Your 'demo' will kill your game

[Kes]

I don't agree that "Actually, the 'story' is the least important part of the demo..."

If we are talking about a demo which is the beginning hour or so of the finished game (and an hour seems to be the minimum) then the story better be sufficiently clear to entice me in further.  If, after an hour of a game, I still haven't got much of a grip on it, it's unlikely that systems and features alone will make me part with cash.  That's because I believe that the story is an integral part of an rpg.  I'm not buying a game of systems and features; by definition I'm buying a game which involves me playing a role - and if I don't know what that might mean (allowing for plot twists, character development etc.) then it has, imo, failed in its most basic criterion.  If the story is boring, or bewildering, again it is unlikely that I will be sufficiently engaged to want to continue to find out what happens.  The only exceptions (and even here it's not total) will be where it's a dungeon crawler, rogue-like or similar, where story is a negligible part of the package.

Even if it's a proof of concept/early build/alpha build (call it whatever you like), it still has to demonstrate a cogent and coherent reason for having the systems and features; and that reason will be that it supports and enables the story to proceed in the best way possible.

In short, a badly written, or sketchy story will mean that the demo is unlikely to fulfill any useful function except save me spending money that I would end up regretting parting with.

 

[nio kasgami]

I don't agree that "Actually, the 'story' is the least important part of the demo..."

If we are talking about a demo which is the beginning hour or so of the finished game (and an hour seems to be the minimum) then the story better be sufficiently clear to entice me in further.  If, after an hour of a game, I still haven't got much of a grip on it, it's unlikely that systems and features alone will make me part with cash.  That's because I believe that the story is an integral part of an rpg.  I'm not buying a game of systems and features; by definition I'm buying a game which involves me playing a role - and if I don't know what that might mean (allowing for plot twists, character development etc.) then it has, imo, failed in its most basic criterion.  If the story is boring, or bewildering, again it is unlikely that I will be sufficiently engaged to want to continue to find out what happens.  The only exceptions (and even here it's not total) will be where it's a dungeon crawler, rogue-like or similar, where story is a negligible part of the package.

Even if it's a proof of concept/early build/alpha build (call it whatever you like), it still has to demonstrate a cogent and coherent reason for having the systems and features; and that reason will be that it supports and enables the story to proceed in the best way possible.

In short, a badly written, or sketchy story will mean that the demo is unlikely to fulfill any useful function except save me spending money that I would end up regretting parting with.

sure I agreed for myself the story is the most important part of all game and I always devellopped the concept before all the things (like when I devellope a manga idea) after I try to make the story fit with the gameplay I want to do~

well it is how I work for make a games

 

[Zoltor]

I don't agree that "Actually, the 'story' is the least important part of the demo..."

If we are talking about a demo which is the beginning hour or so of the finished game (and an hour seems to be the minimum) then the story better be sufficiently clear to entice me in further.  If, after an hour of a game, I still haven't got much of a grip on it, it's unlikely that systems and features alone will make me part with cash.  That's because I believe that the story is an integral part of an rpg.  I'm not buying a game of systems and features; by definition I'm buying a game which involves me playing a role - and if I don't know what that might mean (allowing for plot twists, character development etc.) then it has, imo, failed in its most basic criterion.  If the story is boring, or bewildering, again it is unlikely that I will be sufficiently engaged to want to continue to find out what happens.  The only exceptions (and even here it's not total) will be where it's a dungeon crawler, rogue-like or similar, where story is a negligible part of the package.

Even if it's a proof of concept/early build/alpha build (call it whatever you like), it still has to demonstrate a cogent and coherent reason for having the systems and features; and that reason will be that it supports and enables the story to proceed in the best way possible.

In short, a badly written, or sketchy story will mean that the demo is unlikely to fulfill any useful function except save me spending money that I would end up regretting parting with.

The story Isn't even the most important aspect of the finished game(systems, and maps tops story), in a demo however, story doesn't mean crap, because you should be showing off the bloody gameplay mechanics, not spending any real amount of time on story.

Also I'm scared of any game that can show a noticeable amount of story in a hour's of gameplay, that would throw up so many red flags.

You should get a "mild" idea of the story, okay sure, but it damn well should not be enough of a story to matter to the person playing the demo one bit. Simple math, there shouldn't be enough story for anyone to even beable to analyze.

In my Demo when I get there, there's probally gonna be 2-5h of gameplay(unless someone gets addicted to the Casino or Arena lol, then who knows how much time people will spend), which = a whole 2 segments of story.

If a single hour gives a very good idea of the story, then you are rushing the story big time, are there no dungeons in your demo or something, do you not show off much more then the main battle system, and story or  what?

 

[Kes]

@zoltor

We know that you have very exacting standards, and that any dev who doesn't meet them is - by definition - a lazy, incompetent, no-good fraud (some of your milder terms), but I do think you should be willing to allow us lesser mortals to have some space to do things differently from you.

For example, you want to do 60+ hour games, and so believe that in the first hour or so very little (as a percentage) will be revealed.  Great; do it that way; that is your right and privilege.  But for those who do not aspire to such dizzying heights of virtuosity (or who perhaps have too many memories of devs who have failed to pull this off adequately) and who are aiming to produce games which are significantly shorter, then basic maths will dictate that more will be revealed in that hour.  And before you go off on your usual rant about how anything less than 60+ hours doesn't qualify for the name of rpg, please bear in mind that rpg is not a rigid term which can only apply to a very narrow, tightly defined segment.

You might assume that others "are rushing the story big time", etc.  Instead of automatically starting to insult peoples' aspirations, why not learn to think a bit more flexibly about what players want?  Your preferences are not a universal template which others are obliged to follow.  The game world is far bigger than any one of us, and there is room for far more variety than you seem to believe.

A demo should accurately portray what the game is like.  To try and force them all into a rigid straitjacket would mean that either they were no longer an accurate portrayal, or that every game had to be a clone.  Neither outcome is acceptable to me.

 

[Zoltor]

@zoltor

We know that you have very exacting standards, and that any dev who doesn't meet them is - by definition - a lazy, incompetent, no-good fraud (some of your milder terms), but I do think you should be willing to allow us lesser mortals to have some space to do things differently from you.

For example, you want to do 60+ hour games, and so believe that in the first hour or so very little (as a percentage) will be revealed.  Great; do it that way; that is your right and privilege.  But for those who do not aspire to such dizzying heights of virtuosity (or who perhaps have too many memories of devs who have failed to pull this off adequately) and who are aiming to produce games which are significantly shorter, then basic maths will dictate that more will be revealed in that hour.  And before you go off on your usual rant about how anything less than 60+ hours doesn't qualify for the name of rpg, please bear in mind that rpg is not a rigid term which can only apply to a very narrow, tightly defined segment.

You might assume that others "are rushing the story big time", etc.  Instead of automatically starting to insult peoples' aspirations, why not learn to think a bit more flexibly about what players want?  Your preferences are not a universal template which others are obliged to follow.  The game world is far bigger than any one of us, and there is room for far more variety than you seem to believe.

A demo should accurately portray what the game is like.  To try and force them all into a rigid straitjacket would mean that either they were no longer an accurate portrayal, or that every game had to be a clone.  Neither outcome is acceptable to me.

You're exaggerating there.

However lets say your making a small 20h RPG, there's a handful of those out there for sure, yet even then, 1h doesn't get you far, not even story wise, becaese the gameplay, no matter how little there may be in the long run, actually gets in the way of showing a decent amount of story in such a short time.

 

[amerk]

Somehow this all got off course from discussing why or why not demos hurt final projects to how to handle demos. However, to address some of the comments others have made:

Not all games will feature a lot of story (if any) such as dungeon crawlers and side scrollers; and not all games will feature a lot of game play, such as virtual novels. However, this assumes that the demo is for a traditional rpg where both game play and story take center stage.

My personal opinion: writing stories for a demo is often trickier than for a complete game.

As an rpg enthusiast myself, I really enjoy well thought-out stories and lengthy cut scenes. But when it comes to a demo, I'm less excited about the story because I know it's not going to be resolved during my playthrough and I may have to wait several months (if not years) to find out what happens next. In those few short hours, I don't want to be stuck with a story and little to no game play. It frustrates me when playing demos like this, because I find myself disengaging myself through the story content while I'm mindlessly pushing the button to see what other features there are.

And yet, if the game features no story, or the story itself is boring, I'm just as likely to be turned off. Thus, a good balance is necessary. Whatever is included in the demo needs to be enough to engage the player and get them to want to play the final version. That should be the goal.

If whatever bit of the story is included, make sure it's something that is exciting and well written. The segment included shouldn't be terribly long, and doesn't need to explain things that won't take place in the scope of the demo or that the player won't really need to know about until the final version. Just make it exciting enough to want to find out what happens next. The same with game play - while bugs are expected, completely broken, confusing, and poorly thought out mechanics aren't going to build confidence in your players for the completed version.

It's often suggested not to have your demo begin where the actual game begins. Have it start somewhere exciting, like right outside a dungeon, so the player can jump right into the action with as little exposition as possible.

Moving this back on topic, I think we can safely say that demos are very much appreciated and necessary for both the developer (during game development) and the player (to offer feedback or decide whether or not to buy or invest in the final game), but that too much of a focus on demos can also delay the final game or discourage the player away from the getting the final version.

 

[Kes]

@amerk

What you are referring to, I think, is more of a tarted up alpha or beta build. If it's that far away in time from game release, I think it is pretty useless because in all probability the final version - if it comes out - will be significantly different. As a player I'm always wary of a segment taken out of context. Is it the only decent bit of the game? Sadly sometimes yes.

I think it all boils down to what we think the purpose of releasing a portion of the game is. I call it a portion because calling wildly different things by the same name confuses the issue. For me a demo is a portion of a completed game which I can use to decide whether to buy or not. It is, therefore, tightly connected with a commercial game.

The purpose of that is different from a portion put out to get feedback for improvements, such as those in the Project Development section on this site. The video in the OP. was not referring to those.

Then there are those portions put out to try and drum up interest in prospective customers for a game that's a way off completion. Those I think are a waste of time. As I said the game will change. Deadlines will be missed. Dev time and energy will be sucked up on preparing and releasing this portion, doing the ongoing marketing and PR etc. Yes, some interest will be sparked, but probably no more than could have been generated by a good promotional video much nearer the time.

If it's not a commercial game it doesn't need it and of it is commercial buyers will want a proper demo anyway.

 

[Matseb2611]

However, a lot of makers here attempt to release a demo to get the back pats, thus making 'release a demo' a goal.  With that, people will spend time polishing up a demo for release on the boards. That shouldn't be your goal.  Your goal is to release a game; put all your efforts into that. 

I see your point there, though people who are after cheap back pats and quick praise shouldn't really be making a game. Or at least not a lengthy one anyway. When I set out to make a game, I expect to finish it, because I want to see my vision become a reality, and not just in part, but as a whole. So having said that, I think the idea of a demo release depends on the developer and their intention. Releasing a demo can be useful for a developer who intends to finish their game. It's nice not only for gaining some early feedback, but also as a way to break their bigger game up into smaller, more-achievable chunks. When realising you're starting a huge 10+ hour project, it can get intimidating and overwhelming pretty fast, but if you prioritise to release a 1-hour demo first before going any further with the game, then the goal no longer seems so far away from your reach.

Also I'm scared of any game that can show a noticeable amount of story in a hour's of gameplay, that would throw up so many red flags.

You should get a "mild" idea of the story, okay sure, but it damn well should not be enough of a story to matter to the person playing the demo one bit. Simple math, there shouldn't be enough story for anyone to even beable to analyze.

...

If a single hour gives a very good idea of the story, then you are rushing the story big time, are there no dungeons in your demo or something, do you not show off much more then the main battle system, and story or  what?

Although I do agree that throwing too much story and too many cutscenes at the player right away is incredibly bad, I think going the other way is equally as bad. Sure, there wouldn't be much of it revealed within an hour, but still, it helps a lot if there's some sort of a start. The player needs to start getting attached to the characters and have a fair idea of what the main conflict is about. Don't forget, many players will stop playing your game after a mere 20 minutes if they don't see anything substantial happening in it. It's very similar to how a book has to hook the reader from the first page. Likewise a game needs to provide some sort of a story hook in the first 10-15 minutes. It doesn't have to be a major plot twist or any huge detail about the backstory (in fact this will be an info dump which will turn away the players). It just really helps to introduce enough of the story to make your game feel meaningful to the player and give them incentive to want to play it further, especially for an RPG. 

 

[Scythuz]

I think different people see a demo as a different thing / serving a different purpose.  It's one thing to have a demo to build up hype for a game and another to release it as a test build.  You can of course do a little bit of both too.  

Personally I don't think releasing a demo is a bad thing, so long as it's the right kind of dev doing it.  If it's the kind of dev who is just releasing it for attention and aren't looking for feedback then... yeah, that dev probably has less of a chance of finishing their game.  After all if they don't care what people think of their game on a critical level and don't aspire to improve it, why should they care about fully finishing it?

Going back to my original paragraph though...  What we need to consider more here before we make up our minds about whether a demo is harmful or good is "What is your personal definition of a demo?" At the end of the day what a demo means to one person could well be vastly different to what it means to someone else.  I'd say it's important to consider it before any extra value can be gained from this discussion.

 

[whitesphere]

Even in a 1 hour demo, I should still be able to get an excellent feel for the game as a whole.  And, I think it is reasonable to ask "If I played my favorite RPG for 1 hour, would I be sucked into the game world enough to want to buy it?"

Let's take, say, Final Fantasy IV.  This is a 40 hour game.  But, after I played for an hour, I was sucked into the game's world and what Cecil and co were doing, even though there is still a lot to accomplish after the first hour.  This demo would make me part with cash for the full game.

Or, perhaps, Chrono Trigger.  This is a 20 hour game, and within an hour, you can accomplish the first plot point (rescue the Queen) and again get drawn into the world.

So, I think no matter how long the RPG, the first hour should showcase enough of the game's world and story quality, and yes gameplay mechanics (if that matters to the particular player) to decide if the full game is worth the money.

If a game can't draw you into its world with an hour of gameplay, the game isn't worth either the cash or free time investment to play it further.

 

[byrdbones]

This is very interesting!

I think for our game, which we plan to have a kickstarter campaign... It'll simply be called 'Beta Test'...though it'll sort of follow the idea of, here play the first hour or two of the game...and if you wanna continue, back/buy it. Sort of like pay as you go. Also I think it helps to be abundantly clear that it is in Beta, still in development and is subject to changes and improvement. Even displaying that information right before the title and such. 

 

[TheRiotInside]

Maybe putting together a "tech demo" would be a good avenue for some. It's not a segment of your actual game, but just a showcase of the different aspects of your game pieced together. Like, you could release a little thing that has one area, a good battle, and a cutscene, and present it as an example of what your game's battles will be like, what the systems will do, how you craft your maps, and how you piece together dialogue and cutscenes. It's not a chunk of your actual game, but rather a tease of what a game made by you would be like, or rather, what level of quality and standards they can expect from you in the future.

I'm sure that there are downsides to this method, and I'd love to hear about them, but I might end up doing this when it comes time to start showing off what I've got going on.

 

[Shelby]

Aww beautiful logic! I couldn't agree more. You just can't trust people to believe that this is JUST a demo not the final way the game will look. For the love of god look at all the hate the Steam games get that are in alpha.

People will pressure you for a demo most of the time but just stay focused and make that game as good as you can!

 

[Zoltor]

Aww beautiful logic! I couldn't agree more. You just can't trust people to believe that this is JUST a demo not the final way the game will look. For the love of god look at all the hate the Steam games get that are in alpha.

People will pressure you for a demo most of the time but just stay focused and make that game as good as you can!

That's Steam though, probally 80-90% of the people on there are either morons, or hate on things, just to hate. Infact you should question people who use Steam, sense logic in general, just for using the service(between the DRM BS, the crappy community, and the obviously broken voting system that only helps to feed the trolls), I seriously don't understand why anyone ever uses Steam(People definitely shouldn't be buying programs like Ace from it, that's for damn sure. Buy from the main site or Amazon, avoid Steam like the plague. There a reason Enterbrain didn't want a hand in releasing it for Steam).

Lol yea, I think that's only the people who hate, just to hate though. They play the ignorance card(well they're probally dumb as a door knob anyway, but still), pretending that they don't know what Alpha, early beta or concept demo is.

 

[Shelby]

That's Steam though, probally 80-90% of the people on there are either morons, or hate on things, just to hate. Infact you should question people who use Steam, sense logic in general, just for using the service(between the DRM BS, the crappy community, and the obviously broken voting system that only helps to feed the trolls), I seriously don't understand why anyone ever uses Steam(People definitely shouldn't be buying programs like Ace from it, that's for damn sure. Buy from the main site or Amazon, avoid Steam like the plague. There a reason Enterbrain didn't want a hand in releasing it for Steam).

Lol yea, I think that's only the people who hate, just to hate though. They play the ignorance card(well they're probally dumb as a door knob anyway, but still), pretending that they don't know what Alpha, early beta or concept demo is.

Calling most of them Morons..ehh I am not to such about that, I got a ban for expressing a far less extreme opinion...

However should you not be angry when you buy a game that doesn't work on Steam and you should give your opinion to save someone else for making that same mistake, like ACE products in general, I am happy the reviews are taking care of that for me. And yes OMG the voting system is horrible and abused! 

However to get back on topic I don't really see demos being such a problem on Steam for the game, I actually don't even see them on there, of course I don't look for them. If you game is good enough to get on steam you really don't need a demo. That being said I will NOT get into having your game on steam means it's any good because that is another topic lol.

 

[AwesomeCool]

I think different people see a demo as a different thing / serving a different purpose.  It's one thing to have a demo to build up hype for a game and another to release it as a test build.  You can of course do a little bit of both too.  

Personally I don't think releasing a demo is a bad thing, so long as it's the right kind of dev doing it.  If it's the kind of dev who is just releasing it for attention and aren't looking for feedback then... yeah, that dev probably has less of a chance of finishing their game.  After all if they don't care what people think of their game on a critical level and don't aspire to improve it, why should they care about fully finishing it?

Going back to my original paragraph though...  What we need to consider more here before we make up our minds about whether a demo is harmful or good is "What is your personal definition of a demo?" At the end of the day what a demo means to one person could well be vastly different to what it means to someone else.  I'd say it's important to consider it before any extra value can be gained from this discussion.

I agree with Scythuz (he took the words out of my mouth).

Also, just because someone does not release a demo does not mean they will have more motivation to finish there game.

 

[hian]

I remember back in the days of PS1/PS2 where demo's were usually released only when a game was actually finished, or very close to being finished. They existed primarily to provide players with an impression of what the full game would be like.


The problem with RPG-maker and indie game demos, is that they more often than not are released long before any actual product is on the horizon, and many people release demos that are broken and/or in poor quality. That seems like a waste of time, because you're just going to alienate future potential players with the demo due to it's poor quality.


I don't think that aiming to release a demo is necessarily bad, I just think that demos should be released when they're made to the point that they closely resemble the final product.


Another point worth making, is that focusing your drive towards releasing a demo shouldn't in any way effect your total development schedule, since the stuff you need to do development-wise before releasing a demo, is stuff you'd have to do anyway, in order to complete your game.


With all that being said - this is a developer forum. Most people are here to become better developers, and to get feed-back. Putting out game-play demos on a regular basis is a good way to get good feedback on your product, and helps with the process of correcting problems.


You can sit there and write long posts trying to explain stuff, that might very well get lost in translation, that other people need to understand based on their ability to relate your info, or you could just provide them a demo, and show them.


Demos put out by developers for other developers serve a completely different purpose from demos provided to the general population.


If you focus to much on the latter, and ignore quality control, then yes that demo might "kill your game", so to speak (at least people's interest in it), but the former is an integral part of the feed-back and correction process of development.