendant le week-end</a>. Le week-end s'est déroulé sans accroc majeur (oublions les quelques couacs techniques du dimanche soir), les gens avaient l'air heureux, et les jeux produits étaient incroyablement engageants et variés.</p>
<p>Je suis particulièrement ravi de cette formule. Travailler sur un jeu vidéo présente un réel challenge technique : il faut programmer, il faut illustrer, il faut sonoriser… Le temps d'itération est relativement long, entre le moment où on a une idée et le moment où on peut réellement la tester, clavier, souris ou manette en main. Avec le jeu de société, ce temps d'itération est très largement réduit. Une nouvelle idée de carte ? Un bout de papier, un crayon, et hop, la carte est créée et prête à être testée.</p>
<p>C'était épuisant de porter cet événement, mais je suis fier de ce qu'on a réalisé, et je compte fortement sur d'autres personnes pour organiser de nouveaux événements de ce type. Parce que c'est quand même super frustrant de voir tous ces gens créer des jeux et de ne pas participer !!!</p>
<p>État : <strong>terminé</strong>.</p>
<h2>Blog</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Je me note donc, pour mon moi du futur, de faire attention à rester ouvert : c'est éprouvant d'avancer sans que rien de concret ne « sorte », sans avoir la satisfaction d'avoir terminé quelque chose. Alors, Adrian de 2022 : n'oublie pas de parler de ce que tu fais, de montrer tes avancées, même si c'est moche, même si ça marche mal, parce que ça te donnera la sensation de progresser, et que ça t'aidera beaucoup !</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Raté ! Je n'ai publié que deux articles en 2022 : <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/how-i-did-my-market-research-on-steam">How I did my market research on Steam [en]</a> en mars puis <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/starting-a-game-studio">Starting a Games Studio [en]</a> en août. Ce dernier a été un énorme travail, que j'ai fait sur plusieurs mois, mais ça reste très insuffisant pour moi. Heureusement, j'ai quand même partagé mon travail, mais ailleurs : sur un serveur discord qu'on utilise pour les playtests de notre jeu, et au sein de l'incubateur Let's GO. Je n'ai pas ressenti le besoin de plus écrire, même si ça reste un objectif que j'aimerais tenir un jour. J'ai beaucoup appris de gens qui ont partagé leurs expériences avant moi, et je souhaite rendre ce service moi aussi. C'est dans cette démarche que j'ai écrit ces deux billets, mais je pense que je peux en faire plus.</p>
<p>Allez, objectif pour 2023 : 6 billets dans l'année, soit un tous les deux mois !</p>
<h1>Mes recommandations de l'année</h1>
<p>Pour conclure ce billet, j'ai envie de faire un truc nouveau : vous recommander quelques œuvres culturelles qui m'ont marquées cette année.</p>
<h2>Mon jeu vidéo de l'année</h2>
<p><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1284190/The_Planet_Crafter/"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.planet-crafter_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></a></p>
<p>Sans conteste, c'est <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1284190/The_Planet_Crafter/">Planet Crafter</a> qui a été mon jeu de 2022. On y mélange survie, exploration et construction de base sur une planète inhabitable, et notre objectif est de la terraformer. Le jeu est en early access, mais son contenu est déjà énorme, et les mises à jour ont toutes été très bénéfiques. J'ai pris quelques grosses claques en découvrant certains lieux, j'ai passé des heures à me construire une belle base, la progression est excellemment maîtrisée, il y a toujours quelque chose à faire, bref : je vous recommande de jouer à Planet Crafter !</p>
<p><em>PS : j'ai découvert via le <a href="https://www.canardpc.com/jeu-video/dossier-jeu-video/interview-miju-games-les-createurs-de-the-planet-crafter/">CanardPC de janvier</a> que les créateurs de Planet Crafter sont un couple de Toulousains. Ils ont fait ce jeu à deux. C'est très impressionnant. :-)</em></p>
<p><a href="https://www.trictrac.net/jeu-de-societe/terraforming-mars-expedition-ares"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.terraforming-mars-expedition-ares_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<h2>Mon jeu de plateau de l'année</h2>
<p>J'ai été conquis par <a href="https://www.trictrac.net/jeu-de-societe/terraforming-mars-expedition-ares">Terraforming Mars: Expédition Arès</a>. Ce mélange des cartes du merveilleux <a href="https://www.trictrac.net/jeu-de-societe/terraforming-mars-2">Terraforming Mars</a> original avec la mécanique d'actions partagées de <a href="https://www.trictrac.net/jeu-de-societe/race-for-the-galaxy">Race for the Galaxy</a> a complètement fait mouche chez moi. C'est tout ce que j'aime : de l'engine building pur, avec de la planification, un poil de bluff, et juste ce qu'il faut de ressources. C'est accessible, et ça se joue (relativement) vite, entre 1h et 1h30.</p>
<div class="clear"></div>
<h2>Ma BD de l'année</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.bedetheque.com/serie-62493-BD-Bolchoi-arena.html"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.bolchoi-arena_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></a></p>
<p>Je décerne le prix de la BD de l'année à <a href="https://www.bedetheque.com/serie-62493-BD-Bolchoi-arena.html">Bolchoï Arena</a>, de Boulet et Aseyn. Le tome 1 date de 2018, mais je n'ai découvert la série qu'en 2022 à l'occasion de la sortie du tome 3 — pour une série prévue en 5 livres. Dans cette histoire de Science Fiction, on suit les pérégrinations d'une jeune femme dans le Bolchoï, monde virtuel en ligne particulièrement gigantesque qui reproduit à l'identique l'univers connu. Jusqu'à, bien sûr, qu'il se passe des trucs de ouf qui posent des tonnes de questions. On y retrouve de l'aventure, de l'exploration, de la géopolitique, des questions existentielles sur le rapport aux mondes virtuels, et bien plus mais je peux pas dire quoi pour pas spoiler. J'ai très très hâte de lire la suite, les trois premiers tomes sont excellents !</p>
<div class="clear"></div>
<p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/hr/book/show/54493401-project-hail-mary"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.project-hail-mary_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<h2>Mon livre de l'année</h2>
<p>Andy Weir, auteur du livre de SF The Martian, qui a été adapté au cinéma dans un film éponyme avec Matt Damon (très bonne adaptation soit dit en passant), a sorti deux autres livres : Artemis et Project Hail Mary. Si Artemis est une lecture très agréable, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/hr/book/show/54493401-project-hail-mary">Project Hail Mary</a> a été une claque monumentale. Le personnage principal cynique à souhaite, la narration par flashbacks qui fait monter la compréhension et les enjeux, et un incroyable twist au milieu du livre qui change complètement la donne : j'ai adoré ce livre, et je ne peux que le recommander à tout le monde, c'est une merveille.</p>
<h1>Conclusions sur l'année 2022</h1>
<p>2022 fût une année encore plus éprouvante que ce que j'avais prévu. Mais j'ai énormément appris, sur beaucoup de choses. J'ai été tour à tour programmeur, game designer, producer, entrepreneur, recruteur, organisateur… Ça fait beaucoup pour un seul homme, c'est épuisant, mais je ne regrette pas ! Dans tout ça, j'ai tout de même vraiment réussi à me préserver, à ne pas me surcharger de travail, à prendre de (longues) vacances, et c'est une très bonne chose. Je ne suis pas cramé, j'ai encore plein d'énergie pour 2023, et je suis confiant sur l'avenir.</p>
<p>Bonne année 2023 à vous toutes et tous, chères lectrices, chers lecteurs, et merci de tout cœur de me suivre dans ces aventures !</p>
Starting a Games Studiourn:md5:389c6c3250eefa573bcb8e8d112faf932022-08-08T16:00:00+02:002022-08-08T15:01:44+02:00AdrianSouls<p>Since we <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/phytomancer-s-trailer-is-live">released Phytomancer in October 2021</a>, my associate Alexis and I have been working on our next steps: building our second game, and building the company that will make it. Today, I want to share the process we went through to create that company, and explain why we went through each of those steps. I will not discuss administrative tasks, as that is quite specific to France. Instead, I want to focus on what makes our company unique: who we are, what we do, where we're going.</p>
<p>Oh, and, there's a little announcement at the end of this post… ;)</p>
<h2>Building a game studio</h2>
<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/Sgb3OmpipWY"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.bp-miller-Sgb3OmpipWY-unsplash_m.jpg" alt="Three Monopoly guys hiding their mouth, ears and eyes" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/Sgb3OmpipWY">Photo by BP Miller on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<p>Building a company is something I've known I was going to do since I was 15. I remember going through a "career advice" session at school, where we laid out a simple plan: go to a computer science school, then do a one-year degree in commerce, then build a company to do computer software things. I took some detours on that road, but I'm glad I'm finally there!</p>
<p>The plan, of course, evolved a lot over the years. From <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/pourquoi-une-cooperative">reading about the workers-owned company model of Motion Twin to my frustration about hierarchy at Mozilla [fr]</a>, my vision of an ideal company got more refined. When I finally got <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/un-studio-pour-les-cooperer-tous">started on this adventure back in December 2020 [fr]</a>, here are the few things that I knew I wanted for my company:</p>
<ol>
<li>It has to be organized in a horizontal way: no bosses, no power abuses, no unjustified hierarchy.</li>
<li>It produces video games for a living, potentially other forms of cultural products later on. I have a say on what it produces and how it is made.</li>
<li>I do not want to be the only employee of that company, I want to work with others.</li>
</ol>
<p>As it turns out, building a company with those expectations is not so simple. I had to go through a bunch of steps. Here's what I did:</p>
<ol>
<li>Find partners to create the company with.</li>
<li>Define the core values of our company.</li>
<li>Establish a mid-term strategy for our company.</li>
<li>Create a business plan for our next game.</li>
<li>Get help and support building the company up.</li>
</ol>
<p>I'm going to go into details for each of these steps, but first, let me share some resources that I found incredibly helpful in getting my head around this whole "creating a game studio" deal:</p>
<ul>
<li>[article] <a href="https://medium.com/kitfox-games/8-questions-to-ask-yourself-when-starting-a-games-studio-e390a713a7d8">8 Questions to Ask Yourself When Starting a Games Studio</a> — Tanya X. Short founded Kitfox Games, and here she shares 8 things that are super important to ensure your game studio survives. This is a must-read if you're creating a studio.</li>
<li>[video] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDYh2mnDCIM">Intensely Practical Tips for Growing an Indie Studio</a> — A GDC talk by Alexis Kennedy about his experience creating and growing several game studios. There is a lot of great advices in here.</li>
<li>[video] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZGE_awGGik">Studio Design: Building a Foundation for Success and Avoiding Business Disaster</a> — Another GDC talk, this time by Jason Della Rocca, that talks explicitly and exclusively about creating a studio in order to make it financially successful.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Step 1 - Finding partners</h2>
<p>This step was, by a wide margin, the hardest one for me so far. After I left Mozilla in April 2019, I <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/souls-ma-grande-aventure">happily worked on my card game [fr]</a> for about 7 months. But at some point I realized that I would not be able to tackle such a big project by myself. That's also when I remembered that I had a goal of creating a workers-owned games studio. I had to find other people to join me on this journey.</p>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/fwRMK19zavc"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.christopher-paul-high-fwRMK19zavc-unsplash_m.jpg" alt="Three meeples on a game board" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/fwRMK19zavc">Photo by Christopher Paul High on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<p>My main problem was that I had no-one in my close circles willing to do it with me. The few people I wanted to work with sadly had other (great) plans, and thus I was alone. So I figured I would use the magic of the Internet to find like-minded folks. I posted a few articles on this blog to explain what I wanted to do, shared them on social media, and soon enough I had about twenty people wanting to talk to me about that project. That was scary.</p>
<p>Over a few weeks, I interviewed all of these fine people. I turned down only one of them, because I thought they were making a mistake — they wanted to drop out of school to join me. And then I ended up with a very different problem: I had too many people to work with! But there was also a big contradiction in my head. Something just didn't feel right in the way I was doing this. Let me explain.</p>
<p>I launched this process wanting to build this company in a cooperative way. I didn't want to be the leader or the boss, I wanted us to be a group that would cooperatively create a game studio. But at the same time, I had a much higher investment in this project than everyone else. I had been working on it for a while, had started it, had recruited everyone involved at that stage, and I had a vision for what it would be. I also intended to invest a lot of my personal money into it.</p>
<p>I was torn! I wanted to create the studio in an idealistic way: everyone is welcome, everyone is equal, everyone is involved in every decision from the start. But that required letting go of my control over this project. That required risking that my vision would not be followed.</p>
<p>I had a fundamental problem of trust. I did not know those 20 people. I had never worked with them. I was not able to trust them with my vision, my energy or my money. During some of my conversations, we said that associating ourselves was like getting married, but stronger. I clearly did not know any of them enough to get married with them. It took me a while to understand this, but when I did, it unlocked a lot of things for me.</p>
<p>One very important thing that happened to me, psychologically, was to accept that even though I wanted to create a very horizontal structure, the people involved were not and could not be equal. My involvement in this project is fundamentally higher, simply because it is my childhood dream, because I've been working on it for a long time, etc. It doesn't mean I can't create a company that works horizontally. It just means that, even in a structure that wants to be horizontal, there are inequalities, and that it is not a bad thing. We just need to identify them, acknowledge them, and make sure that everyone involved accepts them.</p>
<p>What did I do then? I got focused on a smaller task. Out of the 20 people that I talked to, there were 2 that I knew previously — one ex-colleague, one from a local association. We decided to start again with just the 3 of us, to slowly build that trust, and while we were at it, to build our first commercial game. That's how <a href="https://daydreel.itch.io/phytomancer">Phytomancer</a> was born: we wanted to make a game in 3 months, from start to finish, put it up for sale, and verify that we could trust each others to create a company together. Very quickly in the process we agreed that we would need to get other folks on board: we only had the programming and game design skills among us. So I published a new post on my blog, but this time looking for specific skills and with a much more defined scope.</p>
<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;">
<a href="https://daydreel.itch.io/phytomancer" title="Play Phytomancer!"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/presskits/phytomancer/phytomancer-short-logo.png" alt="The Phytomancer logo" style="box-shadow: none;" /></a>
</div>
<p>I won't go into details about how the Phytomancer project went, for I have done it already. If you're interested, please read <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/four-months-of-horizontal-game-production">Four Months of Horizontal Game Production</a>. What matters for today's story is this: I was able to find someone that I could work with and that I was willing to associate with. Yes, only one person — out of the 7 folks I started the project with. It turns out finding someone to get married with is not easy. :-) That person is <a href="https://www.artstation.com/akaroff">Alexis</a>, who graduated in arts and game design, who can do pretty much everything graphics-related and even knows a bit of programming. Not only does he have a complementary skillset to mine, we also happen to very much agree on our visions of the company.</p>
<p>This first step, finding partners I could trust, took about 10 months. I envy all those entrepreneurs that just happen to know the right people when they start. But at the same time, I think there is real value in the process I had to go through. Alexis and I have already worked together on a real game, we have built a real trust that makes us confident, and that will take us far. We've had time to create a working relationship, to identify how we react and behave, and we know how to resolve our conflicts. That, I believe, is extremely valuable for the future of our company.</p>
<h3>Recommendations on this topic</h3>
<ul>
<li>[article] <a href="https://medium.com/@michelbachmann/start-with-who-15b8857ed718">Start with Who</a> — Heard about Simon Sinek's "Start with Why"? Here's a case for starting with "Who" instead, especially when creating a community. I believe that applies strongly to starting a company.</li>
<li>[video] <a href="https://youtu.be/O1zP6yJjc1o?t=725">Game Studio Leadership: You Can Do It</a> — A GDC talk by Jesse Schell, about running a game studio. Here I'm referring specifically to the part that starts at about 12:05, where he talks about finding people to start a company. That part's been really helpful to me.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Step 2 - Defining our values</h2>
<p>The hard part being done, it was time to actually start working on our studio. I've never created a company before, so I did a lot of reading and watching and listening to folks sharing their experience. That's why I'm putting all those recommendations at the end of each section: they are great resources that helped me understand how it was done.</p>
<p>One of the most important things to do when creating a company is to understand <strong>why</strong> you're doing it. Why not just go work for an existing studio? Why specifically a game studio? Why a cooperative? These are questions that I found difficult to answer. I knew I wanted those things, but it was hard to explain exactly why. But this is crucial, especially when you're building it with other people. You have to agree on a certain set of fundamentals for your company. Those are called the "pillars", and we split them into 3 parts: our <strong><em>raison d'être</em></strong> (why we exist), our <strong>vision</strong> and our <strong>values</strong>.</p>
<div style="margin: auto; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/X2CxUXFqKcM"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.chris-brignola-X2CxUXFqKcM-unsplash_m.jpg" alt="Three meeples on a game board" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/X2CxUXFqKcM">Photo by Chris Brignola on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<h3>Raison d'être</h3>
<p>The <em>raison d'être</em> is literally our reason for being. It answers the question "why does our company exist". This is turned to the past, and serves to explain why we decided to create yet another company instead of joining an existing one. It also explains some of the major decisions in the next pillars. For example, here is the "raison d'être" we settled on:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want to create a cooperative organization where we will have full creative control over our cultural productions.</p>
<p>We oppose authority that is not consented by those on which it is exerted. We believe that a cooperative organization is the optimal way to work together.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These are the intrinsic reasons why Alexis and I want to create a new company, and why we want to create it the way we do.</p>
<h3>Vision</h3>
<p>Next up is the vision. This one is turned towards the future: what ideal do we want to reach? This one matters because it gives us a shared sense of where we're headed. We have a clear direction, and that helps us making decisions. In our case, here's what we wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>We work in an organization whose main activity is creating and selling cultural artworks.</li>
<li>This organization works in a cooperative way, without non-consented authority, and combines efficient production with well-being in the work space.</li>
<li>We offer our audience artworks that make them think, learn and grow.</li>
<li>We dedicate a portion of our resources towards stabilizing and growing a network of cooperative companies that share our values.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the future we dream about. It's what we've set out to reach. Some of those things will be harder to do than others, and we might not be able to do them before a long time, but that's fine. What matters is that we've written it down, we agree on it, and we can reference it when the time comes to make tough decisions about our company.</p>
<h3>Values</h3>
<p>Finally, values are anchored in the present. They answer the question: "what are our fundamental beliefs?" These are the things that are the most important to us, today. They help define what we do and what we do not do. You could say that they are our "grand ideals", that absolutely have to be understood and shared by everyone in the company. Here are ours as of writing:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>We maintain a work space that prioritizes the well-being of all members of our organization. That work space must be caring, inclusive, tolerant and encouraging diversity.</li>
<li>We ensure that all members of the organization understand the reasons behind our decisions and processes.</li>
<li>Any form of authority in the organization derives from the attribution of a role to a person. That authority is clearly defined and voidable.</li>
<li>We refuse to exploit cognitive biases in order to encourage our public to pay more money than they intended to spend.</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>These are the things we do from day one. We do not compromise on them. If we do something that doesn't fit our values, we have a big problem and we need to solve it as soon as possible.</p>
<h3>Why should we do this work?</h3>
<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/bq31L0jQAjU"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.my-life-through-a-lens-bq31L0jQAjU-unsplash_m.jpg" alt="Tag saying Together We Create" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/bq31L0jQAjU">Photo by "My Life Through A Lens" on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<p>We defined our pillars for 3 main reasons. The first one is because it is very, very easy to assume that others think the same way you do. We human beings do that all the time. But in our case, a small assumption might later on cause a huge conflict. We actually had something like that come up while we were working on our <em>raison d'être</em>. We both agreed that we wanted to work in a cooperative way, but for different reasons. One of us deeply believed in cooperation as a core value, something that was absolutely not negotiable whatsoever. The other simply thought it was the most efficient way to work together. What would happen if, in a year or two, we came to the conclusion that cooperation was not the most efficient method for our company? We would have to face a really big conflict, something that touches our fundamental beliefs. By doing this work early, we were able to identify our difference, discuss it constructively, and preemptively make a decision.</p>
<p><strong>Reason #1: to make sure we actually agree on the fundamentals of our company.</strong></p>
<p>The second reason is conflicts. Conflicts are going to happen. There's no way around it. What we can do, though, is create a tool to help resolve conflicts. And that's exactly what those pillars do! By writing them down, you get a clear piece to reference to whenever you happen to disagree on something. It won't magically solve all your problems, obviously, but it will definitely help.</p>
<p><strong>Reason #2: to provide a tool to help resolve conflicts.</strong></p>
<p>Finally, even if these pillars are mostly an internal tool, I believe they are an excellent way to communicate externally, especially regarding recruiting. If you know your values and write them down, it's easy to share them and make sure the people that apply to join you are on board with them.</p>
<p><strong>Reason #3: to help recruiting people that are a good fit for your company.</strong></p>
<p>There's one important thing to note though. Those pillars are not meant to be set in stone. They can and should change over time, as your company changes. They should reflect your reality at all times. There's nothing more frustrating than having a dissonance between the pillars of a company and the way it actually works. That's why it's important to regularly look at your pillars, and make sure they're still valid for you. That will help you either correct your company's actions or correct everyone's understanding of the company.</p>
<h3>Recommendations on this topic</h3>
<p>[article] <a href="https://premortem.games/2021/05/04/mission-vision-and-values-part-1-why-you-need-them-and-how-to-define-them/">Mission, Vision and Values – Part 1: Why you need them, and how to define them</a> — A short essay about this topic, with a more generic point of view.</p>
<h2>Step 3 - Coming up with a strategy</h2>
<p>Our next step was to decide on our long-term strategy. We know we want to make video games, but what kind? Where do we see ourselves, ideally, in 2, 5 or 10 years? What are the big things we want to achieve? What skills do we need to acquire or develop in order to get there?</p>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/UDfmSK4AS3E"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.zoe-holling-UDfmSK4AS3E-unsplash_m.jpg" alt="Man standing on a big chess board" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/UDfmSK4AS3E">Photo by Zoe Holling on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<p>Why are those questions important? Why not just focus on our current game? Because we intend to build a company that lasts, and doing that requires to look into the future. More precisely, if you don't anticipate your company's future at least a little, you risk falling into a number of traps. Here are the ones that I am aware of.</p>
<p>The main risk is simple: producing a video game is an excruciating process. Once you've finally finished your game and released it, then spent another month fixing last-minute bugs and issues, doing some amount of support, and so on, you'll be down on your knees. And at that precise moment, you'll have to start working on the next game. Engaging in a creative process when your energy bars are at their lowest is not a good idea. But you're running a company, you cannot simply rest and not do anything for a while — unless you have a shit-ton of money but hey, if that's the case, good for you! Anticipating on this is important. You must know what your next project will be before the current one is finished. If you have a strategy, a shared vision of where you want your studio to go, it will be easier to agree on what the next game should be.</p>
<p>But there are other reasons for defining your strategy. It helps decide what kind of skills you want to nurture in your studio, either by getting internal experience or with recruitment. It helps decide what sort of games you want to make, in order to get ready for your "big goal".</p>
<p>And finally, it forces you to look at the bigger picture, instead of focusing on your current project. That is especially important for budgeting. If you want to make another game after the current one, how much money (meaning, time) will you have after the first game is finished? How long will you have to find new sources of income or funding? Is it realistic to spend all your studio's money now? When should you stop development and release to make sure you'll be able to stay afloat? Having a long-term strategy helps you answer these vital questions.</p>
<p>Let's look at what we've done and intend on doing. We know we want to focus on strategy games. It's a genre that both Alexis and I enjoy, and for which I have some game design experience. We know I have this card game I've been working on a while now, and we both think it has great potential. We also know that we want to create and explore original fantasy worlds. So we agreed on a long-term goal: we want to bring our studio to a place where it will be ideally suited to tackle my online, competitive strategy card game. How do we get there?</p>
<p>We need to build some experience on strategy games, card games, online competitive games and world building. So our first game is going to be a strategy card game set in an original world. Our second game will likely be an online competitive game, probably building on our experience making a strategy game. Then we'll evaluate if we're ready to build our "big game".</p>
<p>We estimate we need to reach a size of about 10 to 15 people to be able to take on our big project. We don't need to hire 10 people right now, but we want to have a regular growth to reach that number in about 5 years. So we're currently focusing on identifying the key skills we need right now, and recruit just one person that fits that role. We'll hire the next one when it's relevant, keeping in mind the kind of skills we need for the long-term.</p>
<p>For example, we're planning to go into competitive online play, so we need to start building a community of dedicated players as soon as possible. We're going to work on our branding, on community management and communication, on building a core of players that will follow us through our next adventures. But since we don't have that skillset internally, we intend to hire someone focused on those tasks. If we were only focusing on our current solo game, that would seem like a mistake. But we know that, long term, it will have a huge impact.</p>
<p>We have a plan. It might change, it probably will, but at least we have a vision for our future, and we take that into account for our day-to-day decisions. I believe that is a strength that will play an important role in the long-term success of our studio.</p>
<h3>Recommendations on this topic</h3>
<p>[article] <a href="https://medium.com/kitfox-games/your-studios-next-game-is-more-important-than-you-think-2f5050330d43">Your Studio’s <em>Next</em> Game Is More Important Than You Think</a> — Tanya X. Short, already cited earlier, goes into details about why you need to have a strategy if you want to build a lasting game studio.</p>
<h2>Step 4 - Making a business plan</h2>
<p>Our goal, as I mentioned earlier, is to create a company that is sustainable. In order to reach that goal, we need to generate money, and we need to make sure that we always have enough money to pay all the things we have to pay: our own salaries, social contributions, taxes, accountants and lawyers, tools and services, and so on. This is the disenchanted heart of running a company.</p>
<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/My0r_M9Qt3M"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.robert-harkness-My0r_M9Qt3M-unsplash-modified_m.jpg" alt="Winnie the poo changing the M to an H in Get Money" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/My0r_M9Qt3M">Photo by Robert Harkness on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<p>There are many tools to use to manage a company's finances, but when you're just starting like us, the main one is the business plan. It's quite a simple tool, answering a simple question: what will your income and expenses look like for the next few years. When do you expect to earn money, and how much? What do you expect to pay for, when, and how much? Collect that information, put all of that in a spreadsheet, use some simple formulas to make sure that it all works out, and you have a plan!</p>
<p>Now the big question is: how do you find all that information? The answer is, of course: it depends! I'm going to talk about our specific case of starting a studio and making a premium PC game. There are 4 categories of information I'm considering:</p>
<ol>
<li>General company expenses</li>
<li>Game production expenses</li>
<li>Funding</li>
<li>Game revenue</li>
</ol>
<h3>General company expenses</h3>
<p>These are fairly simple to figure out. It's things like salaries, accountants and lawyers, travel and conferences, buying hardware and software, tools and services, taxes and insurances, etc. That list can be quite long depending on your activity. In our case, it's isn't, mostly because we're starting as simple as we can. We only listed 11 lines for our general expenses, but we very likely forgot many more. That's not a big problem: the goal is not to be comprehensive, but to get a general idea of the feasibility of your plan. We just need to make sure we covered the most important expenses, and then account for a little more to handle what we forgot.</p>
<h3>Game production expenses</h3>
<p>These are all the expenses related to making our game. In our case, as we don't have much experience, we went for a very simple list: external contracting, localization, software licenses, testing and Steam. The numbers we put in there are rough and probably wrong. Once again, the goal is not to predict the future perfectly but to validate that the plan can work.</p>
<p>This part is also evolving a lot as we make progress on our game. It's very difficult to anticipate what your production will look like when you're at the beginning of your prototyping phase, but as your vision for the game becomes more and more detailed, you'll get a better picture and will be able to make better predictions.</p>
<h3>Funding</h3>
<p>Making a video game requires that you have some initial money to cover the expenses that we listed above. Funding, whatever its form and source, is thus required. It can be personal savings, love money (from friends and family), investments, government funding, or anything else. It can be, and probably is in a lot of cases, a mix of several sources. This is where the real guessing starts: based on your expenses, you know approximately how much money you need, and when. You can then start making various plans: what if I get a bank loan of 100k€ in June? How much does that cost me over time? Does it get me through to the end of my project? What if I only get half of that money?</p>
<p>Having a way to visualize this information was great for me. I put all the information I listed above in a simple spreadsheet. One row per expense or income source, one column per month for the next 3 years. Then I filed the boxes, and added simple computations at the end of each row and column, answering those questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>how much do we spend this month / this year?</li>
<li>how much do we earn this month / this year?</li>
<li>how much money will we have left at the end of this month / this year?</li>
</ul>
<p>Using that tool, I can run simulations while knowing really quickly if it's working or not. Is there any month where we have negative money? The plan doesn't work. Is there any month where we have less money than we intend to spend on the following 2 months? The plan is highly risky. Do we having enough money left at the end of the project to move on to the next one? The plan can work!</p>
<p>Of course this is highly fragile. The data is full of guesses and mistakes. But if your plan puts you in a state where you just don't have any money left before you finish your game, then it's really important to know it and change the plan. This tool also helps figuring out what your deadlines are for finding money. For example, in one of our earlier simulations, we had a plan where we needed to find 100k€ before June this year, or the company would fail. That was a plan that we considered likely to fail, and thus we drafted a different simulation that gives us more time to find that money.</p>
<h3>Game revenue</h3>
<p>Now for the fun part! All of the previous categories were about making your game, but maybe the most important question is: how much is it going to earn you? Once you know that, you can answer some simple but crucial questions: is this game going to earn me more than it cost me? If not, should I actually make it? Will I be able to make another game after this one?</p>
<p>How can you figure out how much is your game going to earn, you ask? By doing… Market Research.</p>
<p>What's market research? Basically, it's three steps:</p>
<ol>
<li>Find games similar to yours.</li>
<li>Get data about how much they sold.</li>
<li>Estimate how much yours is going to make based on that data.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is big topic, and I actually published a dedicated article about it recently, so I won't repeat myself here and instead encourage you to go read it: <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/how-i-did-my-market-research-on-steam"><strong>How I did my market research on Steam</strong></a>.</p>
<h3>Recommendations on this topic</h3>
<ul>
<li>[article] <a href="https://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/budget1.html">Making the Budget of Thimbleweed Park</a> — The creator of Thimbleweed Park goes over how he handled their budget. Lots of information, things to remember, and a very simple spreadsheet to get a general view of your whole budget.</li>
<li>[article] <a href="https://howtomarketagame.com/2020/10/19/steamgenres/">What genres are players looking for on Steam?</a> — If you want to make a living by selling games on Steam, it's a good idea to know what the Steam user base likes to buy. Chris Zukowski has a bunch of great articles on his blog about that.</li>
<li>[tool] <a href="https://games-stats.com/">Games-Stats.com</a> — Games-Stats is a great tool that I used to do market research for our next game. It gives estimated revenue for games based on number of reviews, has search filters, ranking by tag, and so on.</li>
<li>[tool] <a href="https://www.gamedatacrunch.com/">Game Data Crunch</a> — Game Data Crunch is another great tool to do market research. This one I used mainly for its filtering, as it allows to filter by several tags. Super useful when you're mixing genres and you want to see what other games have done it before!</li>
</ul>
<h2>Step 5 - Getting help</h2>
<p>Building a company, especially if it's your first one, is super tough. The first few years are said to be the most difficult, and even with my limited experience, I can only agree. As of writing, I've been working on that project for about a year and a half, and we've had our official company for a few months. Getting started has been incredibly difficult: there are so many things to know, to think about, to handle at all times. Even with access to a lot of free knowledge on the Web, I found myself wondering if what I did was actually relevant or even just correct. The good news is: there are lots of people out there who can help you!</p>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0; text-align: center; font-style: italic;">
<a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/fRBpWLAcWIY"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.dimitar-belchev-fRBpWLAcWIY-unsplash_1__m.jpg" alt="Three woman heads painted on a wall" /></a>
<p><a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/fRBpWLAcWIY">Photo by Dimitar Belchev on Unsplash</a></p>
</div>
<p>First and foremost, there are two key "companions" — probably a bad word as they are usually not colleagues but external consultants — that you need to find to create your studio: an accountant and a lawyer. The accountant is going to help you with everything that is related to the daily administration of your company, looking at your finances, doing taxes for you, and answering your questions about recruiting, funding, and much, much more. These people work with companies all the time, and they know a lot more than you do. Find one that you work well with, and ask them questions! It's their job to answer you as best as they can, to make your company succeed so that you can keep paying them! :D</p>
<p>The lawyer comes in less frequently, at least in our experience, but for key legal points. For example, we hired a lawyer to help us write our statutes and declare the actual, legal creation of the company. We'll ask them again soon about writing contracts for our first employee. They're helping us with our associates' pact. We meet with our lawyer less often but when we do it's really high value: we do not want to mess with legal stuff, as that can be very costly down the road. And if, at some point, you get into legal trouble, it's great to have someone you can turn to, who knows your company and your context.</p>
<p>Last but not least, I highly recommend joining a business incubator. My associate and I were reluctant at first, but finally decided to join a local incubator (<a href="https://gameonly.org/lets-go-lincubateur-jeu-video">dedicated to video games studios</a>!) and I do not regret a single Euro we've payed them. The value is through the roof: masterclasses and workshops are nice, of course, but what really did it for me is 1. access to a large community of studio leaders with a vast amount of experience and 2. being part of a group of young studios doing the same things that we do. Even if you do not go with an incubator, keep this in mind: you are not alone in doing this. There are many, many people creating companies every year, going through the exact same steps that you do. If you can find others and talk with them regularly, that's going to be a great help for you: you'll gain knowledge, but also moral support — and boy is that needed when you're creating a company!</p>
<hr />
<p>There's a lot more to creating a company than just these 5 steps, but I believe they are the most important ones to know about, especially if your goal is to create a studio that will live for years. Finding money is probably the sixth topic, and the next one in terms of progression — at least it is for us — but it's also a huge beast by itself. I've been doing a lot of that in the past few months, and I learned a lot, so I might write about that next. But first, I have to tell you about something special to me…</p>
<h2>Welcome, Arpentor Studio!</h2>
<p>I am proud to announce that everything I told you about here led to the creation, in March 2022, of <a href="https://arpentor.studio/"><strong>Arpentor Studio</strong></a>! We are a new game studio based in Lyon, France. We have a flat hierarchy and work in a cooperative way. There are only 2 of us for now, but we intend to grow slowly and regularly over time. We want to specialize in deep strategy games in original Fantasy setups. Our first game is going to be a card game mixing deck building with city building.</p>
<p><a href="https://arpentor.studio/" style="margin: 0 auto; display: table;"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/.Arpentor_m.png" alt="Logo of Arpentor Studio" /></a></p>
<h3>Follow Arpentor Studio!</h3>
<p style="text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.instagram.com/arpentorstudio/">
<img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/instagram.svg" alt="instagram" style="box-shadow: none;" />
</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/arpentorstudio">
<img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/twitter.svg" alt="twitter" style="box-shadow: none;" />
</a>
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/Arpentor-Studio-100396392569735">
<img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/facebook.svg" alt="facebook" style="box-shadow: none;" />
</a>
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/84518029/">
<img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/linkedin.svg" alt="linkedin" style="box-shadow: none;" />
</a>
</p>
<p>Thanks for reading this long piece! I hope I did not sound too pedant. I know we're a new company and my experience is limited, but I've been nerding about this topic for a while now and I hope this knowledge will be useful to others. Let me know if you have comments or questions in the comments below or on social platforms. And if you've enjoyed this piece, please consider giving us a follow on social networks! ;)</p>
How I did my market research on Steamurn:md5:a56c8f05e5a735deb8257eb0426860f82022-03-08T17:00:00+01:002022-03-08T17:00:00+01:00AdrianSouls<p>Late last year, my associate Alexis and I started working on our next commercial game. Our goal being not only to make games, but also to build a company and make it financially sustainable, we did market research very early in the process. Today I want to walk you through how we did that specific market research.</p>
<p>My goals with this article are, of course, to share my current knowledge with others, but also, hopefully, to learn from people who know better than I do. You see, this was my very first market research, and I've used what tools and knowledge I have to make it as solid as I could. But I'm just a beginner in this field, and I'm sure there are tons of things I've missed.</p>
<p>So, fellow junior game developer: here's how you can get started doing your market research. And dear senior developer: please share your tips and criticisms about my method! :)</p>
<h2>What's my game?</h2>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/steam-genre.png" alt="Picture of the list of genres on Steam" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p>The first part to doing market research is of course to know what to look for. You want to find out about your competition, past (mainly) and future. But to figure out who your competition is, you need to understand your game, your audience and your target platform.</p>
<p>In our case, we intend to create a game that's a mashup of different genres: deck builder, city builder and roguelike. The game is a solo, turn-based, strategy card game. We don't really understand our audience just yet, but we know that it's players who like to think strategically, take their time to play optimally, and enjoy card games. We're leaning more on the "deck builder" side than the "city builder" side.</p>
<p>As for our market, we're specifically targeting Steam. And this whole post is going to be only about researching the Steam market. I have no experience with looking for other PC platforms (like GOG or the Epic Game Store) nor any consoles. And as far as I understand, mobile is a entirely different beast. So, let's just focus on Steam.</p>
<h3>Summary</h3>
<ul>
<li>Figure out the genre of your game.</li>
<li>Figure out the Steam tags of your game.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Who's my competition?</h2>
<p>Once you know your game, you can start looking for its competition. Start making a list of games that are similar to your game in some aspect. You probably have a few games in mind when thinking about this, and that's a great start. But you probably won't know your entire competition, so you'll need to do some actual research to make sure you have a full understanding of the market. This is where I get to share the first tools I used.</p>
<p>In our case, our games of reference where:</p>
<ul>
<li>Slay the Spire — the most successful roguelike deck builder as of writing;</li>
<li>Dorfromantik — a chill game where you build your map one hexagonal tile at a time;</li>
<li>Humankind — a 4X, but we're looking specifically at the city construction part.</li>
</ul>
<p>These are great as inspiration, but not so much as comparison points for the game we're building. All of them were huge successes that we do not hope to reproduce, and they are not quite the same as the game we're building. So we started looking for games closer to the one we intend to build.</p>
<p>There are several tools that came in handy to help us. The first one was Steam itself. There are two useful features on steam: tags, and "More like this game". Both are great for discovering games. Using tags is simple: figure out the tags that match your game, and browse them on Steam. For example, we knew our game was going to be a deck builder with roguelike elements, just like Slay the Spire, so we looked at the <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Roguelike%20Deckbuilder/">Roguelike Deckbuilder tag page on Steam</a>. Lots of great data points there, with top sellers, top rated, but also upcoming games in the genre.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/steam-more-like-this.png" alt="Picture of the More like this feature on Steam" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p>The "More like this" feature is also a great way to find new games. We started with Slay the Spire, and looked at what <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/recommended/morelike/app/646570/">Steam recommends as similar games</a>. Again, this is super useful for finding games that sold well, but also games that are not out yet, as those have a dedicated section. We basically browsed that page, going from game to game, adding to our list the games that were relevant.</p>
<p>However, in our case, we were not looking for just one tag or one genre, but for games that were at the intersection of several. When looking a tag or games similar to an established game, we found plenty of games, but few that overlapped with the other genres or tags we cared about. This is a problem specific to building games that are a mashup of genres: the games of one genre might not be representative of what you're building. We looked at "More like this" games in other genres, starting from city builders I played, trying to go down the list. But ultimately, we needed a better tool to look for games that were in between those two main genres of our game.</p>
<p>Enter <a href="https://www.gamedatacrunch.com/">Game Data Crunch</a>. This is one of several websites that crawl public Steam data and show it in ways that's helpful for market research. One very sweet feature is the possibility to search for several tags at a time. In our case, we started with the list of <a href="https://www.gamedatacrunch.com/steam/list/all/reviews_total/?filter=t32322&field=title,release_date,price,ea_status,review,reviews_total">games with the Deckbuilding tag</a>. Then we added, via the User tags list to the right, the <a href="https://www.gamedatacrunch.com/steam/list/all/reviews_total/?filter=t4328,t32322&field=title,release_date,price,ea_status,review,reviews_total">City Builder tag</a>. And boom! We had a list of 15 games that have both tags. We've used that tool with several other combinations of tags, and that was really helpful in figuring out exactly what our competition was.</p>
<p>Here's the list of 14 relevant games we ended up with, based on research using the above methods:</p>
<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;">
<a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/646570/Slay_the_Spire/" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.slay-the-spire_m.jpg" alt="Slay the Spire game screenshot" /></a>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Slay the Spire (Mega Crit Games, 2019)</p>
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/646570/Slay_the_Spire/">Slay the Spire</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1455840/Dorfromantik/">Dorfromantik</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1108370/Ratropolis/">Ratropolis</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1307890/Kingdoms_Reborn/">Kingdoms Reborn</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/895620/Spellcaster_University/">Spellcaster University</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1046030/ISLANDERS/">ISLANDERS</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1119700/As_Far_As_The_Eye/">As Far As The Eye</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1073910/Before_We_Leave/">Before We Leave</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1076750/Dream_Engines_Nomad_Cities__A_survival_city_builder_with_flying_cities/">Dream Engines: Nomad Cities</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1269710/Kainga_Seeds_of_Civilization/">Kainga: Seeds of Civilization</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/400160/Concrete_Jungle/">Concrete Jungle</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1524530/Fantasy_Town_Regional_Manager/">Fantasy Town Regional Manager</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1550680/Feudalia/">Feudalia</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1722100/Sky_Tale/">Sky Tale</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Summary</h3>
<ul>
<li>Look at the tag page for relevant tags on <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/tag/browse/">Steam</a>.</li>
<li>Look at the "More like this" page for your games of reference on Steam.</li>
<li>Use a tool like <a href="https://www.gamedatacrunch.com/">Game Data Crunch</a> to do some more fine-tuned exploration of genres and tags.</li>
</ul>
<h2>How much can I make?</h2>
<p>Now the really important question we're trying to answer with a market research is: how much are we going to earn with our game? And it's also the hardest information to find out, as there is very little publicly available data to help. The video game industry is known for being very secretive. But things are getting better thanks to folks that are willing to share, to studies that help us make estimations, and some publicly available data, notably on Steam. There are tools out there that use all of that data to derive revenues of many many games. I'll tell you about the one I used.</p>
<p>But first, a bit of theory. The main data point that is publicly available on Steam is the number of reviews. There's historical data about that, and thanks to folks who have run studies, we can use it to estimate revenue. There is one number that is known as the Boxleiter number (<a href="http://greyaliengames.com/blog/how-to-estimate-how-many-sales-a-steam-game-has-made/">apparently coined from Mike Boxleiter</a> who had the original idea, and <a href="https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/how-that-game-sold-on-steam-using">later updated as the "New Boxleiter" number by Simon Carless</a>). This number tells us that for each review, there were approximately 40 units that were sold. (Note that this number varies year to year, in 2020 the estimate was between 38 and 41 units per review. Read Simon Carless's article linked above if you want to know more.)</p>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;">
<a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1073910/Before_We_Leave/"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.before-we-leave_m.jpg" alt="Before We Leave game screenshot" /></a>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Before We Leave (Balancing Monkey Games, 2021)</p>
</div>
<p>So, using that "magic" number, the price of game, and various other available data points (like sales or regional pricing), some tools provide estimates of a game's revenue. One such tool is <a href="https://games-stats.com/">Games-Stats.com</a>, and I used it to my market research for our current game. Games-Stats offers an estimation of the total revenue that each game available on Steam generated over their lifetime. And if you pay for the Pro version, you can also get access to more detailed data, like revenue over time. They have historical data going back to early 2020, when they launched the tool, if I'm not mistaken.</p>
<p>So, how did I use that tool? I was interested in revenue during the first year. For each game that I listed in the previous section, I looked at the data on Games-Stats.com. If it had historical data for the first year, I just took that number and put it in a spreadsheet. Otherwise, if the game was too recent or too old, I estimated the first year revenue. For old games, I just guesstimated. For recent games, I looked at the first week revenue and multiplied that by 3 (once again <a href="https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/steam-the-state-of-long-tail-revenue">relying on work by Simon Carless</a>).</p>
<p>Two important bits of info before I go on. First, these are <strong>estimates</strong>. They are not real numbers, and can be completely wrong. But chances are, over a big enough number of games, your average should be kind of correct? Some numbers is better than no numbers anyway. Second, this is raw revenue, meaning the amount that folks payed in total for buying the game. It's definitely not what the developers made: you have to remove Steam's platform cut, taxes, and probably other things. Either take those into account in your business plan, or, if you just want an idea of how much money you'll get, divide the number by 2.</p>
<p>So, here's the data that I gathered:</p>
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Game</th>
<th>1st Year Revenue</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Slay the Spire</td>
<td>$25 000 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dorfromantik</td>
<td>$1 600 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ratropolis</td>
<td>$1 300 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Kingdoms Reborn</td>
<td>$1 200 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Spellcaster University</td>
<td>$930 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>ISLANDERS</td>
<td>$730 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>As Far As The Eye</td>
<td>$630 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Before We Leave</td>
<td>$260 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dream Engines: Nomad Cities</td>
<td>$150 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Kainga: Seeds of Civilization</td>
<td>$100 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Concrete Jungle</td>
<td>$30 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Fantasy Town Regional Manager</td>
<td>$15 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Feudalia</td>
<td>$1 000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sky Tale</td>
<td>$1 000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The average revenue is ~$2,3M and the median is $445 000. There's an obvious outlyier in my list with Slay the Spire, and two games that really didn't bring any revenue, so I wanted to look at the results without those extremes. With just the middle 11 games, the average is $631 363 and the median is $730 000.</p>
<div style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;">
<a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1455840/Dorfromantik/" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.dorfromantik_m.jpg" alt="Dorfromantik game screenshot" /></a>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Dorfromantik (Toukana Interactive, 2021)</p>
</div>
<p>From there, I wanted to build scenarios to measure against my business plan. I decided on a "target" that I find credible based on this data: 500k€ of first year revenue. I have a "low" scenario, where we only make about 100k€ in the first year. And there's a "high" scenario where we go through the roof and make more than a million euros. But that one is here just to have a dream, I don't plan on it happening.</p>
<p>Anyway, I can now use that data for two things. First, to make sure that my budget is lower than the expected revenue, and that at the end of the project we'll at least break even. Second, to show potential financial partners how much we expect to make and how that makes our business plan credible.</p>
<h3>Summary</h3>
<ul>
<li>For each game you listed, look it up on <a href="https://games-stats.com/">Games-Stats.com</a> and note its first year revenue.</li>
<li>Compute the average and median revenue of those games.</li>
<li>Make several scenarios of expected revenue for your game based on that data.</li>
</ul>
<h2>That's it folks!</h2>
<p>This is how we made our market research for our next game! I have no idea if this the best way to do it, or even if it's just a good way, but heh, it's helped us! We actually had two prototypes we wanted to choose from, and using this method we were able to very quickly eliminate the other prototype, as a simple market research showed that it would not generate nearly enough revenue.</p>
<p>I hope this will be useful! And if you have ideas, tools or methods you want to share to improve the process, I'll be very glad if you could share them in the comments below.</p>
<p><strong>Enjoyed this content? <a href="https://twitter.com/adngdb">Follow me on Twitter</a> for more!</strong></p>
L'état de l'Adrian 2021urn:md5:0697452ca753c0f6820c454b79a803c62021-12-28T15:00:00+01:002021-12-28T15:00:00+01:00AdrianActualités<p>J'ai du mal à y croire, mais l'année 2021 se termine déjà. Voici donc le moment de faire le point sur cette période qui marque concrètement un tournant dans ma carrière : je suis désormais officiellement créateur de jeux vidéo. Pour preuve : des gens ont dépensé de l'argent pour jouer à un jeu que j'ai créé !</p>
<p>Au moment de faire le bilan de cette année, je me rends compte que ce premier jeu, et sa suite, m'ont pris toute mon énergie et tout mon temps. Si l'année dernière j'ai pu être créatif, prototyper des jeux, apprendre énormément sur la conception de jeux, en 2021 je me suis au contraire focalisé sur des choses beaucoup plus terre-à-terre. Voyons donc ensemble ce que j'ai fait ces douze derniers mois…</p>
<h2>Projets principaux</h2>
<p>Voici les trois projets qui sont les plus importants pour moi, et auxquels j'ai dédié l'essentiel de mon temps — ou pas.</p>
<h3>Souls</h3>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/photos/.souls-logo_s.jpg" alt="Logo du jeu Souls, déc. 2020" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" title="Logo du jeu Souls" /></p>
<p>Mon projet de jeu de cartes compétitif en ligne, sur lequel je travaille depuis 7 ans, a malheureusement été le grand perdant de cette année 2021. Si j'ai mis au point un nouveau prototype papier, auquel j'ai fait jouer quelques rares personnes, je n'ai pas pu le concrétiser en une version numérique que j'aurais pu faire tester à plus grande échelle.</p>
<p>La bonne nouvelle, c'est donc que j'ai une « nouvelle » version, et que celle-ci fonctionne vraiment bien. Les sensations de jeu que m'ont rapporté les chanceux qui y ont joué sont celles que je cherche à faire ressentir depuis longtemps. Le jeu tourne bien, les choix sont intéressants, et surtout ça ne ressemble à aucun autre jeu que je connaisse.</p>
<p>Mais Souls a un énorme problème : c'est un projet très compliqué à mener à bien. Les raisons sont multiples. D'abord il y a la compétition : le marché des jeux de cartes à collectionner en ligne est bouché par quelques acteurs bien ancrés (<em>Hearthstone</em>, <em>Magic Arena</em>, <em>Legend of Runeterra</em>) et aux moyens faramineux. Dur de faire son trou à côté de ces jeux sans avoir soi-même des moyens financiers solides. Conséquence de cette compétition, pour sortir un jeu qui intéresse les joueurs, il faut un niveau de qualité très élevé. <em>Hearthstone</em> et <em>Legend of Runeterra</em> sont des jeux très bien réalisés, aux interfaces ultra léchées, qui sont très faciles à utiliser. Si je veux faire de Souls un véritable succès, il faut donc que je me donne les moyens de créer un jeu impeccable. Et pour ça, y a pas de secret : il faut de l'expérience et de l'argent. J'ai donc choisi de mettre Souls en pause, en le gardant comme objectif à long terme. Pour l'instant, je me concentre sur des projets plus petits, mais qui me permettent de monter en compétence dans des domaines qui serviront, à terme, à faire de Souls le jeu dont je rêve.</p>
<p><u>État</u> : en pause.</p>
<h3>Studio coopératif</h3>
<p>J'ai écrit « je » dans mon dernier paragraphe, mais j'aurais pu dire « nous » ! Eh oui, du côté studio de jeux vidéo coopératif, les choses se sont concrétisées. J'ai un futur associé, Alexis, avec qui nous allons bientôt monter la structure juridique. Nous avons un nom de studio (qu'on annoncera lorsque tout sera créé / déposé), et nous avons un nouveau jeu dans les tuyaux (là aussi, j'en reparlerai en 2022). Bref, tout se passe bien de ce côté, et 2022 sera une année extrêmement riche à nouveau. Mais comment en suis-je arrivé là ?</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/photos/soulscoop-plan.png" title="SoulsCoop plan to profit, déc. 2020"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/photos/.soulscoop-plan_s.png" alt="SoulsCoop plan to profit, déc. 2020" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" title="SoulsCoop plan to profit" /></a></p>
<p>Si vous avez lu mon <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/state-of-the-adrian-2020">bilan de l'année dernière</a>, ou que vous suivez un peu mon blog, vous avez dû voir passer mes appels à collaboration. À la suite de ça, j'ai passé les trois premiers mois de l'année à essayer de constituer une équipe pour créer le studio. J'ai géré ce processus de manière assez catastrophique : j'ai discuté avec une vingtaine de personnes intéressées par le projet. Des gens motivés, intéressants, aux profils variés, bref : c'était super motivant. Mais je me suis rendu compte, au bout de quelques semaines, que ce n'était pas la bonne approche. J'ai voulu, dès le début, créer quelque chose de commun et le construire avec tout le monde, de manière très horizontale. C'était une erreur, et j'ai mis du temps à le comprendre. Mon objectif est de créer une entreprise, dans laquelle je veux investir beaucoup d'énergie et d'argent, et pour laquelle j'ai une vision déjà bien définie. Or je me suis retrouvé à interagir avec une vingtaine de personnes que je ne connaissais pas, avec qui je n'avais jamais travaillé, et donc en qui j'étais fondamentalement incapable de faire confiance. Avant de se jeter la tête la première dans une création de studio, il fallait d'abord créer de la confiance.</p>
<p>Donc j'ai repensé mon approche : j'ai constitué une petite équipe de trois personnes, et nous avons décidé de commencer par créer un jeu ensemble. Nous voulions faire un petit jeu, mais surtout aller jusqu'au bout du processus, pour bien valider qu'on peut travailler ensemble. On a donc pris un peu de recul, on a conçu une idée de jeu, et on a préparé un cadre pour la création de ce jeu. Partant de là, j'ai relancé une campagne de recherche de collaborateurs : nous étions deux programmeurs et un game designer, nous voulions nous adjoindre les compétences d'un⋅e artiste, d'un⋅e sound designer et d'un⋅e expert⋅e en marketing. Ce petit groupe constitué, nous avons commencé à travailler sur Phytomancer, qui deviendra, quelques mois plus tard, mon premier jeu commercial. J'en reparle dans la section suivante !</p>
<p>Cette approche a été très bénéfique. D'abord parce qu'une équipe de 8 personnes est bien plus simple à constituer et à gérer. Ensuite parce qu'avoir un projet de jeu, bien défini et bien cadré, a grandement simplifié la constitution de l'équipe et le lancement du projet. Et enfin parce que ça nous a permis de rentrer très rapidement dans du concret : la création d'un jeu vidéo. Par ailleurs, c'était un projet sans réelle contrainte : on ne comptait pas dessus pour gagner de l'argent, on ne se payait pas, il n'y avait pas d'entreprise derrière, bref, c'était idéal pour se tester. Toute personne à qui ça ne convenait pas était libre d'arrêter à tout moment, et c'est d'ailleurs arrivé, puisqu'en ayant commencé à huit, nous avons terminé à quatre.</p>
<p>Phytomancer, enfin, nous a permis de vérifier que nous étions bien aptes à travailler ensemble. Et grand bien nous a fait, puisque ce n'était pas le cas ! Une fois le projet terminé, j'ai donc continué mon aventure avec une seule des personnes qui ont bossé sur Phytomancer : Alexis, qui a fait une bonne partie des assets graphiques du jeu, ainsi que toutes les animations du jeu. Après une courte pause, nous avons entamé le travail sur la suite des événements pour nous : d'un côté la création d'une entreprise, et de l'autre la préparation de notre prochain jeu.</p>
<p>Nous avions deux idées avec un peu de potentiel pour notre prochain projet, l'une pour un jeu rapide à créer mais sur un marché très petit, l'autre plus complexe et plus long, mais sur un marché très porteur. Après avoir créé un prototype simple pour chacun des jeux, nous avons rapidement décidé de nous lancer sur le jeu plus complexe. D'abord, l'étude de marché du premier jeu montrait des perspectives de revenu très limitées, mais surtout, nous sommes tous les deux très emballés par le concept du second jeu. Depuis début novembre, nous travaillons donc à la préparation de la création de ce jeu. J'ai fait une étude de marché plus poussée, avec des estimations de revenu et de temps de production. On a écrit plusieurs plans de financement, du plus optimiste au plus pessimiste. Et bien sûr on a longuement discuté et documenté ce que l'on veut faire de ce jeu !</p>
<p>En parallèle de ce travail, nous avons également construit les fondations de notre studio. Nous avons écrit nos piliers : raison d'être, mission et valeurs, qui définissent notre projet commun dans cette entreprise. Nous avons documenté notre fonctionnement, afin de clarifier nos processus et de permettre à de nouveaux arrivants de se les approprier rapidement. Et nous avons discuté, rediscuté, et rerediscuté d'un potentiel nom pour notre studio… C'est incroyable de se dire que c'est probablement la partie la plus difficile !! Mais a priori, on a trouvé un truc du tonnerre, cette fois c'est la bonne… Je vous annonce ça ici dès qu'on aura tout mis en ordre, déposé la marque, etc.</p>
<p><u>État</u> : actif.</p>
<h3>Phytomancer</h3>
<p>Comme dit précédemment, j'ai sorti mon premier jeu commercial en 2021 ! La création de ce jeu s'est étalée sur environ sept mois, de mars à octobre. Il y a eu un mois de préparation et recrutement, puis six mois de production concrète. Nous étions 8 personnes au tout début (Alex, Alexis, Ana Maria, James, Laurent, Mathieu, Pierre et moi), et plus que 4 pour les deux derniers mois (Alex, Alexis, James et moi). J'ai raconté une bonne partie de l'expérience que ça a été dans mon billet (en anglais) : <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/four-months-of-horizontal-game-production">Four Months of Horizontal Game Production</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://daydreel.itch.io/phytomancer" title="Acheter et jouer à Phytomancer"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/presskits/phytomancer/phytomancer-key-art.png" alt="Bannière du jeu vidéo Phytomancer" style="margin: auto;" /></a></p>
<p>Phytomancer a occupé plus de la moitié de mon année. J'ai fait l'essentiel de la programmation du jeu, et un peu de gestion de projet. J'ai aussi géré une partie de la communication lors de la sortie du jeu, en postant sur divers réseaux sociaux notamment. Ça a été une expérience incroyable, une énorme montée en compétence sur des domaines très divers. Il est très difficile de se rendre compte de la quantité de travail qu'il faut pour terminer un jeu. On pense avoir fait 80% du travail, et il en reste encore 80% à faire. Un bon jeu, c'est beaucoup de détails, de petites choses qui améliorent la vie du joueur, de signes et de feedback qui rendent la compréhension intuitive, etc. Toutes ces choses prennent un temps fou.</p>
<p>Je ne pense pas qu'on ait fait un travail parfait sur Phytomancer, loin de là, mais nous avons fait de notre mieux dans le temps qu'on s'est donné, et je suis sincèrement fier de ce que l'on a produit. Et évidemment : le prochain jeu sera meilleur !</p>
<p><a href="https://daydreel.itch.io/phytomancer">Phytomancer est disponible à la vente pour 3€ sur itch.io</a>.</p>
<p><u>État</u> : terminé.</p>
<h2>Projets secondaires</h2>
<p>J'ai pu en 2021 consacrer un petit peu de mon temps à des projets annexes. Malheureusement, je n'ai avancé sur aucun des jeux de plateau que j'ai entamé l'année dernière. Difficile de dire si j'y retoucherai en 2022, mais ça me ferait plaisir.</p>
<h3>Game Jams</h3>
<p>J'ai participé cette année à deux Game Jams — des événements, généralement sur 48h, de création d'un jeu en équipe ou en solo. D'abord la <a href="https://itch.io/jam/gmtk-2021">GMTK Jam 2021</a>, organisée par Mark Brown de la <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqJ-Xo29CKyLTjn6z2XwYAw">chaîne youtube Game Maker's Toolkit</a>, chaîne qui parle de game design et dont j'apprécie beaucoup le contenu. La GMTK Jam est orientée gameplay original, et le thème cette année était « Joined Together ». J'ai publié un billet (en anglais) qui raconte ma participation : <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/your-soul-has-been-shattered-%5Bgmtk-jam-2021%5D">Your Soul has been Shattered</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icones-billets/.herrant-title_m.png" alt="Herrant, déc. 2021" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p>Et j'ai également, enfin, à nouveau participé à une jam de la <a href="https://gamedevparty.fr/">Game Dev Party</a>, cette asso lyonnaise dont je fais partie depuis 2012. C'était notre première jam en présentiel depuis fin 2019, et c'était un plaisir de retrouver cette ambiance si particulière. Le thème de cette jam était « négation ». J'y ai participé en tant que game designer, et j'ai proposé le concept suivant : un jeu de plateforme dans lequel on commence avec tous les pouvoirs possibles, mais à chaque fois qu'on remplit un objectif du jeu, on perd un de ces pouvoirs. Le but est de terminer le jeu en contrôlant, à la fin, un personnage très faible. Nous avons constitué une équipe composée de Maeva (graphiste), Cédric et Robin (développeurs), et Jean et Maxime (compositeurs et sound designers). Le jeu que nous avons produit s'appelle Herrant et il est <a href="https://adngdb.itch.io/herrant">disponible au téléchargement sur itch.io</a>.</p>
<h3>Publications sur mon blog</h3>
<p>Je m'étais donné pour objectif, fin 2020, de communiquer plus sur mon blog, pour partager mon expérience de création de studio, mes recherches en game design, etc. Si je n'ai publié que 10 billets sur l'année (sans compter celui-ci), je suis satisfait de leur qualité. Mes deux belles réalisations sont d'abord ma série sur les jeux de cartes à collectionner numériques, puis mon post-mortem sur la production de Phytomancer.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">A Study of Digital Card Games</a> m'a demandé beaucoup de temps de rédaction : presque 9000 mots répartis sur 6 articles, avec à chaque fois des relectures de plusieurs amis, mais également de la recherche sur certains sujets, des discussions, etc. C'était un gros travail que je suis fier d'avoir mené à bout ! En terme de visibilité, c'était une bonne réussite étant donné le sujet très niche : entre 100 et 300 vues sur chaque article. Rien de fou, mais à mon échelle, c'est très bien.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/four-months-of-horizontal-game-production">Four Months of Horizontal Game Production</a>, en revanche, a pété les scores avec plus de 1500 lectures ! Ce fût grâce, notamment, au bon accueil qu'à reçu l'article sur le reddit <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/ppfjqg/im_working_on_a_game_in_a_flathierarchy_team_its/">/r/gamedev/</a>. Ce billet est un retour de mon expérience sur les quatre premiers mois de la création de Phytomancer, sur ce que nous avons bien fait mais surtout ce que nous avons mal fait.</p>
<p>Je suis content d'avoir réussi à publier plus qu'avant sur mon blog, mais j'ai bien noté une grosse baisse de régime ces derniers mois. Je cherche donc à m'y remettre, et à partager notamment plus sur mes questionnements d'entrepreneur, sur la manière dont nous créons notre studio, mais également sur la création de notre prochain jeu.</p>
<h2>Conclusions sur l'année 2021</h2>
<p>Comme je l'avais prévu dans mon édition de l'année dernière, 2021 a été une année riche ! Pas forcément du point de vue créatif, même si j'ai pu me remettre dans le game design ces derniers mois, mais complètement du point de vue de la concrétisation de ma nouvelle carrière de développeur de jeux vidéo. J'ai sorti mon premier jeu commercial, j'ai mieux intégré l'industrie du jeu vidéo, notamment à Lyon, et j'ai appris énormément, vraiment énormément, sur la création d'un studio, sur la production d'un jeu, sur la manière de s'organiser en équipe horizontale, et sur bien d'autres choses encore autour de ce nouveau métier que je fais désormais.</p>
<p>Quant au futur, les choses s'annoncent très bien : notre studio sera créé dans les prochaines semaines (<img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icons/crossed-fingers_1f91e.png" alt="fingers crossed" style="box-shadow: none; width: 1em;" />) et nous avons un plan qui me semble solide pour la création de notre prochain jeu. Notre duo avec Alexis est fonctionnel et complémentaire et, je l'espère, nous mènera loin. Bref : j'ai confiance en l'avenir !</p>
<p>Si j'en crois les plans que nous avons fait, 2022 va être une année étrange : nous ne prévoyons pas de sortir notre prochain jeu avant 2023. Ce sera donc une année qui sera marquée par un million d'événements importants, des recherches de financement aux partenariats, en passant par les démos et les tests, les conventions, le réseautage, etc. Mais sans sortie de jeu. Sans réalisation concrète.</p>
<p>Je m'attends à une année éprouvante, notamment parce que nous entamons une longue période de travail (au moins un an et demi) durant laquelle nous aurons la tête dans le guidon. Je me note donc, pour mon moi du futur, de faire attention à rester ouvert : c'est éprouvant d'avancer sans que rien de concret ne « sorte », sans avoir la satisfaction d'avoir terminé quelque chose. Alors, Adrian de 2022 : n'oublie pas de parler de ce que tu fais, de montrer tes avancées, même si c'est moche, même si ça marche mal, parce que ça te donnera la sensation de progresser, et que ça t'aidera beaucoup !</p>
<p>Quant à vous, chères lectrices, chers lecteurs, merci de suivre mes aventures, et je vous souhaite une excellente année 2022 !</p>
Phytomancer's trailer is live!urn:md5:134be9200c544cb4aeb153f9bc32d2302021-09-29T17:30:00+02:002021-09-29T16:32:18+02:00AdrianSouls <div style="text-align: center;"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f3PmBE5yqig" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<p>I am very proud to present the trailer for our first commercial game! <a href="https://daydreel.itch.io/phytomancer">Phytomancer will be released on October 6, 2021 on itch.io</a>, for 3€. It's a small strategy game about restoring the balance between nature and humanity. Plant magical seeds on an automatically moving board, remove pollution, surround human factories and bring back harmony!</p>
Four Months of Horizontal Game Productionurn:md5:b2c250a17aeb664f0933e9109317eb9f2021-09-16T10:00:00+02:002021-09-17T08:29:42+02:00AdrianSouls<p>About 6 months ago, I posted a call on this blog to <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/le-phytomancien-a-besoin-de-vous-">find folks who would be interested in building a game in a non-hierarchical organization [fr]</a>. This led to the assembly of a team of 7 people, and to the creation of the game <em>Phytomancer</em>, soon to be released. This is a post-mortem of our production period, looking back on all the mistakes we made and rejoicing about the few things we did correctly!</p>
<h2>What we intended</h2>
<p>The initial goals, as stated in my introduction article, were three-fold:</p>
<ol>
<li>Make a full game, from A to Z, and make it as high quality as possible. Focus on the details, create a well polished experience.</li>
<li>Sell the game. Talk about it, market it, put it where people can find it and buy it. <em>Note that this is not about making money, but about the process of getting to the point where you can start making money.</em></li>
<li>Test ourselves to see if we are suited to working together in an actual studio. </li>
</ol>
<p>The plan was to do all that in about three months. Guess what? We failed. :-)</p>
<p>Four months later, we just finished our production phase, and enter a post-production phase. Here's what happened during those four months, and a bunch of lessons I learned from this experience.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-history-01-small.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Phytomancer in April</p>
<h2>What actually happened</h2>
<p>My rough, initial planning accounted for 3 weeks of production, following 2 weeks of pre-production. I think we did the pre-prod in about 3 weeks, but then production took us approximately 4 months to finish. We had to set ourselves a strict deadline and cut a few features to reach an end to that phase. We could have gone on for at least another month, maybe two, with what we had planned.</p>
<p><em>Phytomancer</em> is in an OK shape, but far from "commercial quality". It really needs a post-production phase, to polish a lot of things, add necessary feedback in many places, implement some missing features (like internationalization). I also think we made game design mistakes, that it's too late to fix easily.</p>
<p>By the end of the production of the game, there were only 4 of us left, out of the starting 7. Two folks left the project for personal reasons, and one because of internal conflicts.</p>
<p>We sadly did almost no marketing of our game, for various reasons. One of them is that our marketing person had to leave the team for personal reasons. The rest of us were focused on our respective parts, and well, marketing just never was a priority. We did, however, work on a trailer which I am excited about, and I hope we'll be able to finish it (with footage from the polished game) and share it soon!</p>
<p>Quickly after production was finished, we reached out to a publisher that we thought was just perfect for our situation, and got turned down with detailed feedback. Essentially, they had concerns about the core game design, the art direction, and the "marketability" of the game. I believe all of their feedback is very valid, and in the next part I'll go through what I believe are the reasons for those problems.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-history-02-small.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Phytomancer in May</p>
<h2>What went wrong</h2>
<p>I think we made a loooooot of mistakes with this project. And that is great, because it was part of the goal: make mistakes on this low-stake project, so we can learn and not repeat them for the next game.</p>
<p>Most of our mistakes were organizational. We started the whole process without much experience making games outside of game jams or solo projects. We tried to find a good compromise between individual autonomy and project management, and ended up too far on the autonomy side. We did not account for the fact that we were fully remote, and didn't do enough meetings, especially at the beginning, when we needed to synchronize our vision. We struggled with the limited availability of some team members who had other jobs, causing friction in some areas.</p>
<p>Let me run down a list of what I believe were our major mistakes.</p>
<h3>Not enough processes</h3>
<p>We didn't have enough processes. The only thing that we enforced was a weekly team meeting where everyone was to share what they had done the previous week, what they intended to work on next, and if they were blocked by anything. That was not nearly enough. We didn't take the time to list the work we had to do and prioritize it. We didn't dedicate time to offering constructive criticism about other people's work.</p>
<p>This had several consequences on the team. There were frustrations about some parts of the game that were not living up to our standards, but we didn't say it out loud. There were unspoken conflicts about art direction, and no clear arbitration.</p>
<p>There were communication issues. My analysis is that we had people who preferred very short, super efficient meetings, and others who wanted to have time to talk about anything and everything, very organically. We had people who were comfortable with writing a lot, and others who disliked it and preferred to talk about things. There was not clear way of communicating that worked for everyone, and we tried to accommodate everyone by, well, not enforcing anything. We had our weekly meetings, our discord server and a loomio forum, but it was not quite clear what each was used for.</p>
<p>Here's what I would do today if I were to start again:</p>
<ul>
<li>Have much more meetings at the start of the project, to make sure that the vision about the game is very well shared among team members.</li>
<li>Use an actual management tool to track features and priorities. We've actually started doing that by the end of production, and again in post-production. We use a kanban board, with high level tasks. Each month, we choose the tasks that we want to do, then prioritize them. Every week, we take a look at that board and update it.</li>
<li>Dedicate a time slot to constructive criticism about the current state of the game. We've started doing "Criticism Fridays", every other week, where we all take some time to play <em>Phytomancer</em> and write feedback about pretty much anything that we want. We then share that feedback in a loomio thread, and discuss it at the following weekly meeting.</li>
<li>Clarify communication rules. Make sure everyone knows what each platform is for, and use it accordingly.</li>
</ul>
<p>Here are some resources to go further on these topics:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.ryandarcey.com/making-moves/2016/6/30/designing-a-production-process-part-1">Designing A Production Process</a>, by Ryan Darcey</li>
<li><a href="https://basecamp.com/guides/group-chat-problems">Group Chat: The Best Way to Totally Stress Out Your Team</a>, by Basecamp</li>
</ul>
<h3>Not enough preproduction</h3>
<p>We did not spend nearly enough time in preproduction. That seems to be a pretty typical problem for game companies, as I've read many similar stories. In part 3 of previously linked article "Designing A Production Process", <a href="https://www.ryandarcey.com/making-moves/2016/8/4/designing-a-production-process-part-3">Ryan Darcey writes</a> that "<em>if you're doing it right, a day spent in this [preproduction] phase is worth a week (or more) in the later phases</em>". We spent less than 3 weeks in preproduction, and 4 months in production. We made mistakes in production because we did not go far enough in preprod.</p>
<p>For example, up until the last week of production, all of our levels still had temporary art decorations. When we finally started working on those decorations, we realized that it would actually take time to make something that worked. We could, and should, have anticipated something like that by just doing one entire level, even a fake one, in preproduction.</p>
<p>Lesson learned: do not start production until you are confident about the game and have made the most out of your preproduction.</p>
<h3>No market research</h3>
<p>This final mistake is not a big one, especially considering the scope of the project, but still one that I do not want to repeat for my next games. We did very little market research for <em>Phytomancer</em>, and did not work on our marketability. We didn't ask ourselves how we would sell the game, how we would make players want to play it. We did not ask ourselves how much money we could make by selling the game.</p>
<p>And that was kind of intentional. There is no money involved in this project, no one is getting paid (until we make money out of the game, if ever), and thus we didn't seriously consider budgeting. But we should have. Because that is one of the first things you want to do when you run an actually game company.</p>
<p>I want my next games to generate money, so that I can live comfortably while doing what I love. But it's hard, extremely hard, and asking ourselves the right questions, right from the start, is a good way to succeed. "<em>Will we make money with this game?</em>" is a very important question.</p>
<p>Here's a great article on this topic: <a href="https://howtomarketagame.com/2021/07/12/how-to-market-your-indie-game-a-10-step-plan/">How to market your indie game: a 10 step plan</a>.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-history-03-small.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Phytomancer in June</p>
<h2>What went right</h2>
<p>Not all of it was negative though. The first thing that went well is plain and simple: we actually made a game! That was the most important part, and we succeeded.</p>
<p>One thing I am particularly proud of is that the game has very little known bugs. We haven't released it yet and I'm sure as people will test it on more wild settings we'll get reports, but so far, it is really stable. That is not to say there has been no bugs: of course there were many, but we made a good job of fixing them early on.</p>
<p>Of course, I learned a ton of things making <em>Phytomancer</em>. I learned how to actually use Godot (and consequently why I do not like it). I learned more about working in a horizontal organization, with its benefits and struggles. And I learned a lot about producing a game! Having only worked on games either by myself or in short contexts like game jams, I was naive to think we could avoid processes and tools like an issue tracker. Clearly I was wrong: it is necessary, in a team, to always have a clear vision of the game, how it's progressing, what the top priorities are, etc. And that is even more true in a horizontal organization, as the responsibility for deciding the future is shared among the team.</p>
<p>But the most important thing that went well, I believe, is that I got to learn a lot about the people I worked with. That was my third goal with this project, to be able to answer this simple question: "should I create a studio with these folks?" My answer was "no" for everyone except one person. The reasons for that are various and concern only them and me, so I won't talk about it here. But I for one am really glad that I was able to get a clear answer before we actually started anything serious, like founding a company together.</p>
<p>The process of telling ourselves what we thought was difficult for me, but I'm quite happy with the way we did it. We had very calm and respectful conversations, everyone listening to what the others had to say, and in the end I believe everyone agreed with our decisions. We are in good terms, and we will each continue our own adventures while staying in touch.</p>
<h3>Speak now or forever hold your peace</h3>
<p>Specifically, our conversation was structured this way: we had three questions, and we took turns answering them (everyone answered the first question, then everyone answered the second… ). Here are the questions:</p>
<ul>
<li>What went well and what frustrated me? (introspection)</li>
<li>What did I learn? (lessons)</li>
<li>What do I want to do next? (future)</li>
</ul>
<p>We also had individual conversations to give each others feedback more privately.</p>
<p>Handling conflicts, disagreements, frustrations, is a very difficult thing to do, at least for me. In the end, the only viable solution is to talk about the struggles, with the people involved, as early as possible. You can do that either by building a strong trust between each team member, making them feel safe to tell what they think whenever needed. But if that is not (yet) the case, and maybe even if that is the case, you need to have some form of process (like a dedicated meeting), or some space, or maybe just someone, that is there for people to talk about what's going wrong. Unspoken frustration is the path to the Dark Side. Do whatever you can to avoid it!</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-history-04-small.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Phytomancer in July</p>
<h2>What's next?</h2>
<p>That's it for my post-mortem of our production period! We are now in the middle of our post-production period. We expect it will last 2 months, during which we intend to bring the game to commercial quality. We were hoping to find a publishing partner, but given the time we have left and a previous failure with a publisher that seemed to be a perfect fit for us, we've decided to self-publish <em>Phytomancer</em>. Expect to be able to buy it some time in October! I will of course let you know here and on social media when the game is released.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-history-05-small.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Phytomancer in September</p>
<p>Follow me on <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/feed/atom"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/rss.svg" alt="" style="width: 1.1em; box-shadow: none; vertical-align: middle;" /> this blog</a>, on <a href="https://twitter.com/adngdb"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/twitter.svg" alt="" style="width: 1.1em; box-shadow: none; vertical-align: middle;" /> Twitter</a> or on <a href="https://tutut.delire.party/@adngdb"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/img/icons/mastodon.svg" alt="" style="width: 1.1em; box-shadow: none; vertical-align: middle;" /> Mastodon</a> to get updated when we release Phytomancer!</p>
Your Soul has been Shattered [GMTK Jam 2021]urn:md5:aeefe6ac4035e9ba3489936bfbc8890a2021-07-30T10:00:00+02:002021-07-30T10:00:00+02:00AdrianDéveloppement<p>This year, for the first time, I took part in the <a href="https://itch.io/jam/gmtk-2021">annual jam organized by Mark Brown</a> from the YouTube channel <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/McBacon1337">Game Maker's Toolkit</a>, aka GMTK. It's a game jam that is focused on gameplay and trying out new mechanics, it's had more entries every year since its creation, and it has fierce competition. So, together with a team of excellent people, we rolled up our sleeves and made a game!</p>
<h2>Meet the Team</h2>
<p>This time I've had the pleasure to work with a most impressive team of people. Let me introduce them!</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://did-aurelien.itch.io/">Aurélien</a>, our game designer and programmer, is a long time friend of mine. He's been working on games for a while now, and even had his own game studio for a while! </li>
<li><a href="https://www.artstation.com/manon_halvadjian">Manon</a>, another long-time friend, was our 3D artist. She's been working in the game industry for a few years now, creating gorgeous scenes and environments. She's an indie artist now, so if you like her work, reach out to her!</li>
<li>Rémi has been working at Ubisoft a long while now, as a programmer, but for this jam he's been one of our two musicians. Still, we couldn't resist asking him for programming advices from time to time… </li>
<li>I won't be able to tell you much about Aurore, except that she was our second musician, because I didn't know her before this jam. But I know she's a great musician, and she contributed highly to the amazing musics of the game. </li>
<li>Finally, I participated as a Jack-of-all-trade, doing a bit of producing, a tad of programming, and some level design. </li>
</ul>
<p>And now that we have a team, it's time to make a game.</p>
<h2>Meet Cthulhu</h2>
<p><img src="https://img.itch.zone/aW1nLzYxODcwMTUuanBn/original/udqMxt.jpg" width="250px" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></p>
<p>The theme of the jam was "Joined Together". Our brainstorming session led to a bunch of ideas, some horrendous and others less horrendous. Aurelien did some work to take one of these ideas to a full blown pitch that we started working on. Here goes that pitch:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The game is 3D platformer with a series of levels. Levels are split on several screens, each one showing you only some of the existing obstacles. You must combine these different views to move through the level and reach the exit.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Worded like this, it seems to be loosely connected to the theme, and I guess it is. Our train of thoughts was to have several views that are "joined together", meaning that whatever action you do in one happens in the others, and whatever obstacles exists in one affects you in the others.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/shattered-soul-01.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/.shattered-soul-01_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></a></p>
<p>We had a pitch, a few ideas to test out for level design, so we got started. Manon chose to give the game a kind of horror vibe, and Cthulhu was quickly brought into the conversation. That gave us a nice theme and story: you are in hell, Cthulhu has broken your soul, and you need to escape while finding a way to rejoin your soul together.</p>
<p>The initial goal of the game was to simply reach a goal within each level, then move on to the next. We rapidly decided to add another goal: to align glyphs, just like you would <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zReCi2ZyZF8&t=106s">do it in Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice</a> (warning, spoilers for that game), but this time with the glyphs split across different views. This would make the player explore levels twice, but looking to do different things each time.</p>
<p>Our musicians, Aurore and Rémi, got inspired by this and the horror theme, and started working on two different ambiances, one for each part of the levels. Do put the sound on when you try the game, it is worth it!</p>
<p>After a few hours of work, we had a working prototype, and I started making an actual level, with assets that Manon had produced. The concept included a small labyrinth, with doors and levers to open them, split into four different views. I showed the concept to Aurélien, then implemented it and sent it his way. It turned out that it was waaaaaaay too hard. Even with the 2D map of the level, he struggled to get to the end of it. Working four cameras was incredibly difficult, and made the game not fun to play. We clearly had to make it a lot simpler.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/shattered-soul-02.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/.shattered-soul-02_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>We then started rethinking levels, and made much simpler ones, dedicated to teaching different aspects of the game. In the end, we had five levels, with only two views except for the last one which went all the way to three.</p>
<p>The rest of the development of the game was pretty uneventful. We had a working game design and spent most of our time just building the game. Aurélien did most of the programming, I built most of the levels, Manon created all of the graphics, and Rémi and Aurore created the musics as well as a collection of sounds that we could use for the sound design. Except for the classic stress at the end of the Jam, everything went fairly smoothly!</p>
<h2>Play Shattered Soul</h2>
<p>And just like that, we had a game! Give a try, <a href="https://adngdb.itch.io/shattered-souls">play Shattered Soul on itch.io</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/shattered-soul-03.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/.shattered-soul-03_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>We scored a fairly good result for our first participation in this jam:</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/downloads/images/shattered-soul-results.png" alt="" /></p>
<p>These marks I think are on spot: the concept was quite new and original, but it turned out to be quite difficult to play and we did not manage to make it into a fun game. Still, I am very proud of what we did! Aurélien spent quite some time after the jam improving many details of the game, so the version that you can play on itch is fairly better than the one we submitted. It has less bugs and is a bit smoother to play, but we did not change the actual game design at all. It's still the same experience that the people who voted enjoyed!</p>
<h2>My experience</h2>
<p>This Jam has been a bit different than what I was used to, personally. First of all, it was my first jam with people who where not physically in the same place. That made it more difficult to handle production, as it was more difficult to keep track of what people had done or were doing, and it was also more difficult to share knowledge. Because it was happening in such a short time span, I don't think it was appropriate to enforce specific processes to increase communication. But that cost us a bit, and I felt a bit far away from my teammates (except for Manon who was working from my place).</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/shattered-soul-04.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/screenshots/.shattered-soul-04_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>The second thing that happened was that I was twice out of my comfort zone: we made a 3D game, and that is something with which I have almost zero experience, and we made it using Unity, a game engine I had never used prior to this jam. Both those things combined made me feel quite useless as a programmer, and I ended up doing other things, like creating levels. It's still work, and it's boring work that I was happy to take on for others. But it left me unsatisfied about my level of contribution to the game.</p>
<p>Overall, I'm still very happy that I was able to enter this game jam, especially with this incredible team! Thanks a lot to Aurélien, Aurore, Manon and Rémi for the good times we had, and I'm hoping to jam again with them all. :)</p>
<p>As for you, dear reader, thank you for reading, please give <a href="https://adngdb.itch.io/shattered-souls">Shattered Soul</a> a play, and I'll see you soon with news from the game I've been working on for the last 4 months.</p>
Le Phytomancien a besoin de vous !urn:md5:d5baa38d1eb15751cf52ea64b807250b2021-03-23T10:00:00+01:002021-03-23T10:00:00+01:00AdrianSouls<p>Bonne nouvelle : la création de mon studio de jeux vidéo en coopérative va bon train ! Après de multiples péripéties que je raconterais peut-être ici, j'ai constitué un tout petit groupe de trois personnes : James, Mathieu et moi-même. Nous avons commencé par nous échauffer en créant un petit jeu sur deux jours — <a href="https://daydreel.itch.io/q-las-du-volant">Q, l'As du volant</a> — et nous passons maintenant à l'étape supérieure. Nous allons créer un jeu, commercialisation comprise, en trois mois.</p>
<p>Nous avons déjà entamé le processus, nous avons un concept, un prototype très simple, et un planning strict que nous tenons à respecter. Notre ambition n'est évidemment pas de faire un jeu révolutionnaire. Nous avons deux buts. D'abord, nous voulons faire un jeu simple mais de la meilleure qualité possible. Nous voulons que la majeure partie de notre temps soit dédiée à polir le jeu, plutôt que d'ajouter des mécaniques dans tous les sens. Le second objectif est de vendre le jeu, afin d'acquérir l'expérience des processus de commercialisation — ce qu'aucun de nous trois n'a encore fait.</p>
<p>Et puis nous avons un troisième objectif, celui-ci lié au long terme : nous souhaitons profiter de ce temps pour constituer notre équipe, en vue de la fondation de notre studio de jeux vidéo. Notre « <em>core team</em> » est composée pour l'instant d'un <em>Game Designer</em> et de deux développeurs. Nous estimons avoir besoin de trois autres personnes pour que l'équipe initiale soit complète : un⋅e artiste graphique, un⋅e artiste musical, et une personne en charge du marketing. Nous avons la chance d'avoir déjà trouvé une personne pour la partie musicale, il ne nous manque donc, idéalement, que deux personnes !</p>
<h2>Coopérative cherche coopérateurices</h2>
<p>Nous cherchons deux personnes pour travailler avec nous sur le jeu Phytomancer, présenté ci-dessous. Ce travail n'est pas rémunéré, mais tous les bénéfices générés par le jeu seront partagés à parts égales entre toutes les personnes participant à sa création — donc si nous atteignons notre taille idéale de 6 personnes, chacune touchera un sixième des bénéfices. Nous demandons de pouvoir dédier au moins un mi-temps au travail sur le jeu (c'est ce que nous trois comptons faire) au moins pendant la période de production / polish pour la production artistique, et au moins pendant la période polish / commercialisation pour le marketing.</p>
<p>Comme je l'ai dit plus haut, cette démarche s'inscrit dans un processus à plus long terme. Nous allons créer un studio de jeux vidéo en coopérative, et nous cherchons des gens qui pourraient nous rejoindre dans cette aventure. Les valeurs que nous portons, de respect des joueuses et joueurs, d'éthique, d'horizontalité, sont fondamentales. Pour en savoir plus, je vous invite à lire mon article : <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/un-studio-pour-les-cooperer-tous">un studio pour les coopérer tous</a>.</p>
<p>Nous sommes en distanciel, et l'essentiel du travail se fera en ligne, mais nous vivons relativement près de Lyon. Être dans la région lyonnaise est donc un plus : cela facilitera les choses pour se rencontrer physiquement.</p>
<p>Voici, dans les grandes lignes, les profils que nous recherchons :</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icons/illustration.png" alt="" style="box-shadow: none;"/> <strong>Artiste Graphique</strong> : artiste polyvalent⋅e, plutôt orienté⋅e 2D. <strong>Mission sur Phytomancer</strong> : créer les assets graphiques du jeu, les interfaces, les effets visuels. <strong>Mission à long terme</strong> : créer la direction artistique de nos prochains jeux.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/icons/marketing.png" alt="" style="box-shadow: none;" /> <strong>Marketing</strong> : bon⋅ne communicant⋅e, idéalement avec une connaissance du marketing pour PC et mobile, à l'aise en anglais. <strong>Mission sur Phytomancer</strong> : nous accompagner dans la communication autour du jeu pour encourager les ventes. <strong>Missions à long terme</strong> : assurer la communication autour du studio et de ses jeux, créer et animer une communauté.</p>
<p>Si vous êtes intéressé⋅e, <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/contact/">envoyez-moi un email</a> ! :-)</p>
<h2>The Phytomancer is here</h2>
<p><em>Phytomancer</em> est un jeu de conquête de territoire dans lequel la Nature doit faire face à une Pollution grandissante. Le jeu se déroule automatiquement, et la Pollution gagne du terrain petit à petit. C'est donc le rôle du Phytomancien, incarné par la joueuse, de venir aider la Nature à reprendre ses droits.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-06.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p>Sur une carte composée de cases carrées, la joueuse va utiliser ses sorts pour faire pousser des plantes aux pouvoirs variés, faire tomber la pluie pour accélérer la propagation des plantes, etc. Une partie se termine lorsque les « arbres de vie » de la Nature sont entourés de Pollution, ou lorsque les « sources de pollution » sont entourées de Nature.</p>
<p><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/gif/phytomancer-04.gif" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></p>
<p>Le jeu sera jouable à la souris sur PC ou au <em>touch</em> sur mobile. Les parties seront rapides, de l'ordre de quelques minutes, et il y aura plusieurs niveaux de difficulté croissante.</p>
<p>Nous nous sommes donné trois mois pour mener à bien ce projet. Voici notre planning :</p>
<ol>
<li>Idéation <em>(fait)</em>
<ul>
<li>Brainstorming à trois pour trouver une idée de thème et de <em>core gameplay</em></li>
<li>1 jour (10 mars)</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Prototype <em>(fait)</em>
<ul>
<li>Création d'un ou plusieurs prototypes du jeu, validation de la direction</li>
<li>1 semaine (15 - 21 mars)</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Production <em>(en cours)</em>
<ul>
<li>Mise en place des fonctionnalités du jeu</li>
<li>3 semaines (22 mars - 11 avril)</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Polish
<ul>
<li>Amélioration des systèmes principaux du jeu, ajout de fonctionnalités mineures, soin du détail, tests… Tout ce qui rend le jeu meilleur sans en changer les fondements.</li>
<li>4 semaines (12 avril - 9 mai)</li>
</ul></li>
<li>Commercialisation
<ol>
<li>Mise en vente du jeu sur PC (Steam, itch.io ?) et mobile (Play Store ?), correction des éventuels bugs, communication sur le jeu.</li>
<li>4 semaines (10 mai - 6 juin)</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<h2>Rejoignez-nous !</h2>
<p>Ami⋅es graphistes, ami⋅es marketeux⋅ses, cette présentation vous a donné envie ? Vous voulez rejoindre notre aventure et vous lancer dans la création d'un studio en coopérative avec nous ? Alors <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/contact/"><strong>contactez-moi vite</strong></a> ! :-)</p>
Lessons learned working on my card gameurn:md5:37e05325649ff45977b414f5fc00158b2021-02-23T10:00:00+01:002021-02-23T12:39:29+01:00AdrianSouls<p><em>[This is part 5 of my <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">Study of Digital Card Games</a> series.]</em></p>
<p>As I mentioned at the beginning of this series, I have been working on a digital CCG for several years now. As a lover of the genre — I've been playing Magic for about 20 years, and I tried as many other CCGs as I could — I want to create a game that is truly special, and different from its competition. Time will tell if I can succeed at that! Until then, here are some lessons that I've learned working on my game.</p>
<h2>Make Peace Not War</h2>
<p><a href="https://scryfall.com/card/grn/158/centaur-peacemaker" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.centaur-peacemaker_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>There are mechanics that I've been playing with for a while now, and others that I am just starting to explore, that I wanted to talk about. But first, I wanted to write about theme. My goal is to create a game that is not inherently about war or combat. I have stated my problem as follows: I want to create a game that is about societal and political conflicts. Players must not be trying to kill each other, but to prove that their ideals are better, or that they are smarter in promoting them. The creatures they play are not used to fight other creatures, instead they are used to influence the world around them.</p>
<p>One of the first things I've done was to remove health from creatures, replacing it with actions. Each creature you play has a "lifespan", a limited number of actions it can make before dying. I have rarely seen this actions system in card games (<a href="https://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/217861/paper-tales">Paper Tales</a> has something like that), likely because it is a bit hard to keep track of in a physical game. But digital makes that much simpler, and I find it to be an elegant way to have the board state evolve without having to kill creatures. They simply die of their natural death, after having done their job — though they do get killed sometimes, but that is exceptional. It also creates a new challenge for players: do I use this creature now and let it die, or do I keep it for a potential better use later in the game?</p>
<p>Moving away from the fighting theme also means that my creatures cannot interact like they do in other games. I tried a lot of different mechanics there, but ultimately, my game is still one of competition. So my creatures do still compete, though not with their muscles but with their brains, their influence: something I've called their "prestige". I have simplified the underlying mathematics, as there's only one value you care about on each card (the prestige). To compensate for that, I have to make interactions a bit more complex. For example, in my latest iterations (still in prototyping), there are five projects for which you can compete with your opponent. The maths of solving one project are simple: who has the greatest total prestige? The complexity comes from choosing which projects you are going to pursue for yourself, and which ones you should prevent your opponent from activating.</p>
<p>Creating a card game that is not about fighting or war is a very interesting challenge. It forced me to look for mechanics that are inherently different than the ones we play with in almost every CCG. And I'm sure I've only scratched the surface, so I really encourage my fellow card game developers to look into this as well! There is a lot of innovation to find there!</p>
<h2>How to win a game</h2>
<p><a href="https://scryfall.com/card/xln/117/revel-in-riches" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.revel-in-riches_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></a></p>
<p>The most common way to win a game in a digital CCG is to lower the life of your opponent to zero, before they do it to yours. This is fundamentally a "kill", and the vast majority of games do that — the one exception from the list in our little history being Gwent. Early in my design process, I decided that I wanted to do something else. And thus I thought about victory conditions a lot, and tried a few mechanics.</p>
<p>In most competitive board games, the victory is acquired by having more points than your opponents at the end of the game. That end is triggered by various elements, sometimes it's a set number of turns, sometimes it's specific conditions being reached, etc. My main problem with this system was that it had been done over and over and over. I wanted to see if I could go for something more innovative.</p>
<p>The first really different mechanic that I tried was to kind of revert the regular life system. Instead of players lowering their opponent's life, the game would do so itself. And thus the game became about surviving longer than the other player. The few variations of this concept had the same underlying structure: there were 3 sources, providing a resource, called "Spirit", that was needed for players to survive. The sources were creating new Spirits regularly, but at a slow rate. Slower than the players where losing theirs, of course. So players had to get on those sources to gather the Spirits, and prevent their opponent to do the same, so that they would be the last one alive.</p>
<p>I tested this mechanic a lot. But ultimately, I ended up throwing it away, for two main reasons. First, it didn't fit my theme. Yes, you weren't killing your opponent directly, but it was still about fighting, about the other dying in the end. Second, some of my players were feeling really bad when they lost. They were telling me that they thought they had lost to the game, not to their opponent. That is because their loss came from an automatic game action, them losing Spirits at the end of their turn, and not from an action from their opponent. No matter what I tried, I couldn't get that frustration to go away.</p>
<p>I still think this is a fine mechanic, and that with a different theme, players would react less negatively to losing. Maybe someday I'll come back to it and make an actual game out of it?</p>
<p>After moving away from this "survival" mechanic, I tried a bunch of different things. But it turns out that they all have the same structure. Players both have the same goal of meeting some condition, and they compete to do it before their opponent. Of course, to reach that condition, they have to interact with the other player. At one point, I had players propose Decrees, that if adopted gave them a permanent bonus in the game. Both players had a separate deck of unique Decrees, and to adopt one, you basically had to have more influence, through your creatures, than your opponent. Nowadays I'm moving to something slightly different, where players compete to activate projects. Those projects give varying bonuses every time, like drawing cards, gaining more resources, or gaining victory points. This is inspired from <a href="https://www.keyforgegame.com/">KeyForge</a>'s mechanic of forging three keys to win the game.</p>
<p>I strongly believe there are many more victory conditions to explore. Digital CCGs are stuck in the fighting theme and thus do not even consider offering something else to their players. But I am convinced that there are players out there who would welcome a strategic card game that is not about killing and fighting.</p>
<h2>The art of mana</h2>
<p><a href="https://scryfall.com/card/mps/17/mana-vault" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.mps-17-mana-vault_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>The last thing I want to write about is resource systems. As many Magic: The Gathering players, I have felt extremely frustrated by its mana fulls (<em>when you draw too many lands</em>) and mana screws (<em>when you draw too few lands</em>). So over the years of working on my prototypes, I tried many variants of gaining resources to play your cards. The one that I think is still viewed as the "ideal" one by my fellow card game developers is the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft_Trading_Card_Game#Game_details">WoW TCG</a>" one. This system considers every card in a player's hand as a potential resource: once per turn, a player can discard any card of their hand to use it as a source of mana. It is quite cool as it makes all your cards both action and resource, while still giving players the choice of which to use as which. It looks like a good compromise between Hearthstone's linear system and Magic's full-of-variance system.</p>
<p>However, after a lot of testing in various conditions, I decided to move away from this system in my game. The reason is not obvious, but fairly rational: it adds a lot of unnecessary complexity to the game. Let me explain. One thing that is common in card games is to have the number and difficulty of choices grow turn after turn. The decisions in your first turn are usually quite simple. In Magic, you choose which land to play, then potentially you have a card to play, but it's rare that you have many choices. As turns go, you get more and more mana, and thus have a wider range of possibilities — play one card or several, keep my mana for later, play my spell now or next turn, etc. This, I believe, is a strength of the genre, as it gives players a sense of progression in their games.</p>
<p>With the WoW TCG system, that changes a lot. Suddenly, on turn 1, you have to make a much more complex decision. Choosing which card to discard, when you have very little information about your opponent's deck, about how the game is going to progress, is very taxing. And it is also very difficult to get feedback on your decisions, as the consequences can come, as I said, many turns later. My players reported that it was a paralyzing choice to make, at a time when you expect things to be simple.</p>
<p>Choice paralysis is a very well known psychological effect. Giving more choices is often the wrong thing to do, as the decision becomes exceedingly difficult, leading to a very bad experience. As game designers, we must be cautious about the amount of choices we give our players at each point in our game. It is fine to have a lot of options near the end of a game, but not so much at the beginning. I believe that having, at all point of a game, two or three reasonable options to choose from is a good goal.</p>
<p>So, what would be the ideal resource system? I don't know the answer to that, of course, and I believe it might depend a lot on the rest of your game. For mine, I am currently trying something where increasing your resources is part of the central mechanic of interaction of the game, the "projects". There is a project that gives you a new resource, and there is one that gives you a bigger boost of resources but only for a single turn. Players have to compete for these resources, and they have to balance when to go for them versus when to go for other projects. I like that system so far, but I haven't been able to test it enough to know if it really works.</p>
<p>Resource systems are interesting because I believe many folks, me included, have tried to theorize what the "ultimate" one would be. And I don't think such a thing exists. As with every game mechanic, the ideal one for your game is the one that works best with the rest of the game, with its theme, with its other mechanics, etc.</p>
<h2>The end of all things</h2>
<p><a href="https://souls.ninja/"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/.souls-logo_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>And that's the end of this series! This article was the longest, and I did my best not to write too much, but there are many more things I could have written on the topic. Now I'm looking at you, my reader. If you have questions, or suggestions, or anything you would like to discuss, I'd be happy to talk about it. You can find me in the comments of this blog, or on social networks: <a href="https://twitter.com/adngdb">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://tutut.delire.party/@adngdb">Mastodon</a>.</p>
<p>If you are interested in my digital CCG, you can find some information here: <a href="https://souls.ninja/">souls.ninja</a>. The game is closed for now, but I organize testing sessions from time to time. The best way to stay informed for now is to subscribe to the newsletter on the <a href="https://souls.ninja/">home page of the game</a>.</p>
<p>Thank you for reading!</p>
The design of CCGsurn:md5:b7a4b9785f869e4f6bfd4cde05af15132021-02-16T10:00:00+01:002021-02-23T18:19:09+01:00AdrianSouls<p><em>[This is part 4 of my <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">Study of Digital Card Games</a> series.]</em></p>
<p>Now that we have a good grasp of what the major games of the digital CCG genre are, it's time for me to do my best analyzing it. In this article I'm going to look at the common points, what defines CCGs nowadays, then the differences, where CCGs tried to innovate, and finally I'll give a shot at guessing where the next innovations can be.</p>
<p><a href="https://imgur.com/g7UrgFl"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.ccg-board_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>Let's start with what the games I've covered in my history have in common:</p>
<ul>
<li>Players start with a deck of cards that they can create from their collection.</li>
<li>Players draw cards randomly from their deck.</li>
<li>Players invoke creatures, or minions, or heroes, and use them to advance their plan.</li>
<li>Players take turns alternatively.</li>
</ul>
<p>These seem to be the very basics of CCGs. Interestingly, I expected to have the resource system in this list, but Gwent broke that. I also thought there would be a combat system, but once again Gwent showed that it wasn't needed. Booster packs, well, they have to be the setting stone of a CCG, right? Nope, said Legends of Runeterra, while also doing very interesting things with the turn order.</p>
<p>Now let's look at what those games tried to do differently:</p>
<ul>
<li>The board varies from a simple list of cards to a map of tiles with each its own state.</li>
<li>Combat between creatures, when it exists, always involves a strength and life points. However, games give varying flexibility in how creatures fight.</li>
<li>The resource system generally falls into two categories: automatic (gain one resource each turn) or in deck (cards from your deck provide resources). Gwent is an exception (no resources) as well as Faeria (gain 3 resources each turn).</li>
<li>The business model of games often has booster packs (except Legends of Runeterra), and that is often the primary way for a player to increase their collection. Most of the games are free-to-play, some are pay-to-play. However, all games include microtransactions, at least for cosmetic items.</li>
</ul>
<p>The <strong>board</strong> design space has been explored a lot, from the flexibility of Magic — just put stuff on the board wherever — to the depth of Faeria and its "living board". There has been a lot of in-between, like Duelyst and Scrolls, as well as games I haven't mentioned like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elder_Scrolls:_Legends">The Elder Scrolls: Legends</a>, <a href="https://spellweaver-tcg.com/">Spellweaver</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolForge">SolForge</a> or <a href="https://infinitywarsgame.com/">Infinity Wars</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Combat</strong> between creatures is often one of the central mechanics of CCGs, and as such it also has been explored extensively. In every combat system that I know of, creatures have a strength and some form of life points. Life can behave differently: Magic creatures' toughness is reset at the end of each turn, while Hearthstone minions' health isn't. Some game added a third attribute, like Scrolls' countdown (the number of turns until the creature attacks) or Spellweaver's speed (which determines how creatures can block). Most games have implemented various keywords and mechanics changing how combat works, like Magic's flying making creatures being harder to block, or Hearthstone's taunt forcing the opponent to kill the creature before they can attack you.</p>
<p><a href="https://scryfall.com/card/vma/4/black-lotus" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.black-lotus_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Resource systems</strong> have seen a lot of variations, and I think still have some room for innovation. There are three main characteristics that I find interesting: variance, linearity and restrictiveness. Let's take a closer look at each one.</p>
<p><strong>Variance</strong> defines how luck drives when you'll get the resources you need. For example, Hearthstone has (almost) no variance: on turn 3, you'll have 3 mana, on turn 7 you'll have 7, and that never changes (except with a few cards, but it's really not common). On the other end of the spectrum, Magic has a lot of variance. There are chances, though generally small, that you do not even get a single land on your first turn. I believe that too much variance is generally bad, as it can create frustration in players. I also believe that having no variance at all is bad, as it forces you to create variance in other places to compensate, and that can lead to even worse frustrations. My hunch is that there is a balance to find, and I haven't played any games that have found it yet.</p>
<p><strong>Linearity</strong> controls how the number of your resources evolves over time in a game. Hearthstone is perfectly linear: on turn X, you have X mana. Faeria is completely non-linear, as you get 3 mana each turn, but don't lose them between turns, so you can accumulate. One player might choose to use their 3 mana each turn, while another might not do anything for two turns and then cast a big card costing 9 mana. Magic's mana, being based on draws from a random deck, has a more complex linearity (based on <a href="https://birdsofparadise-mtg.blogspot.com/2018/02/mana-base-probabilities.html">hypergeometric distribution maths that I do not understand</a>), but it tends to follow a somewhat logarithmic curve. Linearity is important because it controls the flow of a game. It is what allows games to have a story-like structure: early turns have cards of little impact, but as the game progresses players start using cards that are more and more powerful. The specific linearity of Magic is what allows it to have extremely strong expansive cards: you are never sure you'll get enough mana to play them. So you can build your deck to improve your chances, or you can take the risk of putting the expansive card in your deck anyway. But whenever you manage to play that expansive, powerful card, it's always a delight.</p>
<p>Finally, <strong>restrictiveness</strong> defines how hard to play you can make cards. The more restrictiveness your system has, the more control you have over the balance of your cards. Hearthstone, for example, has very little restrictiveness: cards have a simple, generic mana cost and a class. A card of a given class can only be put in a deck with the hero of that class. Then whatever the cost of the card, you know you'll have enough mana to play it eventually. Magic, on the other end, has fairly wide restrictions, thanks to its colors system. Cards require not only generic mana to be played, but also mana of specific colors — sometimes up to all five different colors. Given how the resource system works, it is very hard to put in the same deck a card that requires three blue mana and one that requires three red mana: it's unlikely that you'll have either three sources on turn 3, and even if you did, you would have to wait at least until turn 6 to be able to play the other card. (That is not exactly true because there are lands that provide several colors of mana, but it doesn't really matter for the sake of this argument.) I haven't seen a lot of innovation on restrictiveness: games either have something similar to Magic's lands (like Faeria, Eternal or Spellweaver) or they have something similar to Hearthstone's classes (like Legends of Runeterra, Duelyst or Artifact). I think there is room for some nice innovations here.</p>
<p><a href="https://scryfall.com/card/wwk/72/bazaar-trader" target="_blank"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.bazaar-trader_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em;" /></a></p>
<p>I'm not going to say much about <strong>business models</strong>, because even though I do think about them, I find it really hard to design them in a vacuum. So much of a game's business model depends on the game itself, and the company or team making the game, and the community, and many other factors that I have no clue about. I'll just say that I'm happy Faeria did things quite differently, and I'd love to know more about how it turned out for them, and that I find what Legends of Runeterra did is very elegant and user-friendly.</p>
<p>There is one last big thing that I want to talk about though. There's a thing that all the games I have mentioned, and many more in the CCG genre, have in common. And that is their <strong>theme</strong>. All of those games are about fighting against your opponent and killing them. Whether it's a fight between wizards, generals, heroes or planeswalkers, it is always about war or combat. I don't know of a single digital CCG that is not about fighting — though there are some in the physical space. Is it because those are competitive games, and war is a widely used setup for competition games? Probably. Does that mean a competitive game has to be about war? Hell no!</p>
<p>And this, I believe, is where the genre could innovate the most. There have to be mechanics out there to invent, or to draw from other genres, to replace the classic fighting system we've seen so much of. CCGs don't have to be about killing each other. They can be about culture, politics, science, trade, or so many other things. It is up to us Game Designers to tackle this challenge and bring innovation to the genre. Or at least, that's what I challenged myself to do with my own digital CCG, Souls.</p>
<p>And that is precisely what I'll talk about in my <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/lessons-learned-working-on-my-card-game">next, and last, article</a> of this series!</p>
<p><em>Read the next part: <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/lessons-learned-working-on-my-card-game">Lessons learned working on my card game</a> or go back to the <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">introduction of this series</a>.</em></p>
History of a genre, part 2: 2017 - 2020urn:md5:204dfb22e767a6c427bd4f13231ce49c2021-02-09T10:00:00+01:002021-03-01T18:00:01+01:00AdrianSouls<p><em>[This is part 3 of my <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">Study of Digital Card Games</a> series.]</em></p>
<p>Last time we explored the rise of the digital CCG genre. Let's now go over the end of its golden years, to get a good picture of all the major card games as of today.</p>
<p>Next up in our trip is <strong>Faeria</strong>, released in 2017. This is another take on the card game with board sub-genre, but this one goes deeper. The board is what they call a "living board", meaning that players build it as the game progresses. You start with an empty board, full of water. Once per turn, each player can create land from water. The cool thing is that those lands, along with allowing you to move your creatures closer to your opponent, are also the resource system! There are five types of lands: a neutral one, the prairie, that is just footing for creatures, as well as the mountain, the desert, the forest and the lake. All of those are what would be levels in <strong>Eternal</strong>: cards you play require you to have a certain amount of lands.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/faeria.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.faeria_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Faeria</strong> also has a cool concept called the Power Wheel. It's the circle with 7 options you can see in the bottom-right corner on the screenshot above. Basically, once per turn, you can activate one of those 7 options: either create a land of one of the four "colored" types, or create two neutral lands, or draw a card, or gain one more mana. This gives a great choice to make every turn, and adds a lot of tactical thinking to the game. Note that the mana system is quite different here than in other CCGs: you have 3 mana to spend every turn, and it doesn't disappear at the end of your turn. So you can choose to not play anything on a specific turn, and accumulate mana to play something bigger on your next turn. There are also sources on the board that give you one mana per turn if you have a creature adjacent to the source.</p>
<p>Of the many games I'm writing about in this series, <strong>Faeria</strong> is the one that I believe innovated the most. The devs embraced their living board concept and made the most out of it. They also tried something different for their business model. The game was released as a free-to-play, a model that was somewhat standard: you could buy packs of cards and cosmetics, and there was an in-game economy with currencies you would gain by playing. In 2018 they announced that they would move to a pay-to-play model. New players of <strong>Faeria</strong> have to buy the game once, then they can unlock their collection only by playing. The team also releases paid DLC that give players new content, including new cards and new solo campaigns. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem this model worked too well for the team. <a href="https://steamdb.info/app/397060/graphs/">According to steamdb</a>, the game has about 75 players connected in average. The <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/faeria/">reddit community</a> is a tad small (5k subscribers) with little activity. The game was released to PS4 recently though, and is clearly still alive. It's good to see folks trying something different, though I'd love to have more insight into how that turned out for them financially. I'm especially curious about the impact this model had on player acquisition.</p>
<p><strong>Gwent</strong>, also released in 2017, is next in the list. Originally a mini-game in The Witcher 3, this CCG is quite different from the rest. A game takes three rounds, players having to play one card each until they both pass. Then the player with the highest power on their side of the board wins the round. Win two rounds to win the game.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/gwent.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.gwent_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>The big things about <strong>Gwent</strong> are that it has no resource system nor fighting between creatures. That's a big change from all the other <strong>Magic</strong>-inspired games we've seen so far. Gwent could essentially be summarized as a complex trick-taking game. I'm impressed they managed to create nearly 1,000 cards from such simple game mechanics!</p>
<p>I haven't played <strong>Gwent</strong> a lot as I don't enjoy it much. Its being different from the rest of the field is quite cool. It is on the light side of complexity, close to <strong>Hearthstone</strong>, maybe even simpler. I'm guessing that, for the same reasons, it brought new players from The Witcher into the CCG genre. One nice thing to note about this game: the developers made a tutorial so big that it's actually <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thronebreaker:_The_Witcher_Tales">a stand-alone game of its own</a>!</p>
<p>The big, big event that happened in 2017, though, was the arrival of a decent digital version of <strong>Magic: The Gathering</strong>. Arena, also known as <strong>MTGA</strong>, is really just Magic brought into the digital space by folks who where able to look at what <strong>Hearthstone</strong> and other previous video games did. The economy, this time, is not tied to the physical cards. MTGA didn't do anything quite new or innovative, but it was a real pleasure for me to finally be able to play Magic, online, in a decently usable software, and without having to spend a ton of money in the game. Don't get me wrong, Arena is still expensive compared to other digital CCGs out there. But when your only alternative was <strong>MTGO</strong>? Wow.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/arena.jpeg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.arena_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Arena</strong>'s take on the excess cards problem was the only "innovation" around. Instead of giving you dust, any excess card you get after your 4th goes to fill a progress bar. When that bar reaches 100%, the game gives you a bunch of wild cards. A wild card is an item that can be transformed into a card of a given rarity: at any time, you can transform one of your rare wild cards into any rare card available in the game. You sometimes also get wild cards by opening booster packs. Other than that, Arena is pretty much just <strong>Magic</strong>, with its qualities and its weaknesses.</p>
<p>To find some more innovation in the genre, let's take a look at another game designed by Magic's father: <strong>Artifact</strong>. This game was set in the world of Dota 2, one of Valve's successful IPs. Mostly famous those days for the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjjudgRAlC0">failure it has been</a>, Artifact has a lot to teach. One of the premises of the design behind the game was that the digital platform allowed to vastly increase the complexity of your typical card game. So it wouldn't have one board, but three. It would have a simple resource system (the same as Hearthstone, except starting at 3 mana), but it would also have another resource, gold, that players could use to buy extra items between turns.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/artifact.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.artifact_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>My play experience with <strong>Artifact</strong> was quite short, as my first game took close to an hour, and that basically was it. And given the charts of player attendance, it seems I was not the only one. Artifact had a number of problems, from its economy to its complexity. There are whole articles about those problems out there — <a href="https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JamesMargaris/20190812/343376/Why_Artifact_Failed.php">Why Artifact Failed</a> (gamasutra), <a href="https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-07-03-how-artifact-became-valves-biggest-failure">How Artifact became Valve's biggest failure</a> (eurogamer) — so I'll go over those issues quickly.</p>
<p>The economy on release was a mess, with several different ways of acquiring cards, and all of them costing actual money. That was on top of a paid game. Wait, so you buy a game, and then you have to buy individual cards as well? That was very scary to a lot of players. Valve's goal was to make an actual trading card game, where your collection builds up by trading, selling or buying to and from other players. The last games who did that were <strong>MTGO</strong> and <strong>Scrolls</strong>, and as we saw, that didn't work out very well for them.</p>
<p><strong>Artifact</strong> had a lot of randomness. And when I say a lot, I mean a LOT. It was not just on cards, it was also on the board: minions attack in a random direction, heroes are dispatched in a random location, items you can buy come from random decks… Just like with Hearthstone, those are often the "bad" type of randomness, the type that makes players feel frustrated.</p>
<p>There were a number of other, smaller problems. The complexity of the game is the most famous, and was even claimed as a strength by the developers — not so much by the players… Having three boards caused a very difficult UI, as you could either see one board well, or all boards poorly. It was very tough to juggle all the board states at once, especially with boards that could become quite crowded. To summarize, I believe the developers of <strong>Artifact</strong> pushed too far, and in the wrong direction. Too much complexity, too much randomness, and an economy that was too intimidating, made the game crash in just a few weeks after it launched.</p>
<p><strong>Artifact</strong>'s fall might have caused the digital CCG genre to slow down, for there were no noticeable releases in 2019, and only one in 2020: <strong>Legends of Runeterra</strong>. Once again, this game is a derivative of a successful IP, in this case League of Legends from Riot Games. Legends of Runeterra is a fairly conventional digital card game, but brings two interesting innovations.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/legends-of-runeterra.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.legends-of-runeterra_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>The first is in its economy: the game has no booster packs! If you want a card, you can either craft it with shards, transform a wild card, or buy it with coins, the in-game currency. Coins you buy with real money. Shards and wild cards you gain by playing, completing quests, and so on. The game however has a progression system that gives you chests, that act a bit like packs: they contain a random arrangement of cards and wild cards. You can't buy any chests though. This is quite a nice change from other CCGs. You still get the thrill of opening random chests from time to time, but without the addiction problems that boosters can lead to. The game also has a reputation of being quite generous.</p>
<p>The second innovation of <strong>Legends of Runeterra</strong> is in its gameplay. Instead of having separate turns for each player, here both players can play cards on each turn of the game. The first player, which is also the player who can attack, simply changes every turn. Players alternate playing a card or passing, until the player with the initiative chooses to attack or both players pass. Then a new turn begins, each player gains one mana, and the player who went second on the previous turn goes first. This makes the game very fluid, with little downtimes where you wait for your opponent to make all their plays for a few minutes. It also "solves" the problem of playing spells during your opponent turn with a very elegant structure. It is of course applied to spells, and there are "fast" spells that players can play during the combat phase. Spells always go on a stack similar to <strong>Magic</strong>'s, and are resolved from last to first.</p>
<p><strong>Legends of Runeterra</strong> is a sweet game: it combines some of the complexity of Magic (but not a lot, as what you can do with your creatures is often limited to combat — though less so in recent sets, I'm told) with some of the simplicity of <strong>Hearthstone</strong>. So, is that it? Have we reached the end of the digital CCG? Is Legends of Runeterra the ultimate card game? This lengthy series isn't over, so you've guessed it: my answer is no.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/the-design-of-ccgs">the next article</a>, I'll do my best to analyze the current state of the digital CCG genre. What defines digital CCGs? What has been deeply explored? What is still unknown territory? Where will the next innovation be?</p>
<p><em>Read the next part: <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/the-design-of-ccgs">The design of CCGs</a> or go back to the <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">introduction of this series</a>.</em></p>
History of a genre, part 1: 2002 - 2016urn:md5:9ca7ad544e2fd82dfd6fb65d28363da12021-02-02T10:00:00+01:002021-02-15T16:39:25+01:00AdrianSouls<p><em>[This is part 2 of my <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">Study of Digital Card Games</a> series.]</em></p>
<p>The first notable CCG that made it to the digital space was, guess who, <strong>Magic</strong>! There have been several software allowing to play the game on a computer, but the first to embrace online play was <strong>Magic: The Gathering Online</strong>, shortened as <strong>MTGO</strong> and released in 2002. The pitch is simple: it is exactly the same game, but playable on a computer with folks from all around the globe. It is still active today.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/mtgo.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.mtgo_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>There is one important thing to note about this game. It was one of the very first of its kind, and players where not yet used to giving value to digital assets. Wizards thus decided, in order for people to trust the value of their cards, to tie the digital cards to physical cards. Basically, players who own one of each cards of a set can exchange them for a printed copy of those cards, sent to their home. This has a huge impact on the economy of <strong>MTGO</strong>. Booster packs cost approximately the same as physical packs, and so do cards. This means that playing online is almost as expensive as playing the physical game (which is known to be, erm, not cheap). It also means that if you play both versions, you'll have to buy your cards twice.</p>
<p>One cool thing about <strong>MTGO</strong> is that there is a trading platform included. So it is somewhat easy to trade your cards for cards you want, or to buy them with "tix" — short for tickets, used to pay for playing in events, and which became the game's currency for the lack of anything else. However, what happened over time was that bots took over the marketplace. Nowadays, seldom anyone actually trades with real players. Folks just go to the cheapest bot to buy cards, and sell to the ones that buy for the best price. It turns out that trading doesn't work well in the digital space.</p>
<p>Now, <strong>MTGO</strong> was released in 2002. From there, it took more than 10 years for the digital CCG genre to actually take up. The game that, for me, started the wave was called… <strong>Scrolls</strong>! (Nope, not Hearthstone… ;-) ) <strong>Scrolls</strong> was a CCG that was played on a board of hexagonal tiles. Unexpectedly, it was created by Mojang, the studio behind Minecraft. The game is now dead, but it was <a href="https://callersbane.com/2018/06/the-game-is-now-free/index.html">released for free</a>, including the server, in 2018 as Caller's Bane.</p>
<p><strong>Scrolls</strong> brought to the genre the usage of a board to play your creatures. With countdown between attacks, different hitting patterns, and various movement possibilities, the game offered a nice tactical challenge. It also scratched the surface of doing effects that would not be practical in a physical card game.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/callers-bane.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.callers-bane_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>However, games were too long (I remember playing one that lasted an hour and a half) and the resource system made playing multiple colors really hard, lowering deck diversity. The game had a <a href="http://www.scrollsguide.com/wiki/Trading">trading system</a> that, just like <strong>MTGO</strong>'s, ended up overwhelmed by bots. At some point, the devs moved to a <a href="http://www.scrollsguide.com/wiki/Black_market">black market system</a>, where you could sell your cards automatically, which was much more practical. Overall, the game had a complex economy that didn't really work, especially in a game that was not free-to-play (the game cost 20€ upfront).</p>
<p>Even with all its problems, <strong>Scrolls</strong> was doing quite well. That is, until a certain <strong>Hearthstone</strong> was released in 2014. Created by Blizzard and set in the world of Warcraft, this is to this day the most successful digital CCG. I have to be honest: I dislike this game. And I dislike it for all the reasons that I believe actually made the game successful!</p>
<p>To make <strong>Hearthstone</strong>, the designers took Magic, took an axe, and used the latter to chop down the former. They <a href="https://gdcvault.com/play/1020775/Hearthstone-10-Bits-of-Design">tried to remove as much of the complexity</a> of CCGs, until they had just the very core. The result is a very simplified game in terms of core mechanics. The resource system is fully automated, you gain one new resource each turn. The combat system is much simpler than Magic's: take your creature, choose which opposing creature it fights, and that's it! And finally, there are almost no way to do anything during your opponent's turn.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/hearthstone.png"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.hearthstone_m.png" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>To some extent, <strong>Hearthstone</strong> can be considered more of a puzzle game than a strategy game. Each turn, you have a new puzzle to solve: how do you use your mana, you cards and your board to best destroy your opponent. Then you do that again the following turn. The long-term strategic aspect is less impactful than in previous games of the genre.</p>
<p>The automated resource system means that games have less variance in them. You will <em>always</em> have your 4 mana on turn 4. To compensate for that, the developers made extensive use of randomness in card effects. There's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwI5b-wRLic">good and there's bad randomness</a>: <strong>Hearthstone</strong>'s leans more on the bad side, the one that makes players feel bad. The game also has no colors, instead relying on classes inherited from <em>World of Warcraft</em>. There are 9 classes, each enabling one or several archetypes, depending on the format, as well as neutral cards that can be played with any classes. I feel like that system could make games repetitive, as you'd face the same heroes again and again, but in practice it seems there are enough sub-archetypes for each class that it isn't the case.</p>
<p>So, what did <strong>Hearthstone</strong> bring to the genre? Well first and most importantly, it brought digital CCGs into the light. Lots of folks who never played card games before got into it. The simplicity of the game rules clearly payed off, as well as, I assume, the fame of the Warcraft license. The game also proposed a way of solving the excess cards problem. See, when you open random boosters, you can get anything, including cards that you already possess. But decks have a limit to the number of identical cards you can play, so any cards above that number you own is utterly useless. In <strong>Hearthstone</strong>, those excess cards are automatically turned into a new currency, dust, that you can use to craft other cards. This model would quickly be adopted by most CCGs that came afterwards.</p>
<p>As much as I dislike it, <strong>Hearthstone</strong> was a game changer for the genre. The simplicity of its rules, and the excellency of its interface, brought a shining light on the digital CCG genre, and started its golden age. And it turns out that almost 7 years after its release, players are still enjoying it, and no one has been able to take its throne. That was not for lack of contenders, as we'll see in the rest of this story…</p>
<p>The next stop in our historical tour of digital CCGs is <strong>Duelyst</strong>, released in 2015. This game, like <strong>Scrolls</strong>, plays on a board, but this time players have an avatar on the board, and the goal is to kill your opponent's using creatures and spells. In terms of complexity, the game is very close to <strong>Hearthstone</strong> (automated resource system, fairly simple cards, deck archetypes centered around "Generals") but adds in a tactical board where you have to play and move your creatures.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/duelyst.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.duelyst_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>The tactical board design space exploration is really what <strong>Duelyst</strong> contributed to the genre. In that regard I believe it did a good job, and was quite successful. It did have the feeling of being a succession of puzzles though, like <strong>Hearthstone</strong>. Still, I don't know why the game was stopped in 2020. Maybe the sub-genre of CCG-with-board is too niche?</p>
<p>In 2016, <strong>Eternal</strong> came out. The best way to describe this game is to call it the child of <strong>Magic</strong> and <strong>Hearthstone</strong>. From <strong>Magic</strong>, it takes cards that you can play during your opponent's turn (though with less granularity), a slightly similar resource system (but color requirements work differently), and the variety of card types. From <strong>Hearthstone</strong> it takes the combat system, the general economy, and the game interface. Overall, the game is not very innovative, and the only reason I played it was because I was okay playing a mediocre <strong>Magic</strong> if it meant not having to endure <strong>MTGO</strong>'s interface and economy. The game is still alive today, though.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/eternal.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.eternal_m.jpg" alt="" style="margin: 0 auto; display: block;" /></a></p>
<p>The mana system is the main thing <strong>Eternal</strong> contributed to the genre. It has five colors just like Magic, and you can mix those colors as you want in your decks. However, you do not have lands that you need to tap to play cards. What Eternal does is that it separates the two components of the resource system: cost paying and color requirement. On one side you have mana, it's a resource that you can spend to pay for cards, and that refills each turn. Mana dictates how many cards you can play in a turn. On the other side, you have color levels, that you always keep, and that unlock playing cards. Once you reach level 3 in blue, you will be able to play all the cards you have that require 3 or less blue levels, for the rest of the game. This is a very smart way to reproduce something similar to <strong>Magic</strong>'s color pie without having to manually handle lands as you would do in the physical game.</p>
<p>And that's it for today! Next week we'll finish our historical tour of the CCG genre, looking at games released between 2017 and 2020.</p>
<p><em>Read the next part: <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/history-of-a-genre-part-2%3A-2017-2020">History of a genre, part 2: 2017 - 2020</a> or go back to the <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">introduction of this series</a>.</em></p>
It's a Kind of Magicurn:md5:29e75df6055a4ccf0c6cd7ec836aea402021-01-26T10:01:00+01:002021-02-02T10:16:02+01:00AdrianSouls<p><em>[This is part 1 of my <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">Study of Digital Card Games</a> series.]</em></p>
<p>In my intro to this series, I said I was going to focus on card games that were digital-first. Let's start with a mandatory exception to that rule: when <strong>Magic: The Gathering</strong> was released in 1993 by Wizards of the Coast, it was not (yet) a digital card game. It is, however, the Holy Father of CCGs. It is the starting point of the genre, and thus we need to start this journey with it.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/magic-card-back.jpg"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/.magic-card-back_s.jpg" alt="" style="float: left; margin: 0 1em 1em 0;" /></a></p>
<p>Magic introduced so much that is now common to most CCGs. It created the "<em>cards that can wildly change the rules of the game</em>" paradigm. It used the concept of a stack to handle complex player interactions (though that was introduced in 1999). It made the booster packs popular and was very successful doing so.</p>
<p>At its core, Magic is a game about wizards who fight using, well, magic to invoke creatures, cast spells, build artifacts… The major mechanic of the game is the combat phase. The active player can attack their opponent with any of their creatures. Then the defending player can block any number of the attacking creatures with any number of their creatures. Once that's done, the combat resolves: creatures that are fighting deal damage equal to their strength to each others. A creature that receives damage equal to or greater than its toughness dies. And unblocked creatures deal their damage directly to the defending player, lowering their life — the goal being, of course, to bring the life of your opponent down to zero.</p>
<p>This mechanic has an incredibly deep design space. Just the basic keywords we find on cards show that: flying, trample, first strike, double strike, lifelink, deathtouch, reach… All different ways to slightly change the way combat works. Wizards has been designing Magic cards for more than 27 years and they still manage to surprise players. And players still enjoy it very, very much! This combat mechanic can also become very complex very quickly. The number of possible combinations for attacking and blocking goes up exponentially the more creatures there are on each side of the board. This has pros and cons, but overall I believe it is a big strength of Magic over other CCGs: this system at the heart of the game offers players a lot of choices.</p>
<p>Another truly fundamental mechanic of this game is its resource system. The mana, that you need to play cards, comes from actual land cards! Two things are important here: the first is that you can only play one land per turn. Thus on turn 1 you can play a card that costs 1, on turn 2, a card that costs 2 (or two cards that cost 1), and so on. This gives the game a feeling of progression, just like in a story. The more the game goes on, the more expansive cards you can play, and more expansive cards are of course more powerful, more impressive.</p>
<p>The second consequence of this resource system is that it is dependent on the luck of your draws. Because those land cards are part of your deck, and your deck is shuffled randomly, you have very little control over what resources you'll get. This has a huge impact on deck building: players must carefully think about the number and type of lands they play in order to maximize their chances of being able to actually play their cards. This is, in my opinion, the major source of variance in games of Magic. It means that, no matter how much better than your opponent you are, you will sometimes lose because of bad draws. And reciprocally, you can be a worse player than your opponent and still win. But it can also lead to incredible frustration in players when they draw their 10th land in a row, or are stuck with 2 lands and only 3-costing cards in their hand. This system is both a great strength of the game — any player can win — and a big weakness — sometimes you simply cannot play.</p>
<p><a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/Color_Wheel.webp" title="Magic: The Gathering's color pie"><img src="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/public/ccgs/Color_Wheel.webp" alt="Magic: The Gathering's color pie" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 1em 1em; width: 300px;" title="Magic: The Gathering's color pie" /></a></p>
<p>One final important piece of <strong>Magic</strong>'s design is its color pie. Land cards often produce colored mana, and that mana is used to play cards of the same color (or contribute to generic mana requirements for cards of a different color). Magic has five different colors, each with a specific and <a href="https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/pie-fights-2016-11-14">very detailed philosophy</a>. A deck can have cards from any one color or any combination of colors. One can play cards from all five colors if they want! But of course, the more colors you play, the harder it becomes to get to a sufficiently stable land distribution. This system leads to a very high diversity of decks and strategies.</p>
<p>Now that we've taken a good look at the <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/544357/review-best-game-ever-made">greatest</a> <a href="https://thoughtcatalog.com/ed-herro/2013/08/magic-the-gathering-is-the-best-game-ever-created/">game</a> of <a href="https://www.pokerlistings.com/eric-froehlich-magic-the-gathering-is-best-game-ever-made-11694">all time</a>, let's dig into the actual topic of this article: digital card games. In the next part of this series, I will start walking you through the history of the genre and how it took off.</p>
<p><em>Read the next part: <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/history-of-a-genre-part-1%3A-2002-2016">History of a genre, part 1: 2002 - 2016</a> or go back to the <a href="http://adrian.gaudebert.fr/blog/post/a-study-of-digital-card-games">introduction of this series</a>.</em></p>