On Naming Your Games Weird Things

This is DOOM. It is one word, it is short, it is memorable. It is a title that is instantly recognizable. Please, for the love of God, when you are naming your game, follow the same rule of simplicity. Even if it's more than one word, say "God of War" or "Super Meat Boy" stick with words that people know and can immediately form an image in their mind of what the game will be without even seeing it.

"But my game has to have this weird name or my creative vision is compromised!"

Guess what? EVERYBODY judges a book by its cover, and everybody judges a game by its name. Do not allow the narrow scope of your creative vision to potentially hurt any press or sales your game will get in the end.

Take, for instance, Slam Bolt Scrappers. A great game, but not a title that easily defines what the game is. At a Boston Post Mortem, the Fire Hose Team described the troubles they had involving the game's name, mainly that they were getting hits on their site from other Google searches, including "Slam Bot Scrappers" or "Slam Bolt Scrapers." In some cases, these can be as simple as typos, but in others, it can be as bad as people not actually knowing what the name of your game is.

For instance, there was an article recently that referred to my company's game as "Children of Lantana," when the game's name is "Children of Liberty," and the company's name is "Lantana Games." Granted, this is just a slip of the keys, and in the end does not affect our Google results, so this could have been a lot worse.

All I ask is that you take a step back and think about the title of your game from a buyer's perspective. Ask yourself, and your friends, these questions:

1. Can you pronounce the game's title?
2. Can you spell the game's title?
3. What do you think of when you hear this title?

If the answer to any of these questions is, "I Don't Know," especially the third one, you've done something wrong. A title needs to conjure up images of... something, anything! Even if it's wrong, it needs to get the buyer's brain churning. Take "Lord of the Rings," for instance. Even if you had never read the books, just from hearing the title, you would know there is some kind of watchful figure who had something to do with having a godlike power over some rings, and from that we can infer those rings must be very, very powerful. Now then, if you had never heard of "Slam Bolt Scrappers" what would you think the game is about?

I've been guilty of this on a couple occasions. I once made a Poker/Tetris combo game named "Avalanche," a word that has nothing to do with cards. My first game after college, "The Longest Night," didn't describe the fact that you'd be running a homeless shelter, but it gave the sense that you would be in for, well, a long night, possibly with some tedium.

Please keep simplicity in mind in your titles. You will find that you gain a lot more traction a lot quicker if you appeal to the lowest common denominator. It may not seem ideal. In fact, it may feel like selling out, but when it comes down to it, would you rather people play and enjoy your game, or see its really weird title and keep walking?

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish

I'm not an Apple man. Never have been. Oh sure I have an iPod Shuffle and use iTunes to listen to my music, but that's the extent of my Apple devotion. I've always used Windows. I have a Palm Pre instead of an iPhone. My laptop is a Sony. I don't even have a tablet computer. Yet, it's hard to deny the impact the man had on the world of technology.

May I also remind you that Steve Jobs was rich - very, very rich - thanks to people like you (and me) who have purchased Apple products. As we speak, there are hundreds of thousands of protesters out in New York, Boston, and other cities demanding that the rich "pay their fair share." I cannot help but wonder how many protesters have Tweeted this on their iPhones.

Steve would not have wanted you to demand sympathy from others. He would have wanted you to go out and do something great, to come up with something fantastic and new that can change the world. Sympathy is earned. I am sympathetic toward Steve's family. I am not sympathetic toward people who demand money for doing nothing, especially when they are trust fund babies. Steve was not a man who did nothing. He made more of his life in his short 56 years than most of us do in twice that time, from inventing and reinventing Apple; to Pixar and NeXT; to defining the PC, digital music, and smartphone worlds.

Everyone has potential. Even those of you out there now, in the cold October night, hold up in tents, protesting whatever it is you read on Facebook, could be at home instead with your friends and loved ones, enjoying their company, and thinking about how you can change the world like Steve Jobs did. It's not about the money; it's about what you leave behind when you're gone.

RIP Steve Jobs, 1955-2011.

Don't Be a Dick

Too often I hear people give excuses for not having an XBox Live Gold account for a reason similar to "everyone on there is an asshole." Unfortunately, I don't disagree. The last decade created a culture of immaturity in online gaming that can only be surpassed by anyone who thinks George W. Bush is still the President. But before that, I remember making some really great friends in online games, friends with whom I ended up going to college, friends who now have jobs at some pretty prestigious companies. So what went wrong, and when did the general dickishness anonymity of the internet bleed over into games?

To find out, we need to return to the beginning of the last decade, as the N64 was beginning to be phased out and online gaming was just becoming a possibility on consoles. Up until this point, multiplayer gaming across the information superhighway more commonly known as "the interweb" had been a strictly PC gaming affair, with DOOM pioneering the same Deathmatch mode we still play to this day, and MUDs laying the groundwork for MMOs. These were games where the community was limited and new games with internet connectivity were sparse enough that you could actually get to know a player or two before they moved onto a different game, maybe even get their e-mail address or AIM or ICQ information to keep in touch. Back in late 90's/early 2000's, I played a ton of Jazz Jackrabbit 2 online, and to this day I view it as the best online experience I have ever had and will ever have (but more on that in a bit). This culture of sociable multiplayer bled over to the Dreamcast, as again, not many people had the connectors to hook their Dreamcasts up to the internet, and most people were still on dialup anyway.

Then, two things happened simultaneously in 2001. First, the XBox was released and Microsoft who, like it or not, had always had a stake in gaming with Windows, officially entered the console market. This gargantuan piece of machinery had, at the time, an unused ethernet port in the back. This allowed for some roundabout multiplayer gaming, but was still fairly limited. You have to assume most users wouldn't have gone through the trouble of logging into unofficially supported multiplayer services if it was tough to even know if they existed in the first place. Most people who did that had most likely come from the PC online gaming crowd, and were used to such roundabout hacks to get games going.

However, the other thing that happened on the XBox launch day was the launch of the Halo series, and with that First Person Shooters began falling into the hands of frat boys around the country, previously relegated to Madden games on the SNES and Playstation. Their assholery at first was confined to their own rooms and houses, and we didn't have to hear them. But their numbers were growing, and they were just waiting to take their hate online.

Then, exactly a year later, XBox Live went, well, live. It started small, but we all suspected what would happen. The Halo 2 was announced, and we knew what was coming. Finally, once Halo 2 was released, that was it. Online gaming would never be the same, and from that point on you would never be able to join a game without someone telling you to suck their dick.

Am I putting ALL the blame on the Halo series? That would be easy, wouldn't it? It's not Bungie's fault. I repeat: IT'S NOT BUNGIE'S FAULT. I'd just like to get that out of the way right now. They made a brilliant game, and it just happened to fall into the hands of a few bad eggs who created a culture of making it okay to turn smack talking into a despicable artform. What did happen, however, and what's ignored, is that children don't buy their own games. Parents buy games for their kids, no matter the regulations on "age restrictions." So before you know it, an impressionable 12 year old is playing Halo 2 online with a bunch of drunk 21-year olds shotgunning each other in the face and mocking each other for it with very colorful language. That 12 year old then grows up not knowing a different way to act online, and teaching their friends to act online in the same way. Before you know it, you have an entire generation formed around making enemies online instead of making friends, which then influences the NEXT generation to get themselves choked via playing games online because they think there are no consequences for their actions.

The Simpsons Did It First!

The solution? Well, there's no absolute solution to the problem, and I think various services will start cracking down on this kind of social behavior (choking not withstanding, which is really, ahem, out of their hands) in one way or another. Maybe black marks against accounts that have a history of verbal abuse that prevent them from joining specific servers online? Maybe just flat out banning users who can't keep their big mouths shut?

Personally, I'd prefer to see a softer approach. No, not ignoring the problem, but a solution no one has come up with: encouraging us game developers to create games that would foster more positive communities through more positive gameplay. Returning to Jazz Jackrabbit 2, what made that game so great to play online was the gameplay itself was light-hearted; there was no punishment for death (respawning was nearly instant); user generated content was distributed effortlessly by just joining a server, including custom made "Hotel" levels where violence flat out was NOT allowed, and yet the gameplay remained just as engaging (try doing THAT in Call of Duty); and the community was small but devoted. Nowadays, when a game isn't big, you can't find anyone playing multiplayer at all, but to this day you can still find a few people playing JJ2 online. All this created a positive multiplayer environment, and that's what we lack today. Social games focus on asymmetrical multiplayer gameplay, so they're actually the least social of all multiplayer games in existence. League of Legends on the surface looks like a fun game to play, but the community takes it so seriously that if you're new you're really not welcome and the game doesn't offer a true chance to learn its rules in-depth. EVE Online... don't get me started. World of Warcraft had to specifically dumb down the first 60 levels to make sure new players could get up to speed as quickly as possible, lest their community start to dwindle over time. Granted, this comes close to fostering positive interaction, but didn't change anything when it came to "partying with noobs." In all honesty, I haven't ever read an article that says anything about a game having a welcoming online community. If you weren't there on Day One, they don't want you there at all, and if you can't get a headshot on every single snipe, get the fuck off of their server.

I think that we, as game developers, can and should do more to foster better communities for our games. Our games, our rules. While we do not have the right to say who can and cannot buy our games, we do have the right to say, "Hey, you're making this a miserable experience for everyone else. Please leave." Followed by a swift strike of the banhammer. You owe it to your players to make sure no one feels threatened by trying to enjoy your art.