…without really trying. Yeah, right.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what makes a game successful. Now obviously, the word ’successful’ is rather vague. What I’m referring to is simply the number of boxes that a certain game sells. This includes reprints, initial runs, and expansions.Basically, why does one game - X - outsell game Y when they both have more or less equal ratings on the Geek? I’m very aware of the obvious reasons as to why Ticket to Ride will outsell Die Macher. What I’ve been pondering is whether or not you could design a game deliberately to be a success. As in, ignore what YOU, as the designer really wants, and attempt to discern what the public will actually buy, en masse, and design the game to fit that mold. That’s obviously a pretty shallow idea, but is it completely implausible?

So, let’s look at the elements that (possibly) make a game receptive to the mass market. Please note that ‘mass market’ does not only include Wal Mart shoppers and people who browse games at Toys R Us. I’m talking about gamers here as well. The games I’m considering ’successful’ are ones that are not only sold in big box stores - Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Sorry, Life, etc etc - but those games that have been wildly successful both with non-gamers and gamers, like Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, and Carcassonne. So what makes them uh… tick? Here’s my take:

 (please note, the following are not in order of importance)

Theme. First and foremost, for a game to be successful in a broad sense, I believe the theme must be familiar and interesting to a wide variety of people. The idea of building railways or settling a new land is not very foreign to many people; not only that, these themes evoke a certain sense of nostalgia (thanks, Hollywood) and romance in many. The theme of a game is a tough sell to a lot of people unless they can mentally tie the activity within the game to something else they are familiar with; ie: ‘yes, Supernova is kinda…. like Risk. Sure.’… ‘Yep, in Acquire, you can put buildings on the board, so yeah, it’s similar to Monopoly.’ I know these statements are pretty out there, but I’m sure there have been even more head-scratching comparisons made. I don’t believe that an uncommon theme deals a death blow to a game, but it certainly is more of a stumbling block to many than one that is less foreign. The first entry on this geeklist elicited some interesting feedback, specifically with respect to this point.

Accessibility. I believe this is possibly the biggest factor in making a game successful to a mass market. It really doesn’t matter how pretty, cheap or familiar a game is, if it can only be played by 5 people in 3.5 hours, most people won’t buy it. Eurogames have earned their rightful place as a hugely successful market niche simply because this is one of the primary tenets in their makeup. Interestingly, a games’ accessibility isn’t solely related to it’s length and number of players, it also extends to the theme, the box size, the time involved to set it up and the ease with which a player might be able to get their friends playing it. This is one of those factors which is a tricky variable to figure out. Many people are comfortable with dice (not just wargamers/amerigamers); so having many dice in a game may not be foreign or repulsive to them. However, put in a stack of 300 cards with unique information on each, and they may be loath to even try a game. For some others, it may be the exact opposite.

Price. Yes, I know… build it and they will come. Blah blah blah. Not necessarily true. A good game could be completely ignored if it is priced outside of the range of what the majority consider an acceptable value for their dollar. Since they are, as yet, unaware of how much fun they may/may not have with X game, they are likely to pass over it if it is $54 and they had only wanted to spend $45. On top of that, the discrepancy of cost between your tried-and-true Monopoly/Risk/Clue/etc and Euro/American/Designer game is quite great so many games are fighting an uphill battle from the start. Of course, price can be easily combatted by the game’s theme and accessibility (and good sales staff) so this isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker… just that it has the potential to be.

Reviews/WoM. What is WoM? Word of Mouth. This broadly includes articles in newspapers/web, friends’ recommendations, sales staff suggestions, even the number of games proudly proclaimed to have been sold on the box (a la TtR). Many gamers are never going to actually read a review of a game before they buy it. WoM is likely far more important to them than reviews are. In fact, many gamers are likely completely unaware that there are such things as board game reviews or ratings. A game’s status as #43 on the Geek (yess, that is TtR) is likely completely unimportant to them. Or if it is #607 (Catan - Struggle for Rome) either. It’s the WoM that’s going to affect their buying decision. But then there’s the gamers (like yours truly) who likes to take both WoM, game weight and Reviews/Ratings into account before considering a game.. possibly because we’ve already got 60-odd games, upwards of 40% of them unplayed (really?? that many??? sigh). So adding another game to the collection (read: trying to find room to cram game in closet while also sneaking said game past dubious/game-hostile spouse) is a serious decision that warrants much thought. Especially if the game is expensive/large/difficult to hit the table.. in this case, overwhelmingly positive reviews and ratings might help to tip the scales.

Target audience. This could fall under accessibililty but as a person may not be buying it for themselves and certainly isn’t only playing it by themselves, it’s definitely a factor. Before I really discovered what types of games I liked, and when I was just getting (back) into board games, many people would give me recommendations… their favourite game, what they’d played at a friend’s house. Well, someone told me how much fun they had playing Killer Bunnies, and how great a game it was when you have a lot of players. Hm. I was intrigued. So when I went to a game night where someone suggested it, I jumped all over it. (This is obviously due to the WoM…) I was very unimpressed. The majority of the game, I felt like I had little, if any, control over what was going on. It was interesting, the way the cards interacted, and sure, there was some humour involved… But they really thought it was great?? Then the end of the game arrived. So, let me get this straight… if I have the carrot card that matches the original one, I win? If I don’t, I lose? WTF? So the only way to potentially win is to collect carrot cards like mad in the hopes that you actually get the right (lucky) one. In our game, the player who had ONE carrot card won. Yeah, that’s fun. BUT, and here’s the point…. some people LOVE this game. So the audience is a huge factor in how well a game goes over. This game just won’t be going over anytime soon at my house.

Mechanics. How complex is it? Are the mechanics intuitive - and by ‘intuitive’, I mean - does the way you do things match up to what a player might expect? This is a difficult thing to discern as a jaded hardcore gamer might find a simplistic mechanic dull as they’ve seen it a million times, whereas a new gamer might find it clever and exciting. How do you find that middle ground? This is a tricky question, without a clear answer. I feel that the best way to balance this is to offer a game with mechanics that feel simplistic/familiar but yet still offer depth and replay value. So what the heck does that mean? Use mechanics that integrate with other mechanics to provide several (if not many) ways of achieving similar goals, while at the same time making them unique to your game, or at least, implemented in a unique way. In addition, make them simple enough for people to remember what they do on each turn and when.

I’m sure these are not the only factors in a game’s success or failure. But could you tailor the elements of a game to address all of these? Certainly. Does that mean the game will be a success? Not at all. The reason for this (in my opinion) is simply that these are not discrete parts of a game. And these parts really do not make up the whole. They are all far too intertwined to be able to treat them as separate bits. Although to some degree they are separate, none of them can exist unto themselves. Mechanics affect a game’s accessibility. The theme directly influences your target audience. And everything, ultimately, is either dictated by or influences the price, depending on your perspective.

So where does all of this leave designers? Should we ignore these things and leave it to the winds of fate? Should we outline each element individually and address it specifically within your gameplay model? I really think that both approaches are likely the only way to create a successful game. Yes, you have to address and be aware of these elements. But you also cannot design a game around them; that is simply too short-sighted as a game’s purchase often comes down, to a person’s opinion. Or a gut feeling. Or maybe just because they like the art. And heck, your game’s theme might be changed by the publisher anyway.

In reference to an earlier entry, the only thing I feel I can do is to create a game with interesting, impactful, and tense choices. Ultimately, that’s what will make it appealing. The unfortunate drawback to this simplistic response is that there is no ‘formula’ that will make your game successful. Anyone can make a game with interesting choices just falling out of the box, but it could sell like week-old Wonder bread. So that alone won’t move boxes. And should that be the objective anyway? Frankly, I don’t even believe that that should be a designer’s goal; too much focus on that will simply cause you to lose sight of the importance of the designing itself. Games should be created for the audience, for the love of gaming, and for the enjoyment derived from creating the experience. A game designer should do it for the love of the craft, so to speak. Or should they?

To be continued…