Quote: "I honestly believe in order to make *any* money in shareware, your game has to stand out above everything. If you make another generic shooter, or a puzzle game that we've seen 100 times before, you will NOT make a dime."
I agree in-part with this comment.
Creating a clone of games seen countless times before will really put people off the game on the whole, and you can only get away with doing a game like that for already established franchises.
On the other hand, I wouldn't count entire genres out as viable ways to create a game that will interest people.
The issue isn't with the game itself, but the content of the game.
I would say taking a leaf out of the book of retail titles and their success honestly is a good way to go.
Halo 2 and Counter-Strike have seen huge followings of gamers playing them online since release. Halo 2 also has a very replayable singleplayer aspect... however a very good question is why? Neither game really breaks the mold of fps games, in-fact if anything they are very traditional in their design as both are pure bullet spewing action. Although sure you can say CS has objectives, how often does either team ever actually achieve them; but rather just tries to kill the opposition team to win a round?
This is what makes this genre so good. You don't have to have top-notch graphics, amazingly innovative gameplay, or really anythign that pushes the bounderies of the genres to make a game that people become addicted to. It's all about how easy it is to simply jump-in and play.
It's something that I would honestly say a good majority of Shareware titles lack; and that's polish & gameplay considerations.
To grab a gamers attention is graphics.
To grab the gamers time is gameplay.
To keep the gamers hooked is polish.
If a gamer can enjoy the game and start having fun without anything bothering them within the first crucial few minutes of play; I can guarentee that they will want to play it more.
Halo 2 for example is almost identical gameplay from start to finish and online your just playing to kill each other as quickly as possible. What has made it such a success is a) it's very easy to play, and b) the physics, and weapon balance give it a fun-factor polish that gamers will come back to and enjoy, time after time.
A big killer in communities like this, are everyone is either hyper-critical and say "this is crap" or they're so easily impressed and say "OMFG th1s roXXors th3 b1g !111". There's no
real feedback on the quality or playability of a product that they're playing or testing for developers. So a developer will go off either thinking it was a big waste of time, or that it's so freaking amazing that it's got to sell big.
Reality of the situation is these are being sold to people who have no idea about what it takes to make these games; their only reference are retail titles they buy for their PS2, Xbox 360 or other such console.
Don't get me wrong adding innovation and providing something novel that gamers will use and think "cool" about, can often help you get the game out to more people; but always remember that the core or substance of the game over the interesting fluff is what is important for the actual development.
I can show you a good number of games retail and shareware, where the developers have just got it all wrong.. because they've focused on the wrong thing.
Honestly I believe games like Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 wouldn't have been so huge if they were the first incarnation of the series. With no backing from an established name you have to provide something that gamers will enjoy, build up the name and following.
Good games come from simple ideas.
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400, 512MB DDR2 667MHz, ATi Radeon X1900 XT 256MB PCI-E, Windows Vista Business / XP Professional SP2
