As we've been planning and developing our vertical slice for Breaker (formerly known as ZapGun, but still a working title), we've come up against a lot of things that needed to either be cut or swapped with something else. That sounds really abstract and vague, so here's a breakdown of how we decide what stays and what goes.
Our very first consideration has actually been ourselves. We're really trying to balance our individual workloads better, and prioritizing mental health. For instance, I was asked if I would be able to get basic multiplayer into the build and tested for greenlight. I could do it, but I'd also have to sacrifice a lot of time for other classes, as well as time for myself to rest. There was also another trade-off that we didn't realize at the time: art. I've been working really closely with Alex to get art, VFX, shaders, animations, and rigs into Unreal, which is very important for our game, and if I had prioritized multiplayer instead, we would have extremely limited narrative, environment, and general context to our mechanics. Ultimately, the decision came down to me, since I am the only multiplayer programmer on the team, but we had a team meeting first to discuss reasons why we should or should not prioritize multiplayer. I held the largest influence in this meeting, as I have worked on a AA-level multiplayer FPS project in its baby stages, much like what we're working on now. My rationale (based on prior experience) is that if our game is not both fun and cohesive in a single-player experience of some sort, then the multiplayer experience won't either, and will likely just be disjointed and confusing. Thus, we came to an agreement that it would be more worthwhile to demonstrate our mechanics, aesthetic, narrative, and overall game-feel in a single-player experience as our vertical slice, then provide a plan on how we'd translate this into a multiplayer experience.
Of course, we've made some cuts in all fields due to this pivot from multi to single player, all of which were discussed and resolved in that one meeting. Interestingly enough, each decision made followed a similar pattern, whether we were cutting, modifying, or replacing features, plans, or assets. The decision starts with a question, usually "why do we need to <replace, modify, remove> this idea?", and the person (or people) responsible for that idea would present reasons, or we'd dig in and discuss all together. If the person simply says "I can't handle it right now", we would automatically remove or replace the idea, because we're prioritizing ourselves first, otherwise we would start brainstorming new ways to present the idea that mitigate the aforementioned reasons. This meant that the final decision usually rested on the person responsible for the idea, and whether or not they (or a combination of people) could execute the alternative ideas. Our process really did help keep everyone on the same page about what is and isn't going to be in our vertical slice, and most importantly, it helps all of us stay sane and healthy.
Comments