Blurring the Lines
An interview with Stephen Lewis, Game Designer

Posted February 1st, 2008

by Gamer-girl

Read our review of Chocolatier 2

Try Chocolatier 2 for an hour, free!

Stephen B. Lewis is co-founder and Chief Creative Officer of Big Splash Games, LLC, where he serves as a game designer, art director, artist and animator. He has over 16 years experience in the game industry, including prior employment at Linden Lab where he helped design and create the avatar system of Second Life, SEGA of Japan/America for coin-op arcade and Dreamcast titles, Acclaim Entertainment for their arcade division, and Epyx (when it was a bankrupt shell of its former self) creating PC games in 16 colors. Stephen lives in San Francisco with his wife, two young children, a cat, a frog, and two saltwater fish. He is also an urban beekeeper and is learning to play the ukulele.

G-G: Thanks for taking the time to talk with us!

Stephen: It's my pleasure, Tanya. Thank you for inviting me.

G-G: So how did the Chocolatier series come about?

Stephen: In late 2005 my two business partners, Michael Wyman and Jon Blossom, and I formed Big Splash Games to create a game we thought would be a good fit for the casual space (it /wasn't/ Chocolatier). We were all pretty busy with our real (paying) jobs so we worked on it in what little spare time we had. We each came from many years in the game industry, but this was our first baby step into the casual space. A few months later we had a playable prototype that we shopped around to a couple publishers to see if we could get some funding, or at least encouragement, to finish the game.

Playfirst was one of those publishers, and while they didn't want to move forward with the game we showed them, they did respond with a Request For Proposal (RFP). They were guessing (correctly, it turned out) that there was room for an economic simulation type game in the casual space and were hoping we might have another game idea more along those lines that we could submit.

The next morning, half-awake and daydreaming in the shower, I tried to imagine what could make something as dry as an economic simulation into something especially appealing to the casual game audience. Then I happened to remember what a little bird once told me; that many people, especially women, have an almost religious connection with chocolate (my wife being proof positive of that notion). Lightning struck and I quickly wrote up a game proposal and sent it to my partners. With some collaborative brainstorming we all agreed that we had come up with something that at least satisfied the requirements of the RFP. We sent a write-up of the concept to Playfirst, who responded with the news that we had hit the nail on the head. Chocolatier was born!

G-G: It feels really different than most 'casual' games for sale. Did the relative innnovation of the title make it difficult to market and publish?

Stephen: Well, it's not the only casual economic sim, though there still aren't too many out there. I think the innovation we made, and perhaps what made the game riskier to produce and market, was adding the arcade shooter element of chocolate production. We needed something to break up what could easily become a monotonous mechanic of buying low and selling high. The chocolate production mini-game serves to give the player a break from the long term economic strategic planning of the main game with something quick and fun that exercises a totally different part of the brain. But it does kind of muddy the water in terms of how to classify the type of game Chocolatier is. We probably spent as much time designing and tweaking the mini-game as we did the main game, so it was certainly a drain on our limited resources and budget. But looking back it was the right decision to make it an integral part of the overall game.

G-G: What concessions, if any, did you have to make in your design to satisfy the target demographics?

Stephen: I'm not sure I would classify any of the design decisions we made as "concessions." We were targeting the casual demographic from the start, so practically every decision we made was based on how it would help or hinder the casual audience we were trying to please. I think the budget, more than anything, constrained the direction we took the game. The original game we designed would have likely cost 2-3 times the budget we had for Chocolatier, so we had to do some creative pruning early on.

There are certain design guidelines to keep in mind when creating casual games, and I suppose you could call those concessions since they relate to making the game easy to learn, easy to play, and maybe even relatively easy to win, at least compared to games that are made specifically for "hard core" gamers. A concrete example of such a guideline would be to limit the player's interaction with the game UI to mouse inputs only; no keyboard. While those types of constraints can make certain design decisions difficult to execute, they do increase the size of the potential audience for the game, so it's important to keep them in mind.

G-G: What were your goals with Chocolatier and/or Chocolatier 2? Do you feel you met those goals?

Stephen: I think our primary goal for Chocolatier was to produce a game that would be well-received by a wide audience, since a success would mean we as Big Splash Games could continue our business and make more games! It's one thing to design a game on paper, but it's another to actually execute that vision, especially on the typically tight budgets and short production schedules of casual game development. Even if by a few small miracles the game is finished and released to the public there is certainly no guarantee that it will be any good, or that people will want to purchase it. So in reality I think that was a pretty lofty goal. It probably helped that we didn't know just how difficult it was going to be when we started out.

The goals of Chocolatier 2 were a bit different. We had proved the concept's viability with the success of [the original] Chocolatier, which let us and the publisher dive into the sequel with a little more confidence. Our main challenges were to finish the game on an even tighter schedule than the first one while at the same time make the game "bigger and better." There's a delicate balance when creating a sequel in that if it's too similar to the original the audience might not see the need to purchase it, while if you veer off too far from the original you might alienate the very folks who would be looking forward to a playing a sequel. In the worst case you could destroy whatever magic led to the original success. Based on the player reviews of Chocolatier 2 I think we found a happy medium.

G-G: What are you busy with these days? Any tidbits of Big Splash news/gossip?

Stephen: I'm not supposed to reveal our secret plans for dominating the world through casual games. I can tell you that we have several, non-chocolate themed games at various stages of development. Only one of them could be called an economic sim. We are hoping to broaden the notion not only of what we can do as a development studio, but of what a casual game can be. Rather than stick to safe formulas we're going to mix it up a bit and hopefully produce games that offer original play experiences. So I doubt you'll be seeing any match-3 or seek-and-find type games from the Big Splash crew. We're currently trying to figure out the best way for us to manage our own expansion so we can get our game ideas made and released sooner, rather than ... never.

G-G: How would you describe the state of the casual games industry right now?

Stephen: It's certainly still in an expanding phase, with some big entertainment and media companies starting to invest serious dollars towards developing a presence in the casual space. To be honest I'm concerned that, even though casual games as an industry is young, there seems to be little stomach for innovation. Casual games are still relatively inexpensive and quick to produce, which one might think would lead to more variety and originality in terms of game mechanics, themes, and visual styles. But how many ways can you fry a match-3? Unfortunately I think we're going to find out!

G-G: Where would you guess it's headed over the next ten years?

Stephen: I believe we're going to see the lines between casual games and "core" games blurring to the point that they're indistinguishable. The Wii platform offers many great examples of traditional games and game mechanics being introduced to folks who may not have ever played a game before. Casual games are reaching across from the other side of the isle to core gamers with games that provide accessible, quick, fun, and original experiences. Personally, I'll be happy when the terms "casual" and "core" are retired for good.

In the next couple years I think we'll see some major changes in the way games, and especially casual downloadable games, are bought and played. Right now for every 100 try-before-you-buy free downloads of a casual game only 2 are eventually purchased. And that's for the more successful games. It's a business model that kinda sorta works, but the publishers are all trying to figure out how to make money from some of those 98% of people who never purchase. So I think we'll see more "free" games that include in-game advertisements, micro-transactional add-ons, and probably some other business models that haven't been tried yet, but that will become the standard way for the casual game industry to survive and flourish.

G-G: What is it about casual games that most interests you, from a professional perspective? So many gamers seem to look down on them for whatever reason.

Stephen: I alluded to it above, but I have a little anecdote to share that illustrates what gets me excited about creating casual games.

We were nearing the end of developing [the original] Chocolatier, making some last minute tweaks, and doing a lot of informal testing on anyone we could grab and plunk down in front of a computer. My parents were visiting me from out of town and so I had them play together while I observed, silently taking notes. My parents turned out to be great test subjects for casual games because neither of them plays games at all. If they got stuck at some point I knew that was an area requiring adjustment.

As they played they argued and bickered over next steps and strategies, but between the two of them they were making pretty good progress. My mom especially seemed to "get" the game. All the hooks we had designed into that first hour of play seemed to be having their intended effect and she really was enjoying herself.

My dad, on the other hand, while understanding what was going on, didn't seem to be having much fun. He's technically not part of our target demographic, but I was still disappointed that he didn't seem to be affected by the game. Then, about 30 minutes into the test, they made their first big sale of chocolate, racking up several thousand dollars at once. I witnessed his attention physically shift into gear, like a switch was thrown. It took a big (virtual) cash payout to hook him, but suddenly even he was engaged!

To me, this illustrates the potential power of casual games in a very personal way. People who would never envision themselves as "gamers" can understand and enjoy a game as long as they are given the right instructions and rewards along the way. I think the emergence of casual games is part of the evolution of the game audience from a small niche of 11-year-old boys towards a broad, mainstream audience similar to moviegoers. As a game maker I derive much satisfaction knowing that I'm entertaining a wide audience with something I created, and if my non-gaming parents are entertained then I must have done something right.

As for some gamers looking down on casual games, I can only guess that the games they do like requires them to devote hours learning the complexities with the goal of eventually becoming an expert. They're part of an exclusive club with associated bragging rights for their hard-earned mastery and "pwnage." Casual games, intentionally designed to be quick and easy to learn by even the most novice players, won't necessarily satisfy that particular desire. Or maybe it's just too unsettling to know you could be outscored by your own grandmother!

G-G: What about the market particularly frustrates you, as a designer?

Stephen: As mentioned above, the lack of innovation is frustrating. More frustrating than the lack of originality, though, is a kind of careless attitude by the industry as a whole towards crafting polished games. So many games released seem half-done, incomplete, or under-tuned and tested. The pressure to crank out title after title in hopes of stumbling to the next big hit becomes so great that I think quality suffers.

I guess it's an industry wide tension between commodity and craft. As a designer I'm striving to craft a quality game experience. But it is a game /industry /after all, and games are probably seen more as a commodity by the bean counters. As part-owner of a small game studio trying to make it big, I have to admit to wearing the bean hat on occasion.

G-G: What games do you most enjoy playing, personally?

Stephen: As you may have guessed, I appreciate games that have some spark of originality and are well-crafted. In terms of casual games, lately I've purchased and enjoyed Home-Sweet-Home, Build-a-Lot, Turbo Subs, Platypus 2, Grimm's Hatchery, and Farm Frenzy. I download and try as many casual games as I can which usually means I don't get to sink my teeth into the good ones as much as I would like. On my Wii I've been playing Tennis with friends and family, Mario Party 8 with my daughter, and just bought Geometry Wars: Galaxies as a guilty pleasure. On my PC I'll occasionally fire up MS Flight Simulator X and Battlefield 2. And my all-time favorite game is the space shooter arcade game Galaga. Now I'm showing my age.

G-G: If you had unlimited resources and creative control, what game(s) would you want to design?

Stephen: It's an interesting question, but I'll side-step a specific answer by saying I don't think it would be a very good game! Game development is a collaboration of different people with different skills, and I'd never profess that only my ideas are the best. I also believe that unlimited resources would be a curse. Working within time and budget constraints forces creative choices to be made, and usually those choices lead to a better game, at least in my experience. A game with unlimited resources would never get finished, and there are plenty of examples in the history of the game industry to support that!

G-G: Thanks again!

Stephen: Thanks for the opportunity to rant and ramble, Tanya!

Respond on the forums
Return to the features listing