***UPDATED AFTER 2 YEARS !!!*** The sad story of my start as Android/iOS game developer

But as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is not about "what makes games a hit?" but rather "what can I do to improve my chances of getting people to try my game in the first place?" Two totally different things.

 

Why not? What do you think is wrong with the graphics of "Flappy Bird"? If you're going to say they are not good, I'd like to know your reason why.

 

I seem to view this more like @HemiMG and @StarvingIndieDeveloper do. That is all I was getting at... a person can labor for months on graphics and make the best looking game the world has never seen. 100 people may see it and play before they are distracted. Meanwhile another developer may knock out a game in a few days with the most primitive graphics possible and have a hit.

On Flappy Bird, I actually thought the graphics were very good. But yeah I certainly can't see that being the reason for its success. In my view so many games have excellent graphics these days that graphics probably play very little part in the success or failure of a game. That is why I was trying to get people to look beyond just how things look.

 

Flappy Bird also stole graphics from Super Mario. The most popular game ever. For perspective

 

When we're talking about the game once people have downloaded it, then absolutely yes, graphics take a back seat to other things (but are still important to set the mood, etc.). I'm talking about before people download the game. How do you get them to notice it and want to download it?

Do you just download random games that come out, sight unseen, without even looking at them, just to give them a try? Is that your normal method of finding new games? Just curious. I imagine not.

We're talking about mobile games here, where there are thousands released every single day, and you have about one second to catch a player's eye with your thumbnail before they go past it. Once you catch their eye to get them to your landing page, you have about five seconds, if that, before they will leave. How do you get them to download your game at that point?

Graphics don't matter as much after people download your game. They still matter, but not nearly as much as gameplay. But again I'm not talking about the after. I'm talking about getting them to look at it in the first place. Looking is a visual thing. Not a gameplay thing.

You see a gorgeous person out and about, and you want to ask them on a date. Why did you notice them? That's the visual and audio (and chemicals, but that's outside the scope). Once you're on the date, that's the gameplay. You have to notice them first before you ever get to the gameplay. Of course, there are examples otherwise. There always are. I'm talking in generals.

I get that programmers might not want to think that graphics play that large of a role. Your domain is the code. You want to think that what you do is what's most important. And artists will think what they do is. I'm and artist and a programmer, so I'm coming from both sides. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, and I don't have to agree with you, but there are millions of dollars spent every single day on brand marketing, logo design, package design, advertising, etc. which are all very much related to the visual and audio side of things. Having a great product means nothing if no one wants to try it. That's where visual design comes in. And it's incredibly important. Clearly.

 

Well I think we can all agree that having great graphics/art direction/style/flair never hurts a game.

And it certainly pays to have exposure, a solid reputation, and an established fan base.

Original, and yet fun ideas are usually good ingredients for success.

So if you have a game that looks good, stands out from the crowd, and gets seen by loads of people, it'll probably be successful, right?

 

And gameplay. And other things. And even then, no, one thing does not necessarily follow the others.

(edited because my first response unintentionally came across as mean)

 

I mean, yeah... obviously there's not an actual formula or anything, or else every game would just follow that book and they'd all be hits. Hence, why I think of games more as art. I guess I was thinking of success more along the lines of how the OP was viewing it, as in, just getting people to press the download button.

 

Here's the OPs game: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.MartinSMarinov.FriskySparrow (also https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.MartinSMarinov.LoopBirdBall) 50-100 downloads, 10-50 downloads, respectively.

And here's the game the OP copied: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=vn.beblue.loopcircle - 1000-5000 downloads.

I say "copied", assuming that the second one is original, although knowing how the mobile marketplace works I tend to doubt it. The "original game" looks better. It has a better icon and better looking screens. Coincidence? Possibly. I tend to think that the better look gives it the advantage.

 

I think this is where being an artist makes a difference. To my eye these games look nearly identical as far as graphics design goes. I would be no more inclined to download the original than I would to download the OP's version.

I think the first game just got more people to the app landing page to begin with. And anyone looking for such games may already have the original. The games appear to be identical so there would be no reason to download the newer version.

 

Oh wow. Yeah, I didn't realize how blatant a copy it was.

I agree with @GarBenjamin... Neither really looks all that special or makes me feel like I should play it. Unlike a game such as Prune, which I purchased without even understanding the gameplay on account of its aesthetic.

 

I checked the release date, the OP's was released in August whereas the more successful one was posted in July's
So the OP's most likely was a less successful clone, which tbh is probably the main reason why it didn't to well. Not cos of the graphics cos they actually looked rather nice, but that it was a clone, with even the art style cloned

Even the new name is a clone

 

I understand that you don't see a difference. You've stated that and it's clear. That does not mean there is no difference, it just means you don't see it.

Do you think the average person has no idea what looks good or not? That in order to see and recognize "style" one must be an artist? I beg to differ. Most people have some sort of eye to see what looks good or not. Why else would companies spend so much money and time on packaging, logos, etc if it made no difference

You're saying that graphics make no difference at all, yet you freely admit that you don't know good graphics from bad. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make, unless what you're trying to say is this: "Good design makes no difference for a thumbnail to a game, or to the game itself. People judge a game based on game play, and they will download a game simply because they randomly happened to land on its page." I disagree.

 

Saying that, the original even did the graphics quite a bit better. The motion blur effect looked good and appropriate, the clone just had halo particles
Also, the particles in the background of the clone just look very out of place and for some reason infuriate me

 

BOOM.

 

Now imagine that the OP had created high quality graphics and an eye catching icon, with the same cloned game play. I wonder what the result would have been. Plenty of cloned games outdo the success of the original because they did a better job at catching people's eye.

 

I think that sums up why 'frisky arrow' was not a success
It was an exact clone of a game (which was essentially a flappy bird clone anyway), but the graphics were worse. Can't speak about the gameplay as I haven't played them but from the screenshots they look exactly the same

@Ony, I see the point you are making and I completely agree with it. I don't think he was trying to disagree with it, just with the logic "I'm not an artist and I can't tell a difference, so the average person probably wont either"

 

Yeah I agree, unless the original is established and known, if you make a clone which is better, be it visually (mainly if its unknown), auditory or gameplay wise it will outdo its predecessor

 

Just found this, too: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apexapps.loopball 50k-100k downloads on that one.

Not sure which of these came first, but the whole bird-ball thing seems to be a thing everyone is cloning from each other. No one's even taking the time to use anything other than almost identical blue bird-ball graphics, too...

As a developer who understands his limitation on his art skills, I do okay at recognizing things that I hate to look at versus things that appeal to me. But I also don't recognize the difference between two fonts that may be extremely obvious to a real designer. That's kind of how I feel like most people are. They may like one thing over another if comparing them directly, but they probably won't know how to say why they feel that way. And if not comparing them directly, they may not be able to tell the difference at all.

 

Ha ha. Yes I think the average person won't see any difference between those two versions of the loop ball circle game.

I can almost guarantee they won't. If I showed the screenshots of those two games to random people say the mailman, a stockboy in Walmart, family and friends I am quite sure they would think it is the same game.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on me not being an artist and not into graphic design. While that is true I doubt that I notice graphics differences less than any other "average" person. The funny thing is that in my family and friends circle I am the artistic one with them all thinking I am making some good art or drawings (I do a fair amount of pencil & paper sketching). And considering how my art looks that is saying something.

Sure people can appreciate good graphics. So do I. I just won't notice all of the subtle things that an artist will. And neither will most others who are not an artist.

 

Sigh
That was one was the original
Each successive clone gets worse graphics, but then the downloads go down catastrophically
I mean, they are clones, and then they are worse, with nothing more to offer. What more can you expect?

OP, if you are still here, I hope you realise that this is the reason why it was not successful
If you don't, I think you need to reconsider making games

 

Which of those two sign lettering companies do you think will get more business?

 

@Ony, that example might be a tad over the top
Whereas the point still stands, the graphical differences between the clones were far less than in your example

 

Oh come on!

I don't think that's what @GarBenjamin and I are saying. Obviously we can recognize quality in that extreme of an example. I think we were referring more to things that looked similar, but were finessed by a true artist.

So like my version of a smiley face vs one you might make. Obviously mine would do the trick and qualify as a decent smiley face, but someone who understands proportions and color better would be able to evoke better and more specific emotions from the face. That kind of thing.

I don't think anyone here is saying art is unimportant. Just that, in this particular case, having S***ty art probably wasn't the real problem the OP was having (as there were plenty of other issues at hand).

 

Bottom line is, regarding the subject of this thread:

• The OP cloned a game that has already been cloned several times over. Take points off for that.
• If you're going to straight up clone a game, try to at least make it look better than the original. Take points off for that.
• If you're going to clone a game, try to at least make it play better than the original. Take points off for that. (although I haven't played either so I'm guessing here)
• If you're going to clone a game and it's not as good in game play or visuals or sound as the original, then you'd better have a good marketing plan in place. Take points off for that.

If you expect to succeed despite failing on the above points then I want whatever it is you're smoking.

 

LOL! Great summary and good detective work people on finding the original and the original's original. lol

 

Has the OP rage quit? Either way I feel this discussion was beneficial for everybody
Hope it doesn't get locked for any reason

 

Clearly Steve would get the business of anyone wanting a more personal less corporate style for likely a budget price. lol

As for which actually looks better that is a huge difference and very easy to see. No artful eye needed. Although based on the chicken scratch doodled yard sale signs I've seen around here maybe the eye is needed in some small degree.

 

I think he's simply less active than we are. Keep in mind too that his OP mentioned college. He may be busy with that.

 

What's really, really weird is that graphics matter and gameplay matters, but audio is of supreme importance. If graphics are the first thing you see, audio is the most powerful sensory experience that sticks with you the longest. Just saying. It's not hard to see why more indie game devs discount art and music as being of as great of significance as game design and code...

They are mostly programmers who realized that they CAN make a game, it is POSSIBLE. Musicians and artists can't do that on their own. They naturally seek teams and are sought by teams. They have the team mindset to start with. Programmers have the ability to be lone wolves.

But as the old addage goes, just because you can don't mean you should.

If you were a renaissance man, you'd know it by now.'

It's this simple: Draw something. Do you get compliments? Yes... proceed. No... you're not an artist.

Make some music: Do people say it's cool? Yes? proceed. No, you're not a musician.

Team up as needed. It's o.k. not to be a universal genius.

 

So I have to ask... can you explain all of the artistic points as to what makes the one far better than the other? Or, is it just instinctively obvious, without having to know the why's? I don't think it takes an artist to know if something looks better than something else. An artist can tell you with more precision why something looks better, but it doesn't take an artist to know good or bad. People will instinctively choose something that looks better over something that doesn't, whether they know it or not. It's just how our brains work.

 

Well in addition to being a programmer and artist I'm also a musician and audio person, and I agree wholeheartedly. Audio is one of the most important aspects of any experience, game or otherwise, and yet in games it's many times left to take a back seat.

 

And artists spend lots of time understanding why it looks better. That's basically what they do. Actually using media to make stuff is just a practiced technique. Anyone can make "a picture". With enough practice. But can you make people like it? That's the real issue.

People dismiss the value of what artists do. And then you get what you get. That's just karma.

If your game looks like this:



You'll get insane attention.

This is not the same:

 

Ah right, very true. Sorry if I made a false assumption, feel a bit bad now

@Ony, whereas I agree with your point, I think you may be missing theirs
I believe they are trying to get across the point that the average joe cant tell good art to bad, but just that with the examples we were looking at, the difference wasn't so obvious. And even though they would be able to tell it on direct comparison, without that the difference is small enough that it likely didn't play much of a factor, do you see where I'm coming from?

 

Spot the indie?

 

In the signs it is easy to see the difference. One seems hastily scribbled crammed together with no real style that I can see other than a "just get it done" attitude. The other seems airbrushed with great care and shows strong design skills. An actual logo and so forth.

Can I make a list of artistic points probably a short list of points not sure about actual graphic design points. Howevever there is a world of difference between those two compared to the loop bird and the loop bird original we originally looked at. I think nearly anyone (perhaps not Steve) can see the difference in your example. I don't think many people would see a difference between the two loop bird things unless they flipped back and forth and actually looked for them.

 

I see exactly where you're coming from, and I understand where they are coming from. I think it's that people aren't understanding where I'm coming from that's causing the disconnect.

Put simply:

You are in the app store. There are three game thumbnails in a row. Which one did you click, if any, and why did you click it?

That's literally all I'm saying. Even if the difference is subtle and not so bold as the sign painting ones I posted, there is still a difference. And people will subconsciously pick up on it, and they will click the thumbnail that looks better.

This isn't just me and my artsy fartsy self making sh*t up. Read any article about successful app store marketing and getting people to your page, and I guarantee a large part of that article will focus on having a good thumbnail. What makes a thumbnail good? The art and design.

 

I have to agree with @GarBenjamin, If I had the two next to each other I could easily tell the difference. But if I saw one today and one tomorrow I would most likely think it was the same game

 

The OP's game, sad to say, looked drab, boring, and not fun. I would not download it. Has anyone in this thread actually downloaded it to try it out?

 

Well for me even if the two screenshots were side by side I'd not consider one over the other based on that. Actually if I realized they were different games (based on the names) the look of them being nearly identical would prompt me to check them both out wondering "what is the difference?" I don't mean try them out but to read the details.... if I was interested in them at all that is.

 

Seems like game clones are like a sci fi movie.
Most clones are slightly less solid/reliable/stable than the original (degredation in quality with each generation) but occasionally one manages to introduce some small unnoticed change that eventually creates something better than the original.

 

I haven't tried either, they both look pretty boring
But tbh I don't really play phone games either so you know

 

Actually that's an insane point... it didn't even cross my mind.

He said it didn't do well and I didn't think it looked amazing, so I didn't even bother to make a few clicks to play it myself. And I am pretty curious about indie games and pretty open minded.

Case in point, ladies and gentlemen. Great point @Ony.

That's how powerful perception is.

Edit: just played frisky sparrow... btw that name...

It's actually a good start. It needs an artistic touch. He has lots of high ratings on the gameplay, averaging to 4.4/5 which is pretty freaking amazing considering all factors.

Unfortunately... it slaps you in the face with full screen ads.

But the ratings are good. Word of mouth recommendations with that ad business though.... forget it

So how can a game that people who play it like it have 51 downloads?

 

I never downloaded the OP's games but that is not saying anything about the graphics appeal or not. I wouldn't download the original or other similar games either. First because I don't play mobile games at all. Second because the game is not my kind of game. All of the games along these lines look boring to me. I am sure there are people who do like such games though. Maybe we need to get some mobile puzzley (or whatever kind of games these are) gamers input in here.

 

It would definitely be great if we could have some of the reviewers or of the target audience here

 

We can... they left their reviews on the app store.

So he "forgives" the lack of Polish... and gives it a 3/5 holy crap. That means if he couldn't forgive the lack of polish it could have dropped even lower. Most people can't forgive the lack of polish. Why should they, anyway?

Good game... 2/5. A good game will only get you honestly about 2.5 / 5 in today's competitive arena. On average. Maybe up to 3 if you're really talented. 4+ is actually fabulous. You're going up against the pros, on this stuff... these same artists being contracted to make thumbnails for these games might have done work for Pixar or something in the past. Good gameplay is not enough. Good graphics are not enough, either... in case you might be inclined to actually think that. Far from the truth. You have to have it all.

Let's pretend we all start with a 5 by default.

Bad graphics = - 1
Bad gameplay = -1
Ad abuse/annoying aspects = -1
Bad controls = -1
And 1 is just the very bottom... it means you have just pissed people off, maybe on purpose.

Perhaps that thought experiment can put it in perspective.

By making your graphics lousy, you're basically negating other hard work you've done... and seemingly for no good reason.

But of all these things... only 1 of them can people actually tell BEFORE they actually check out your game. So now we're playing an assumptions game... we're trying to influence people's thought patterns. And what you're inviting them to think is "This game is already got one notch against it. I'm already not going to like something about it, and I already know that at this exact moment. If I click this game, I might regret it. They didn't care about graphics. Who knows what else they didn't care about. Do I have enough time to try this? Maybe I'll try it later? Is this important to me? Do I want to try this right now or should I just go do something else?"

This implies they are somewhat interested to begin with... and now that you've attracted that microsecond of attention, you're inviting them to reconsider.

Worse case their brain just filters your game out because it doesn't catch their eye in a field of random game icons. I think that's how you find yourself with 50 downloads when there are millions of people out there.

 

Depends.
It's not just about nifty designs&art. It's also about exposure. Maybe Steve drives a lot around with that truck. So a lot people see his ad, while the fine looking sign shop collecting dust in a small village with a population under 100 people.

What I wanna say is, I've seen plenty of S***ty games/movies gaining more attention, money than some poorly marketed but good looking stuff.

 

I couldn't read through all 3 pages of this (I didnt notice it was 3 pages till I made it to the end of page 1)...

But I am all for the fail and fail again technique. Talking about how to do things better and hit a better homerun is easy... in theory, but nothing beats simply making more games and failing every time until you figure out what works for you. As long as you focus on the big picture, growing your OWN audience as opposed to relying on Apple or Google for your eyeballs you'll be moving in the right direction on two fronts.

The OP had released 2 games, both failed. Sounds like a good start. If you reach 20 games and are still failing something is wrong, but 2? After 2 games you should still be failing (statistically, not in reference to these specific games). It's just not easy to compete at making games and certainly not easy to compete at marketing them!

 

To the best of my knowledge, nobody here said it was.

What happens is, you say "in my experience, the visual appeal of a game is important and can totally help to get people interested", and what people in the forum hear is "art is the only thing that matters, rah rah rah it's only about art!!!" and then they argue against that imaginary point until the cows come home, when it was never the point to begin with. It's exasperating and I give up.

Here's the thing I said about the game's art:

 

You asked your (rhetorical?) question. I gave a answer to that question. No need to freak out

Art is just one part of the success puzzle. It's more likely to sell a game with S***ty art and good marketing, than selling a game with great art and S***ty marketing. That would also apply to your both examples with the sign shops. It simply depends.