I recently watched a series of slides on making a game like “Plants -vs- Zombies.” In this article, James Gwertzman writes about this game through a series of slides (which I’ll reference throughout this article). The game is made by PopCap, a big player in the casual games business. They are over on the Ruby Gamers page on our website. I’d like to take this article and examine it. This is how to make a 5 star game like “Plants -vs- Zombies” (from here on out called ‘the game’). In this article, I hope to uncover some of the tangible steps to take to make a best selling game. Because as we know, it requires a 4 or 5 star game to give us the best shot at making a hit.

There were 77 slides worth of information about how PopCap made a 5 star game that turned into a best seller.

These slides will be referenced throughout and can be found here.

First, here’s some of the eye popping statistics.

The game sold quickly.

• 1,500,000 copies sold in about a year from when it released in 2009. NOTE: who knows how many it’s sold today now.
• Started on the PC and moved to iPhone in 2010. It has since been developed for iPad, Xbox, Android, and Windows Phone.
• In its first week in the iPhone app store, the game sold over $1,000,000 worth in sales.
• The game is the #1 title on the iPhone in China. NOTE: that’s a good market to have.

It’s safe to say that the game was a success. So why can’t anyone make a game and have this kind of success? Why doesn’t everyone sell millions of copies of their game? Game development is hard. That’s one reason. But there is much more to it than that. There’s at least a tribe of people very capable of making mobile games. So why don’t they make best sellers?

5 Star Popularity

It’s very apparent that the game gained popularity quickly. It won a host of awards from gaming websites and magazines and actually has physical memorabilia (see slide 5) created from the game. In addition to that, when the game released for the iPhone, sales shot up in large part to the audience in China.

5 Star Development Process

I do know there was at least 4 people who worked on the original version of the game in 2009. There was a game designer, programmer, artist, and sound/music producer. Jeff and I have game design and programming taken care of. We’re missing the artist and sound folks. If you have a passion for creating the most detailed and engaging art a game could ask for, please contact us. We’re looking for help in this area.

The development process consisted of 10 key development philosophies. They are:

1. Be inspired by other games, but innovate too.

Previous developers and gamers who made the game looked like they had an affinity for tower defense games in Warcraft 3. Who can blame them. Warcraft 3 has some of the best custom games of any game ever made. There were plenty of other games to draw from ranging from tower defense, lane defense, and the idea of castaways -vs- pirates, ala the Swiss Family Robinson.

The game also drew inspiration from the organization of its plant cards from other games, see slide 23 where this is another game that is browsing through a series of pets like fish and snails. I think the point here is to take what you already like about games and use that as the foundation for which to build a new one.

2. Prototype your ideas (play early, play often).

On slide 26, there’s a VERY simple version of the game, with flowers and advancing ghost like creatures. My guess is that it didn’t take very long to get these graphics created. A talented graphic artist could probably do them all in a day. I’m sure it didn’t take the programmer and game designer much time to whip something up in no time.

Jeff and I are doing this with our next game codenamed “Grow Em.” We are actually using a javascript library with pyhsics and a game engine to prototype. Our Grow Em prototype is here if you’re curious. The nice thing about this javascript library is it will be very simple to prototype and get things working. We still lack the talented artist though.

Prototyping will give us (hopefully) feedback quickly so we can make important adjustments. Which leads me to point 3.

3. Add fun, remove frustration.

Slide 28 shows some interesting notes and sketches about the game. I can tell that there were many discussions, probably based on the prototype about what to switch up to make the game fun and not frustrating. Several of the sketches were of critters and creatures made to look more fun in general as well. Several games, Plantasia, Garden of Dreams, and Flower Shop, Alice Greenfingers, and Garden Defense seem to be sources of inspiration.

4. Don’t Be Afraid to be Creative.

Slide 39 mentions being creative. I think this means not holding back on ideas and being willing to explore and try anything. Who knows what the next creative idea might end up being?

5. Don’t Worry About the Name (too much).

The game went through many variations on its main theme. On slide 46, there is well over 100 game name ideas. To me, this shows the power of brainstorming. With so many names and ideas, one is bound to pay off and in the case of this game, it certainly did.

5a. Again, Add Fun, Remove Frustration.

This seems to be a key point in the game. Slide 48 repeats what slide 3 says. Add fun, remove frustration. Slide 53 even shows some of the different artist drawings for what the plants and zombies could look like. This tells me they were very open to different options rather than settling on one way of doing things.

It looks like Rich Warner # 3 on slide 53 was ultimately chosen for the look of zombies and flowers This is important to me. Rich is the artist for the game. If I can get a hold of him and have a conversation, that would be a wonderful opportunity for me to learn. I’d hope I could give something back in return…

6. Share Creative Ownership With the Team.

What does this really mean? Slide 56 shows this title, but what is creative ownership? I remember going to work at a start-up company MANY years ago. It felt very ME ME ME in favor of the founders of the company. Is it safe for me to say that most people have their own self interests at heart? This includes me…

I think the best way to handle this is to tap into that self interest. Creative ownership means someone working on the game probably felt like they played a major role and had influence in the game. Perhaps those people were paid extra cash as well, but ultimately, they had say in the direction the game went. This is tapping into self interest in a positive way.

7. Test Early, Test Often. Encourage Feedback.

On slide 58, there looked to be a company-wide forum for the game. Anyone could download the latest version and make comments. I think this is a great method of collaboration. Anyone can play a game, even if they aren’t technically savvy. They probably got a lot of feedback just from people in their own company.

Jeff and I have the challenge in that we don’t have a large company. In face, we just have Jeff and I. But I did talk to our 4 year old daughter Ellie last night about Grow Em. There’s one feature in particular that lit up her face with excitement. So Jeff and I are going to have to become mobile game missionaries and really spread the word about our prototypes I think.

8. Prevent Players From Making Bad Choices.

Ideally solve for new players without impacting experienced players; don’t rely on instructions. Slide 63.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I do agree that the game should be pretty self explanatory. But I also think there is a segment of people that enjoy reading about the details of the game, even statistics about how things work (like life, damage, armor, etc…). Still, the game does a great job of being playable right off the bat.

The menu on the start screen is intuitive. There’s not a lot of wondering how to start. You just kind of pick something and the game walks you through it with a few simple instructions and away it goes.

I think preventing players form making bad choices is more about guiding the player along with the MOST CRITICAL game elements being explained so the gamer is not confused about what to do next. Then later, the gamer can use their experience to make logical, strategic, or impulsive choices in the game as they see fit.

9. Measure

Slide 67 shows interesting data. It is the number of seconds taken to win a level. The slide after that shows the results of an adventure level (win, lose, or restart). This data quickly tells the game designer and programmer how people are faring in the game. I’m sure for easy levels, the win rate should be pretty high. For the harder one’s, a few losses and restarts is probably ok.

Measuring creates a game play balance in a game. This is THE MOST critical element in a game, even more than graphics. The game must be fun, but challenging and interesting too. This balance is what separates classic games from those that are average or suck.

10. Have Fun

It goes without saying to have fun (as slide 70 says). Why do something you hate? The folks over at PopCap games obviously had a blast making the game. They threw in surprises in the game and were eager to announce new versions within the company. Having fun just makes something so much easier to work on.

Conclusion

The verdict is that there are these 10 (and probably many more) areas to remember when making a game. It’s not just coming up with an idea and making a game about it. There’s an iterative process of going back and forth again and again with something that is fun that everybody loves, with a highly skilled team. Stir all these being done well in a pot, and that is a key to the recipe of making a 4 or 5 star game that sells and wins awards like this one did.

Connecting with other gamers. In building a game development company, one strategy Jeff and I could use is to just develop our games and put them out on the iPhone or Android app store and just sit and wait to see if they sell. We’ve done this before with games – 2 to 3 star games (out of 5), and seen about 1-3 sell every few days or so (for 99 cents) on the iPhone app store. But we’ve made all those games free now. We can’t justify selling 2 to 3 star games.

So you can expect some amount of small sales if you make an average game and get it out there. But this isn’t going to get you a full fledged game development company you can work full-time at. Not unless you make hundreds of these average games quickly (and not having the games be clones or spam).

I wonder if it makes sense to start reaching out and connecting with other gamers, game development companies, game marketers, etc… and see if that might help our business. For all I know, it could have no effect whatsoever. But since Jeff and I have never done this before, it’s worth at least trying. If I Make that one connection that creates a big break for Jeff and I and hopefully that person who got connected with us, then connecting with other gamers could be the most important thing I do.

How To Reach Out

One way to reach out is to just start commenting on website blogs and forums. That might be a great way for connecting with other gamers. I have a feeling if I just post on the forum or website, “Hey, we’re starting a game company, check us out,” that won’t really create a win-win situation or interest. There has to be a better way than that to reach out to someone online.

I think coming up with some insights on the website or forum post comes first. To do that, I will actually have to read some of the content on the website. I read pretty fast so this isn’t a problem. Then when I make the connection with the gamer, I’ll say, “I noticed…” or “How about this…” Hopefully this creates more depth to the conversation and creates a connection.

3 Contacts A Day

As part of getting Digital Ruby going, I’m going to challenge myself to make 3 connections a day. This includes both researching and finding connections, and taking the time to respond to them on their website, blog, forum, or whatever it may be. I’ll only connect with people who I feel are genuine and adding value to the game development or gaming arena in some fashion. After connecting, I may add them to the Ruby Gamers page, where I am keeping track of all those making an impact in the gaming world.

Recap

Jeff and I could just release our games on the various iPhone and Android app stores and see what happens. But I believe the connection to real people is going to play a big role in the success of our business. And not just a connection where I say, “Hey, let’s join forces,” after having never met the person online. But sharing insights into what that person is saying or doing and looking to collaborate. Who knows, maybe we’ll get some people commenting here on this website due to that

What Game Should I Make? This is a good question if you are thinking about making any kind of computer game, video game, or mobile game. Jeff and I recently finished making our first game together, Math Asteroids. The way we decided to make it was pretty simple. We said, “Hey, we like space games, asteroids, and math. Let’s make a space ship that blows up asteroids with math equations!” So we did. But does this really answer the question, “What game should I make?”

If you’re thinking about making a game, there’s other factors to consider beyond what you think is cool. Jeff and I think space games, asteroids, and math are cool. But we’re also interested in building a game company. Will we decrease our chance of success by randomly developing games we think are cool? We think so. So I came up with another way to decide what game to make. I recently learned a technique used by the military, particularly the Navy Seals. It’s the CARVER technique.

The CARVER technique is used to identify which targets should be taken out in a war-time situation. Should the soldier be taken out? What about the supply depot? Maybe the air strip is a better target. The way the most important target is identified is by assigning values to key indicators. For the military, and the CARVER technique, it is:

• Criticality (How critical is the target to the enemy’s operation?)
• Accessiblity (How easily can we reach the target?)
• Recuperability (If we take the target out, how quickly can the enemy rebuild/replace it?)
• Vulnerability (Once we reach the target, how heavily defended is it?)
• Effect (If we take out this target, what overall effect will it have on the war?)
• Recognizability (Will we know what the target is once we reach it?)

Knowing this, one might assign a criticality value of 1 to an individual soldier, and a 10 to an air strip. However, the vulnerability of the solider might be a 10 (not well defended) and the air strip might have a vulnerability of a 1 (very well defended). So other factors come into play. The targets with the highest score after evaluating all criteria are the top targets.

Using the CARVER Technique to Choose a Game

Jeff and I went over a game list of ideas from a brainstorming session. We also came up with a set of criteria that matches what we think are the key indicators. They don’t quite match the CARVER indicators, but we think they represent what one should consider when deciding what game to make. What game should you make? Try these criteria:

• Complexity (x1.5) – How hard will it be to make? What unknowns are there?
• Niche – Is there a subset of people passionate about this?
• Mass – Does this game appeal to a broad set of people?
• Uniqueness – Is this game a unique idea that hasn’t been done before?
• Cost (x1.5) - How much will the game cost to make?
• Ideal – Do we like this kind of game and making it?

We also decided that complexity and cost were more important than other factors as we’re just two guys trying to make the game. So we added “weights” to them to give them more value. Cost is important because we don’t have a ton of cash laying around to pay others. Complexity is important because we also want to make the game fairly quickly and not be bogged down by technical challenges. We also added a “mirror” game that best represents a best selling game that matches the closest to our idea. These are the factors we consider in what game we should make.

Our Games List Plan

How We Scored Our Game Ideas

We came up with quite a few game ideas. Some were RPG based, others action based, and others casual/puzzle based. Based on the scores, we see that the top 3 games we should make are:

• Grow ‘Em
• Quicka
• Tower It

These may not be the final names for these games, but they represent the general idea. Grow ‘Em is the idea of having creatures that live in your phone that you can interact with. Quicka is a game like Bop It, except with different elements and hopefully more intense and interesting. Tower It is simply a tower defense game – you build towers (which shoot out projectiles) to stop waves of “creeps” from reaching the end of the screen. From our scores, Grow ‘Em seems to match our criteria the best. It’s a casual game (casual games are very popular), won’t be too complex to make, won’t cost much, and is a unique idea. The big risk is will it appeal to a mass audience. It may not even need to, so time will tell.

Either way, this is the first game Jeff and I will start working on. The nice thing about using this technique for deciding what game to work on is if we end up not really liking making Grow ‘Em, we can just decide the next game on the list. Of note is the “Ideal” category. This means this is the game we would most like to make, regardless of whether or not it might sell to a mass or niche market – because it’s a game that resonates with us. RPG and strategy games are both like this for us.

Recap

Taking the time to outline our game list and weight the important categories was useful to us. In my opinion, it takes some of the guessing out of which game to make. Using the most critical factors, we can give ourselves a better chance of making a game that is successful and resonates with gamers. As we make the game, I’ll update on the progress of it. I certainly look forward to sharing it with you.

Is the RPG dead? I read a couple articles about the death of the RPG (role-playing-game). One was “Is the RPG Genre Dead“. The other is “The RPG Is Dead, Long Live the RPG.“. Both articles seem fairly certain that the classic role playing game – the immersive RPG, like Baldur’s Gate or Knight’s Of the Old Republic is dead.

I’m passionate about this as a game developer because I’ve always wanted to make an immersive RPG. The kind of RPG that takes you so far away from real life that you actually feel like you are in the game world. I can think of several games in the past that did this for me – Wizardry, Baldur’s Gate, Ultima (I-VII), Neverwinter Nights, and Knights of the Old Republic.

There’s just something about playing an immersive RPG game, developing your character, interacting with the game world, and deciding the outcome/fate of the world. Is the world today so fast paced, that there is really no more time for a great RPG? When I wrote about remembering the classic computer games, I stated that I believe there are those of us 30 years of age and older (as of 2012), that still long for an immersive RPG experience.

I stand by this thesis. There are many of us (now older) who long for the classic RPG experience. However, making an immersive RPG game is going to be risky and expensive, not to mention time consuming. How do I really know if there is a huge market for this kind of game. I feel like I need to get a giant trumpet out and rally the troops. Who is with me?

Following Trends

Part of the challenge is where the game market has headed in general. With mobile devices, tablets, and consoles being so easily accessible, this makes it easier to create a game that doesn’t require much learning curve. On a phone, you just tap and move your phone around to play a game often times. I’m not sure whether this is good or bad. It just means that games are quicker and easier to pick up due to the devices they are made for.

When the PC was the dominant force for games, the RPG made a lot of sense. You had the entire keyboard and mouse to play the game. With so many keys and options, a very rich and detailed experience was able to be created. There were no competing mobile devices or tablets to overly-simplify games… The trend certainly seems to be casual games for mobile/tablet devices.

That life is more busy now with so many options may be another reason. Who has time to sit for hours on end to learn and play a complex RPG? We have so much more now vying for our attention, that it may very well be a problem of time to play the game, which makes sense to me, seeing the rise in popularity of casual games, especially for mobile devices. Is the RPG dead? If it is, the improvement in technology and access to information may be part of the reason…

Conclusion

Is the RPG dead? My conclusion is that the classic RPG as was known in the late 90′s and early 2000′s is dead. The advent of additional devices, such as the mobile phone and tablet, have made it very easy to create casual games, which appeal to the mass market.

As technology has increased, so has the pace of the world and the access to more information than ever. This makes it very difficult to justify making a classic RPG game that is immersive and time consuming. It doesn’t mean it is impossible. Skyrim, for instance, is an adventure RPG and showed great success. But it doesn’t quite qualify as the deep and immersive RPG in my opinion.

Is there hope for a new breed of RPG – one that satisfies the personal touch and desire for gamers that was there in the past? I don’t know the answer, but I’m certainly exploring the question. I see comments in forums, YouTube, and blogs that seem to show demand for such a game. What that game is…I don’t quite know yet