Comments on Pixel Poppers: Why Your Demo Sucks: Design Errors and Cognitive D...

I completely agree with you here. I played the Dea...

2010-06-14T06:44:08.686-07:00

I completely agree with you here. I played the Dead Space demo and in it I went up against multiple tough enemies and had 0 ammunition! I thought "this is what the demos like? imagine the game!" I immediately went to the dashboard and deleted the demo, not even waiting for the player to die. Disappointing too because I've heard such good things about the game.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is NASCAR Thunder 2003 demo which I played on the original Xbox. Not only did I play the demo constantly and buy the game. But I actually became a NASCAR fan, bought merchandise and attended races!

I think the best approach to a game demo is the on...

2010-04-06T03:27:41.838-07:00

I think the best approach to a game demo is the one taken by Apogee, Epic and ID back in the early 1990s. Divide the game up into three or more episodes of equal length (nine or ten levels seems to work best) and release the first one for free. Anyone who likes that and wants to play more can buy the full version and get the remaining episodes. Those who can't afford to register can still enjoy what's provided for free.

Take Doom as an example of doing things right. The shareware version comes with nine levels, all of which can be used for either single-player, co-op or deathmatch and most of the game's weapons. Buy the registered version, and you get everything in the shareware version plus 18 more levels, a bunch of new enemies, and two new weapons. Just taken on its own, the shareware version is satisfying, but the registered version gives you everything the game has to offer.

More awful demos (really there's so many bad ones ...

2010-02-05T03:37:23.958-08:00

More awful demos (really there's so many bad ones it's ridiculous when you think about it. It's like they don't want to sell games ;) )

Battlefield Bad Company 2 (or whatever it's called). EA demands your email address to play =anything= online it seems, even demos. Deleted.

'Splosion Man - a good demo, but didn't show me the game's greatest appeal which is co-op play! I got this in the XBL offer this week, and I feel like I've ripped off the devs now by getting at that super cheap price, as it's way WAY more fun than the demo showed me.

Super Street Fighter 2 HD Remix - only allowed 2 player local play. Ouch. (arguably didn't really need or want a demo though, since it was selling to an audience that already knew the game in the vast majority).

Aliens Vs Predator - same problem as 'Splosion Man. Only lets me play free-for-all deathmatch which would quite likely be my least favourite mode in the final game - which I'm now not sure I want to get. It's as bad as Bionic Commando really - very complex controls, yet the player is forced to play the mode that affords them the least chance to learn those controls.

Great demo - Left 4 Dead 2... for anyone that DIDN'T play the original Left 4 Dead, this is fantastic intro to the game. The problem is for L4D players (like myself) the demo didn't show much that differentiated it from L4D1. So I've stuck with L4D1 for now until I've eventually exhausted it (or my friends have) and L4D2 is cheap and/or 2nd-hand (although I did also get L4D2 in a Steam sale anyway, but I play way more on 360).

I would say that 99 times out of a 100 those rules...

2010-01-21T15:57:02.885-08:00

I would say that 99 times out of a 100 those rules apply. Half-Life is that 1/100 game where the start is good, but not suitable for a demo.

The distinction between introduction and tutorial is key here.

An Introduction aims to:
- Ground the player within the world
- Begin the story and plot
- Engage the player
- Allow a degree of exploration and experimentation

A Tutorial aims to:
- Teach the game mechanics

If we look at the three most important FPS games to date; Half-Life, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex all three make the distinction and as such separate the tutorial from the game itself.

Most games treat the start as GameX 101 and as a result are just laborious, tedious tutorials that fail to introduce the game properly.

A side point on this route, is that you can reduce the need for tutorials through clever interface, control and mechanic design. Thus making it more likely for a demo to quickly engage etc.

Take Halo, nothing special when compared to its PC contemporaries but its interface, controls and mechanics broke new ground on the consoles and made FPS games viable there:
- Sticks & Triggers controls
- Auto-Aim/Smoothing
- Two weapon limited arsenal
- Mele/Grenade attack buttons (not separate weapons)
- Armour -> Health regeneration system

Tutorial needed? Not really, just have the options and corresponding button press appear on screen when needed.

Doom 3 introduced a really intuitive feature that when you approach a control panel or button etc. you automatically bring up you hand and you interact using the same button as you do to fire.

That's instantly reduced the need for another key bind and also a tutorial explaining how to use stuff since your hand gets raised, your weapon lowered etc.

//Andrew

@Remy: An email address? An email address? Dammit,...

2010-01-20T23:04:14.577-08:00

@Remy:
An email address? An email address? Dammit, EA.

MMORPGs often use betas as demos too. The dynamics are different enough to warrant a separate analysis, I'd say. But it's definitely related.

@Andrew: I like your bullet points. I think it's ...

2010-01-20T22:42:34.018-08:00

@Andrew:
I like your bullet points.

I think it's interesting when a game's opening doesn't lead itself well to a demo. Iron Man, for example, had its third level as the demo rather than either of the first two levels, which were basically an extended tutorial. I loved the demo and bought the game because of it. This prompts the question - did the game really need the first two levels? The third may have been a better lead-in. Are the criteria the same for a demo and the start of a full game? If something would fail as a demo, does that mean it's not a good way to start the game either?

EA's Army of Two: The 40th Day demo deserves speci...

2010-01-18T05:31:47.588-08:00

EA's Army of Two: The 40th Day demo deserves special mention I believe. I could not even play the demo without first registering with an email address (undoubtedly for marketing spam later) with EA. Result - demo deleted and vow made to never purchase the game. Typical EA though!

For more complex games such as FPSs and fighting games, beta periods I think ought to be included in this analysis, as for me they perform a very similar function to a demo for me and presumably for some others.

As you mention in the article, one of the major pr...

2010-01-15T22:54:08.867-08:00

As you mention in the article, one of the major problems is the perspective that a demo is a restricted, cut down version of the game rather than an introduction or an appetizer for the full game.

Demos should:
- Introduce
- Engage
- Not Overwhelm
- Be Re-Playable

But it seems to me that a lot of games out there just don't suit the demo format ergo their starts are simply poor

For example, FPS games generally either have a non-combat on rails beginning (ala Half-Life, where Valve had to make a unique level for the demo) or throw the player into a chaotic battle, or at least one that seems to be.

Neither of these form a good structure for a demo, one isn't engaging and the other is overwhelming both of which would turn players away from a game if used for a demo.

The start of Deus Ex in comparison lends itself perfectly for a demo, you're straight into the mix but it's not chaotic or overwhelming since you're told what's up and what your orders are.

@Shane It's hard to say whether there "should" be...

2010-01-12T13:26:40.818-08:00

@Shane

It's hard to say whether there "should" be a demo. There are two different interest groups at work here, and they may have conflicting desires. Developers/Publishers want to move as many units as possible, so they "should always" want a demo if and only if they can be reasonably assured it will help their sales. Or at least not hurt them. Players may or may not care about demos, at their option. You clearly do, but I don't see a universal maxim here. I've played plenty of demos that were very entertaining and been left cold by the retail product.

@Shane: From a gamer perspective, I absolutely wan...

2010-01-12T13:20:04.052-08:00

@Shane:
From a gamer perspective, I absolutely want there to always be a demo. Hearing a game has no demo is a bit like hearing a film has decided not to screen for critics.

But in the light of the studies I reference, it's a lot harder for me to say with any authority that it's good for the developers to always release demos. Without more conclusive data, I can't make such a sweeping statement. All I can really say is that they need to give people a reason to buy the game, which a demo can do very well - provided they don't screw it up. So don't screw it up, guys! :)

I'm uncertain if you believe there should always b...

2010-01-11T14:53:12.192-08:00

I'm uncertain if you believe there should always be a demo or not.

For me there should always be one.

If a big name game doesn't have a demo, that's a huge warning sign in my book. A big name game must have a demo, not to pull in their choir but other gamers who know of the game but don't really know enough to buy it off the shelf.

A small game also always needs one. Games like Peggle can work off of word of mouth, but it is heavily in the minority.

Ditto on Bejeweled, see also: Peggle. You're righ...

2010-01-11T12:08:37.955-08:00

Ditto on Bejeweled, see also: Peggle. You're right about puzzle games / mini games like that. I played the Plants vs. Zombies demo and they gave me way too much time. I kept expecting it to cut me off but the game just kept going. By the time I couldn't play anymore, I had more than my fill. I was at that point playing it out of curiosity to see just how long the demo was.

I think like you said, the best demo they could do is a shorter time limit, just enough to let you know its fun(ish). Then at the end of the demo, force a video trailer which shows future facets of the game. Cue epic music. That could peak your interest without letting you experience it for free.

Many demos for AAA games end with a video trailer, but in these puzzle games we usually see one screen with some pictures, and a link to buy the game. Not as enticing.

@uhzHiro: I tend to agree. If the early levels/are...

2010-01-11T10:49:02.312-08:00

@uhzHiro:
I tend to agree. If the early levels/areas/whatever aren't a fun enough learning experience to stand alone as a demo, then the game hasn't done them properly. For some reason, the demos I've played of JRPGs don't do this. The demos for both Final Fantasy XII and Eternal Sonata had segments from somewhere in the middle of the game - leaving the player uncertain about the game mechanics and completely unattached to the characters or story. A well designed opening is all about hooking the player - why wouldn't it be used as the demo?

I also think you're right about demo length. This is another place where the inclination to make demos incomplete bites developers if they aren't careful. You're spot on that the demo should provide exactly as much content as it takes to encourage the purchase - the Portal demo was fully eleven levels.

Though I think it should be noted that there are some kinds of games don't lend themselves well to this. For example, the demo for Bejeweled left me not really feeling like I needed to buy the full game. For shallow games that don't become more interesting over time, maybe a fairly-brief time limit is the way to go.

As for games saving your progress - the Patapon demo on PSP did something interesting here. The demo was the first couple levels of the game, and it saved your progress and carried it into the full game - but it also awarded you a unique item upon completion that you could then use in the full game, but could not obtain any other way. A clever hook.

Though not as clever as releasing the character creator. What a great way to invest people in the game.

I've always thought the most compelling demos (esp...

2010-01-11T05:37:15.164-08:00

I've always thought the most compelling demos (especially for complex games) were the ones that started at the beginning of the game, and taught you everything the game normally would. If done well, this learning process should be fun in and of itself. A good demo then continues all the way until "payoff", which is what I'm calling the peak of fun within the game.

Starting from the top also gets the player interested in the story, assuming there is one.

This can mean the demo is long, it could be half the game even. Heck, theoretically it could even be 90% of the game and end on a cliff hanger. If the point is to make the player invested in the game, then the demo should provide as much content as it takes for them to want to make the purchase. I very rarely have ever seen a demo that gave me so much that I wouldn't want to buy the game just because I feel like I've done everything.

And with that in mind, a good demo, when possible, also promises to save your progress and use it in the full game, when purchased. I see this more on PC than consoles, but it's a really nice touch.

Dragon Age: Origins did something really smart when they provided the character creator as a demo. It gives you no concept of actual game play, which might turn off a lot of players. Instead you spend as much time as you want creating your own character, which you can use later in the purchased game. Simply because you have worked on something that you can use makes you want to get the game and use it, lest your creation be pointless. And they don't risk alienating any players with their game play, ingenious.