Game concepts and how/where to pitch them?

[Color me Dan]

I'm sure a lot of people here and all over the world have at least once thought "That'd make an excellent game" or simply wanted to work with game design and influence games in general. I'm not a technical person, I don't know how to code or how to make maps in editors, how would a person like me get in contact with someone in the know to pitch a game idea?

It's a question that's been bugging me a long time, Is there ways for us less technical to be part of making games?

 

[zed]

short answer - its not gonna happen
but you might find some useful stuff here
http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Games aren't really about the ideas, look at the best selling and top scoring titles out there. Tthe thing they share in common is that they're very polished and are simply fun to play. Noone really talks about what a huge idea WOW or Diablo, or the latest Zelda/Mario, or Halo, or GTA is, most of them wouldn't really sound interesting on paper as a concept (okay, Galaxy had to sound pretty interesting but even that took a while to find acceptance in the public).

So I'd say that execution is probably more important to success, and for that you'll need a lot of money to finance a long development schedule, and a highly experienced core team.

 

[ERP]

Developers won't take idea submissions, the smart ones will retuen them unopened, or have someone outside of development open the mail and return it.

It's a legal issue. No one wants to have Joe Whoever claim that yourproduct was his idea because he happened to submit something similar to a product in development.

So without the resources to develop your SOL.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As Laa-Yosh says, games aren't much about ideas. They are very much of a kind. If you're going with a totally different game genre, you'd be looking at courting the 'startup indie' options - download titles. Your best bet would be to get together with some indie developers and pitch your idea. But that likely won't work, because they'll already have their own ideas!

Or you learn to code and produce a prototype, which is a mammoth undertaking (even using simple tools).

As Thomas Edison rightly said, genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. The idea is next worthless. The execution to realise the idea is where all the costs are involved. I'm in the same boat having ideas for some excellent and original games (unique gameplay, unlike the majority of AAA titles) but I can't do squat with them. The options like XNA are no use because the scope is too great. Plus I don't have time to create smaller game ideas to get known. You'd have to really want to get something out there and commit the time to producing a starter title. Most folks only have the idea and not the commitment - you only need to check out the developer forums with the myriad of posts 'I've got a great idea for a MMO...how do I make it?' and yet a complete lack of games from these folk because they give up the moment they find it's hard work!

Unless you're really, really serious, just say to yourself 'ahhh, it'd have been nice' and move on...

 

[Farid]

Since the (justified) negativity has been laid down already, I'll try to be original and bring some more positivity into this thread.

As others said already, as far as big games are concerned, game designers being a prolific bunch, the game design ideas are not as important as their execution. Add legal reasons ERP touched upon into the mix and you'll understand why the professional studios will virtually never take into account exterior ideas from any individuals.

But, and there comes the advertised positivity of this post, I mentioned only big games, as in games made by professional studios and published by large companies, but also some genre like FPS/Racing games. I oppose these to small games. Games made by hobbyists, amateurs, students, etcetera.

And in this scenario, you have more chance to get in touch with an hobbyist game developer and discuss some of you ideas with him/her.

Futhermore, you'll have more luck getting people interested in your game design ideas if they pertain to some smaller, self contained genres, such as puzzle games, shoot'em ups, platformers (less self contained). That way, it would be more conceivable for an hobbyist to sit down and talk with you about the possibility of prototyping your game ideas. For the simple reason that it will be a not such dauting task to develop on his end.

Now, last, but not least, advice, try learning a simple very high level scripting language, so you can start prototyping yourself. As basic your prototype could be, it will always be a plus to have a visual and interactive media to demonstrate your game concepts when you try to pitch a development house, be it some hobbyist you'd like to see work with you, or a professional devhouse that accepts novice game designers.

What language would I recommand? Well, it's really up to you, but you should try reading about Python, Ruby or ActionScript (Which is the language behind Flash). ActionScript is a great idea to start working with since it's simple, has many game related tutorials available on the web and it will allow you to demonstrate your games right into your homepage/blog.

There are also solutions like the ones Gamecreators propose, with their Dark Basic, their GDK for C++. And many more easy game development framework. And some are tied to Python, Ruby, Lua and other scripting language.

After that you can switch to C++, Java, C# (and its XNA environment), if you want to try working on larger 3D games (3D API bindings exist for Python, etc, though). You can always start right away with those languages as well, if you really want to. They're not really hard to get into, especially if you do not care for the most advanced coding techniques and just want to keep it lean and simple.

 

[Color me Dan]

It's fun to see all of these replies and the philosophies applied; I'll simplify and say that as I understand what you're all saying is the industry hinges more on execution then design then? Which is an interesting concept and true in any creative art form that I've come in contact with thus far.

Lets say however for arguments sake that I get together with an indie or hobby developer and we make a small "showcase", where do we go from there? Somehow I don't think it's as easy as call in a meeting with an executive to pitch the idea. Now I don't have any plans as yet to do any of this, but I think it's something that is interesting to know.

And just a further question (lots of questions, but I'll contribute answers when I can to return the favor off course ) but this one aimed at ERP, What do you mean by "SOL"?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Now, last, but not least, advice, try learning a simple very high level scripting language, so you can start prototyping yourself. As basic your prototype could be, it will always be a plus to have a visual and interactive media to demonstrate your game concepts when you try to pitch a development house, be it some hobbyist you'd like to see work with you, or a professional devhouse that accepts novice game designers.

There are also solutions like the ones Gamecreators propose, with their Dark Basic, their GDK for C++. And many more easy game development framework. And some are tied to Python, Ruby, Lua and other scripting language.

BlitzBasic3D and BlitzMax, mentioned in the Gamasutra article for demonstrating Mario Galaxies' gravity, are very good, B3D very much because all the 3D rendering stuff is very simplified, and it shares an acronym with here

Here's a question though - does a prototype have to be interactive? Could an animation, perhaps a Flash creation or high-level game framework, be enough to sell an idea? eg. Locoroco would have presented the look and gameplay as well in a fixed Flash movie as a an interactive game demo. Clearly for some ideas this wouldn't work. A Spore pitch for example would need to present the technology as working, rather than an idea 'let's have the user create anything they want' without any proof it was technologically feasible! But Mario Galaxies would be got across as well in a movie. Same with puzzlers (which would be ironic as they're the easiest games to create with the least need for shortcuts!)

It's fun to see all of these replies and the philosophies applied; I'll simplify and say that as I understand what you're all saying is the industry hinges more on execution then design then?

It's more that new ideas are hard to come by, so much has been done before, and mostly you're just seeing variations and extensions of existing concepts. The shooters out there are all built on the same common framework. You couldn't pitch to a studio 'I've got a great idea for a game where the play plays in the first person perspective and shoots aliens with different guns they pick up'. The variation in those games comes in (pointless ) stories and graphics and basically execution. Very few truly original ideas make it in. Same with racers. Same with sports games. Same with lots of puzzlers. Same with flying games.

If you were to pitch anything, it'd have to be a completely new mechanic, like Locoroco. A pitch of 'how's about a character that jumps on platforms and sings?' is gonna get turned down (assuming you could even present it). A pitch of 'how's about a game where the world tilts left and right, and the character splits up and combines' is presenting an actual mechanic.

Games are very different from other media where pretty much it all comes down to the story. In a movie, you don't pitch an action film, but a story for an action movie where the character is like this, and the baddies like that, and the twist like so. In games the story is mostly redundant, and the reason buy...COD4 over Haze...is because COD4 is a better quality game (just examples, BTW). Trying to sell Haze on the strength of an original story idea, when the gameplay mechanics are much the same as every other shooter, is hard, as evidenced by internet reaction to Haze movies.

Original ideas do get picked up though. Things like 'Heavy Rain' or that Japanese fly-by screensaver thing on PSN, or LBP, can get developed. I don't know how new developers can get into the biz though. Again, developments in the Indie console scene are pushing things forwards. Get together with some folk to create a game concept, float it on XNA, or send it in to Sony, or subscribe to Wiiware, and see if it gets taken on by a publisher. Or even just create a web game and move into the consoles from there - that's happened. This is a fabulous opportunity we've never had before. But it does require you, or someone, to create a quality product that impresses before hand.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's fun to see all of these replies and the philosophies applied; I'll simplify and say that as I understand what you're all saying is the industry hinges more on execution then design then?

I'd rather say that a very large part of design is execution; in particular, the constant fine-tuning of the gamer's experience, and of course changing or cutting out stuff that doesn't work.

For example most of Blizzard's stuff can endure 5 to 10 years and remain a fun experience, from the newbie to the veteran player. That's because they get a working prototype up and running as soon as possible and keep testing it all the way through 2 to 5 years of development.
Will Starcraft 2 be applauded as the most original RTS? Unlikely. But will it live on at least until 2015? You can bet your house on it.
Now, is this what you consider success? That's another, pretty deep question...

Games like Locoroco and Patapong are based on relatively new ideas on the other hand, and while they won't be played by as many as SC2, nor are they going to make as much money, you can still say that they're pretty successful. But even in their case, the original ideas are just a tiny piece of their success; it takes a lot of hard work to make that concept into gameplay that's fun and will sell the title.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

And yeah, I've got to agree with Shifty that opportunities are relatively good nowadays, XNA and Live Arcade and PSN games are good breakthrough possibilities. But it takes a pretty damn good concept to sell something without a playable prototype, particularly for a startup developer.
For example, Irrational Games had a decade-long track record of both critically acclaimed and financially successful games when they've got the green light on Bioshock based on a single-room demo. If they were an inexperienced studio with no AA titles behind their back, they would not have gotten any funding - probably not even an opportunity to pitch their game idea...

 

[Color me Dan]

For the folk who are game developers I'm curious to know how much input you have in the overall design on a project you're working on. Plenty of people have good ideas that don't fit in off course, but those that do; are they considered and implemented in one way or another? I have read that some developers get in and up this way and would just want to know if you all have any personal experience with it.

How manny of you use Pre-Viz to showcase features and ideas?

Man, this is starting to sound like an interview... Someone who know how to post in a jolly and playful manner to distract me do so asap!

 

[ERP]

The problem with pitches for games like Spore is that there are very few people who can pitch product like that. It's a function of track record as much as the design itself. It's a huge leap of faith for whichever publisher commits to it.

Most people are pitching to develop a product, excluding big names like Spielberg et al, I can think of one case over the years where someone pitched a design and had a publisher pick it up, and I don't think that game ever shipped.

In terms of pitching to develop a product, it's all about getting it infront of the right people, all you need is one internal champion with enough respect internally to sell it up. Having said that it's more complex than youy might think, most major publishers have slots in specific genres they try and fill with externally developed product and if you're not in one of the "slots" where the publisher has a need, you need to be something very special.

Development design input on product depends of the company and on the team, some companies have vision holders who build what they envision, and disgard what doesn't fit within that vision (Blizzard as I understand it are this way). Other companies do a lot of throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks, shipping games that have evolved significantly from the original vision.

Both approaches can produce good product, I suspect the former approach is more likely to, the latter can lead to an ecclectic experience, and it dependant on a gate keeper to do QC and finally decide what ships.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem with pitches for games like Spore is that there are very few people who can pitch product like that. It's a function of track record as much as the design itself. It's a huge leap of faith for whichever publisher commits to it.

This is valid for all media. Gene Kelly got into movies with a vision to create a particular movie told entirely in dance, intending to be a story to all movie-goers without any limits to understanding because of differing languages. In order to get there he knew he had to 'work his way up' and took different movie roles to learn the ropes. As a newbie pitching the idea he hadn't a chance, so he took his time, grew a reputation, and finally produced "Invitation to the Dance" - which was a commercial flop! He had an original idea, something different. He was committed to the idea and put in the effort to get to a place where he would be allowed to make it. It was only because of his previous successes that he was afforded the opportunity, by a hesitant studio. The fact it was a commercial flop just goes to show why those funding projects like to tread the narrow path forged by the common creations.

The saviour of originality is again download titles. Keeping it small and cheap means less risk, so publishers can afford to dabble in originality on the off-chance some big happens, or even just to pacify their product creators who are moaning about not being allowed to be original!

 

[Johnny_Physics]

I know a company that started with a few people telling a big publisher that they had this fantastic game, but it was so fantastic that they couldn't show it to them, but if they just funded them for a while they would get the exclusive rights to it... That was stone cold of them if you ask me, they didn't have anything at the time but they hooked the publisher and in the end they released some good-to-great games. But that's clearly an exception, I don't think it will ever work again.

 

[Enzyme]

http://softwarecontests.intel.com/gamedemo/index.php?cid=sw:gdc08018

Maybe this can be a great start for when you want to show a game concept.