Keeping box size in mind...

It's that it doesn't matter what size your prototype is (as long as it could at least somewhat realistically be created -- if the game required a board the size of the average living room and it can't be reengineered to be smaller then you probably don't have a marketable game).

Think of it like being a book author: as an author you may choose a particular typeface and size for your manuscript, but the publisher won't care as long as he can read it, since he's going to completely reformat it. What the publisher cares about is whether or not the intellectual property is any good: that's what you're selling.

Just as an author needs to consider whether the word count (length) of his submission is appropriate, so too do you need to consider whether the game could be feasibly produced if you want to sell it, but the specifics of your prototype's visuals and layout are very likely going to be completely thrown away if they buy the game.

You're selling the idea.

To sum, it's not a lack of standard size; it's that it doesn't hardly matter if there's a standard size (beyond "reasonable for that publisher").

-- Matthew

I can appreciate that. It's the constant dilemma of the artist, really. Writers deal with it all the time: editors (and publishers) ruining their work. I think it depends on your goal: if you want other people to have the fun of playing your game then it won't matter too much what the publisher does, but if you want people to appreciate your specific creation then probably only self-publishing is going to match your desire.

-- Matthew

PS: No judgment intended on what you might want, mind you: I know that if I was a painter, for example, I wouldn't want a publisher to "touch up" my painting. Different strokes and all that.

Amen to that. In fact I go way overboard and work up title designs and all kinds of graphics. It makes the playtests more fun and does, indeed, keep me "in the mood" of the game.

I just work hard to remember that it's likely to all get chucked if it ever gets published. :)

-- Matthew

8O Well I'm shocked. I never stopped to realize this. That's a couple of points to self-publishing for me. Do you guys know, whether this is the same everywhere, or if there are some countries (like e.g. the Netherlands) where they leave most of the artwork and design intact? I usually send a lot of time on the looks and I'de hate to see them shot by some artist, who doesn't grasp what I was trying to express with the artwork.

I must say that I think we're putting the cart a bit before the horse here -- saying "My goodness, if they publish my game, they could change my artwork?" is a bit like saying "If I'm president, I could be impeached?" The fact is, getting the game published is quite an accomplishment in and of itself!

That said, it does raise the interesting question of how much "say" you have in the final product. My guess is that it isn't all that much -- you're selling them the game system, and they can do what they want with it. This includes changing the art, changing the theme even. I would be interested to hear how much leverage the designer is given in directing this process. I suspect it increases as your "brand name" increases.

This raises a very interesting dilemma -- self-publish, in which case you'll likely be doing a small run and substandard on the quality end, or license, in which case you run the risk of your art being changed.

For me, I put very little effort into the artwork beyond "functionality" concerns, since I have no art skills. This makes publication more attractive to me, because it means I could see the game with "real art". But, I'd still like to have some say in the published product. Yet, for me, that's not something I can think about now, since if I don't design a great game in the first place, all the time I spent worrying about the art will be for nought since the game isn't good enough to get sold anyway.

In that sense, I'd encourage you to work more on the game itself. Keep in mind that everyone's friends encourage them to publish their games. You need to be more brutal of a critic than they are, and you need to know for yourself when the game is ready to go. If you're spending a lot of time on the art and want to keep what you have, then maybe indeed self-publication may be the better route for you. But don't go either route until the game itself is as good as it can be!

-Jeff

In that case, let me contradict myself!

I think sending a stripped down version is valid, but on the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with sending a "gussied up version". A game that has nice presentation and components that integrate the theme and mechanics is going to be more fun to play, and there's nothing wrong with, as someone here said, giving them something that they'll want to like even before they start playing! After all, the game once sold is going to be evaluated on the aesthetics, so giving the publisher more than just black and white text with no graphics at all isn't necessarily going to give them an accurate picture of what the game is potentially going to be in production form.

I think that spending all your time worrying about getting the visuals "perfect" is unnecessary, but removing any visual aspects from your design might not be necessary either.

-Jeff

Note also that rules and gameplay are often changed as well. Games go through something like this series of stages (which, based on much reading, are basically what all publishers do, though they may call them different things and break them up slightly differently -- I'd love to see how this matches up with gamemaker's company):

Design: The basic game is designed. Either an in-house design or an out-of-house submission is created. Here all of the core game concepts are invented, and the game is playtested any number of times to ensure that everything works together, and to refine the game in an "evolutionary" way (as described elsewhere). Truly blind playtesting (where the full game, rules and all, is given to a group to play, with no guidance) will only occur if an out-of-house designer is being used, and even then it will just be the designer doing it, to ensure that potential publishers will have a good experience with the submission.

Development: Here the publisher enlists the aid of game developers. Sometimes these folks are also designers, and other times they are guys who exclusively develop games. The role of the developer is to turn the idea for the game into a truly workable, sellable game. This might involve changing the theme, it might involve adding, changing, or removing game mechanisms in order to make the game "better" (in the eyes of the publisher of course, and sometimes the designer) or to make the game more feasible to produce (e.g. reducing card count or number of pieces), it will almost always involve rewriting the rules, and it will very, very likely involve creating all new artwork, both to make the game look the way the publisher wants it to and to improve (again, in the eyes of the publisher) playability. It is in this stage that the real blind playtesting will occur (if it's a good publisher), to ensure the thing they're about to make is going to work for someone who buys it blind. From what I have read, some publishers heavily involve the designer in this stage and some companies don't. It might vary by designer and developer, too.

Production: Here the physical production of the game is worked out. Gamemaker gave a perfect example of how a game board might be resized so that it fits inside a box that can be printed entirely on one press sheet instead of two. Issues that come up while the production folks are figuring out just how they'll produce the game will affect the final game, potentially quite a bit. If it turns out that producing x plastic pieces is 4 more than will fit in the mold space(s) then it's very likely time to develop the game some more, to cut the number of pieces down by 4. Once production is complete then the publisher is shipping some games out to distributors, and soon it will be in the hands of consumers.

Note that with an in-house design there may be very heavy overlap between Design and Development, and in any company there will be quite a bit of overlap between Development and Production, so the lines can be pretty blurry. The basic concepts, though, are there.

I didn't mention the other things that are going on concurrently to these stages, though they're important: marketing, financing, and management.

What the vast, vast majority of what the folks here on the BGDF are doing (but for the self-publishers) is just the first stage, Design. I know that I like to hope that if I really playtest the game well and I choose the right publisher then there's a good chance my game won't hardly change during development (but for the graphics), but I also know that it might well, and that's just part of the business.

Hopefully that helps put the potential designer-to-be-published's role in a better perspective. Your "baby" will almost undoubtedly be changed: for some of us that's great news, while for others it's horrific. :)

-- Matthew

...

Development: Here the publisher enlists the aid of game developers. Sometimes these folks are also designers, and other times they are guys who exclusively develop games. The role of the developer is to turn the idea for the game into a truly workable, sellable game. This might involve changing the theme, it might involve adding, changing, or removing game mechanisms in order to make the game "better" (in the eyes of the publisher of course, and sometimes the designer) or to make the game more feasible to produce (e.g. reducing card count or number of pieces), it will almost always involve rewriting the rules, and it will very, very likely involve creating all new artwork, both to make the game look the way the publisher wants it to and to improve (again, in the eyes of the publisher) playability. It is in this stage that the real blind playtesting will occur (if it's a good publisher), to ensure the thing they're about to make is going to work for someone who buys it blind. From what I have read, some publishers heavily involve the designer in this stage and some companies don't. It might vary by designer and developer, too.

This doesn't line up particularly closely to my experiences, for what it's worth. The _artwork_ doesn't really seem to be changed during this stage, though the presentation may. For a specific example - I had the chance to play Carcassonne during this stage, and it was Wrede's artwork on the tiles.

Additionally, game development is an area that varies _widely_ between publishers and even between games. Some games receive much heavier development than others.

Joe