Industry Standard: Alternative to current target game score

Game Dev Tycoon ideas
#1

As a disclaimer, I’m personally a big fan of the way the game handles hit games. The idea that you can’t get repeated 9.0+ hits without upping your game keeps the game challenging, yet rewarding. However, I know there are quite a few players who don’t like this method. Allow me to suggest an optional alternative: The Rolling Industry Standard.

The target game score would no longer be based on YOUR last smash hit. It would be based on a rolling industry standard. The standard would be set by your garage smash hit, and then slowly increase over time automatically.
When you release new games, they will be compared to the industry standard, rather than your own personal records, when determining ratings.

If you beat the industry average by 20%, you’ll earn yourself a 9.0+ hit. However, because we are dealing with an industry average the target score would not immediately become the score set by your hit game.

Instead, the rate of the industry average increase would go up and the standard would rise more quickly until it reached the standard set by your hit game. In essence, you’d be setting a target for the entire industry to hit.

The practical upshot of this is that you could follow up your smash hit with another game using the same engine/employees/sliders and still get another good game. It won’t be quite as good as your 9.0+ smash hit, but it would more than likely be an 8.0+ “good game” rather than a 6.0-7.0 ‘meh’ game.

This would also make the game more forgiving to players who greatly overshoot the industry average, as it would take the average a fair amount of time to catch up.

To add to this, the ‘sabotage a competitors game’ event would actually do something. If you choose to do that, you will actually slow the industry average down temporarily…

Eventually, a player who failed to innovate at all would be left in the dust by the average and their games would get worse and worse, eventually leading to bankruptcy. But that is a natural failure state; failing to innovate in this game should be met with bankruptcy. This alternate method is merely a means to address the problem caused by being too successful.

7 Likes
#2

+Support

Devastating success is not a good thing for the game’s design. In the real world, a company that produces a smash hit gets regarded warily by all their competitors. In this game, a company that produces a smash hit almost seems like it would produce a sigh of relief by their competitors - their next game is going to be ‘meh’ rather than a serious competitor for sales.

Another benefit of the Rolling Industry Standard is that, particularly if its displayed, the player gets the egoboost of dragging the quality of the entire industry upwards. That’s basically what is being modeled already, but making it more obvious and less totally gated on the player would be more fun.

I would just say, beware. In addition to the rolling increase, random events could very well ‘spike’ the score. You aren’t the only company trying to make hits.

2 Likes
#3

Just wanted to stop by and say that this reflects a lot of our own thoughts on the subject. What the revamped system will actually look like is not yet clear but we’re toying with a bunch of concepts which are a in a similar spirit.

3 Likes
#4

Awesome. I support the above idea quite alot.
My suggestion on it would perhaps to also have a separate industry average for each platform and have it a little more randomized too (A calculated score, then a randomized ±15%)

#5

I see where you are going with that idea, as obviously a Gameling game isn’t going to stand up in terms of graphics compared to, say, a Playsystem1 game. However, that would not only complicate the system, but also make it open to abuse, as you could get a 9.0+smash hit every single time just by switching around which platform you develop for, rather than actually innovating.

I strongly disagree with a random factor, as then it turns your success into a luck based mission. There is room in this game for luck (Like getting favorable or unfavorable topics after your first 8 in your research list) but that kind of luck wouldn’t add to the enjoyment or replayability factor.

#6

Personally, I’d go with a GENRE based industry standard, rather than platform. I don’t agree with the random factor (other than the random trends possibly giving certain genres a bonus/penalty) but it makes sense that a 10/10 Action game wouldn’t effect the standard of a strategy game. This would also allow standards to follow you throughout the game, rather than be reset each generation.

#7

I do like the idea of a Genre industry standard…though it is still open to a little abuse. A team that can make a good simulation game can also make a good strategy game without any innovation.

What I would suggest is a Tech standard and a design standard.

So all Action/Strategy/Simulation games would be judged by, and impact the tech standard.
Adventure/RPG/Casual games would be judged by and impact the design standard.

THIS would be rewarding, as building a team that can make good tech games AND good design games is very tricky (but doable) and thus reward you with an extra 9.0 hit if you can pull off a good game on either side of the coin.

The only thing I’m not sure of is how that model would treat multi-genre games with one tech and one design genre in their mix.

1 Like
#8

I see your point…