Normally I’m not interested in tech news, but it’s nice to be proven right once in a while. Back in March I wrote quite a theoretical post about whether it was possible to take on Microsoft Windows, and if so how. You can read the full article here, but in a nutshell my main suggestion was:
“Look at the trends with technology and the Internet. Everything is done on the internet these days and not locally — webmail (Gmail), pictures (flickr), music and video streaming (lastfm, youtube, etc), gaming, and more. Everyone has a website, or a myspace profile, or a facebook page, or a blog — a lot of people have all of those and more. What I’m getting at here is that if you’re going to take on Microsoft, you have to be prepared to take a leap and do something no one else is willing to do.
My idea is simple but a little scary — integrate the operating system with the Internet. So instead of using Firefox, or Chrome, the entire OS is the browser. I don’t mean like that crappy active desktop feature in windows, I mean 100% full integration.” David vs. Goliathsoft
And, big surprise, yesterday Google announced that they’re adapting their Chrome web browser into a fully-fledged operating system (initially for netbooks, mind).
“We designed Google Chrome for people who live on the web — searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends. However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web. So today, we’re announcing a new project that’s a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It’s our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be.
…
We hear a lot from our users and their message is clear — computers need to get better. People want to get to their email instantly, without wasting time waiting for their computers to boot and browsers to start up. They want their computers to always run as fast as when they first bought them. They want their data to be accessible to them wherever they are and not have to worry about losing their computer or forgetting to back up files. Even more importantly, they don’t want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware, or have to worry about constant software updates. And any time our users have a better computing experience, Google benefits as well by having happier users who are more likely to spend time on the Internet.” Introducing Google Chrome OS
As I said before, for many people, Google = The Internet, so I think it makes natural (marketing) sense for them to take this step. Whether it’s the right step to take, is another matter entirely. Like Microsoft, Google are dipping their toes into a lot of different markets (it’s been speculatated that they’ve lost between $174m-$470m on YouTube this year), and honestly, I would have preferred an outsider to have taken this step.
That said, I swear by GMail, and someone needs to give Microsoft a run for their money, so Google is as good as any.
Pretty blunt, eh? It got me interested in finding out more about gamma correction and linear colour space, but unfortunately the majority of articles assume a fairly advanced level of understanding 3d graphics software and rendering programs. So what follows is a simplified, condensed summary of the topic, as I understand it. My aim is to try and present this in a form that’s clear and practical enough for intermediate/hobbyist artists, like myself, to understand and use. It’s taken me a while to get my head around this, so bear with me.
The basic theory is this:
3d rendering software renders at a different gamma setting (1: linear colour space) to what your monitor is set at (2.2 on pc, 1.8 on mac). This is correct — it’s supposed to do this to get the light calculations right. But what it means is that you have to manually apply gamma correction to your rendered image afterwards (either in Photoshop, or by the rendering software itself).
Unfortunately, a lot of people aren’t aware that their output render needs to be gamma corrected (and traditionally, the default settings don’t enable it), so instead, when they render their work, they compensate by adding more lights, and other shader “tricks”. While this is OK for most people; technically speaking, the renders are physically inaccurate (i.e. WRONG), and you’re not making the most of the renderer. You’ll will also see more visible problems when you use more advanced lighting, such as fall off.
Furthermore, the majority of the textures you put into your renderer have already been gamma corrected beforehand (in photoshop). So what happens when you apply gamma correction to your image at the end is that it gets applied twice (before rendering, and then afterwards) — making the image look washed out. Since you only want gamma correction to be applied at the end of your rendering pipeline, it’s necessary to gamma un-correct all of your texture maps, materials, and shaders before the renderer works with them.
So in a nutshell, what you need your software to do is:
1. Input Gamma: Automatically apply gamma un-correction to your texture maps, shaders and materials beforehand, by an inverse gamma of 2.2. (i.e. 1/2.2 = 0.4545454…)
2. Output Gamma: Automatically apply gamma correction to your rendered output, thus bringing your image to the correct colour space as your monitor (2.2. or 1.8.).
The settings will vary from program to program, but at the very least you should expect to see input and output gamma settings.
If your rendering software doesn’t have any options for Gamma correction (e.g. Daz Studio 2.x), then you can still work in linear colour space, but it’s a heck of a lot harder to set up and more difficult to tell if you’re doing it correctly.
1. Input Gamma: You have to un-gamma correct everything by hand (i.e. in Photoshop). And I mean everything — textures, shaders, colours — the works. You can use an inverse gamma curve to do this, or by adjusting the input levels midpoint by 0.455 (image-> adjustments->levels…).
2. Output Gamma: Simply apply 2.2 gamma correction inside Photoshop (or equivalent), and hope for the best.
The problem with this method is in how accurate your gamma correction is. I’m still using regular Photoshop CS, and there are no explicit gamma controls. Even worse, changing the gamma via levels gives me a slightly different results to using curves, making reliability an issue.
[ EDIT: I've just discovered a more consistent and reliable way of correcting the gamma in Photoshop, using colour profiles. Essentially what you do is make a linear colour space profile with a gamma of 1.0, and then you assign this profile to your textures and renders before working on them. When you finish, you convert your render to sRGB or AdobeRGB and it does the gamma correction automatically. I'll add this section in later after I've experimented with it further.]
If that was a load - don’t worry. It’s taken me the better part of a year to get my head around it, and in spite of that, I’m still not crystal clear on some parts.
However, I will end this by saying that understanding linear colour space and gamma is worth the effort. It might not instantly transform your images into works of art, but the lighting will at least look natural — even if your characters don’t.
I know hardly anyone reads this, but for those that are, I’m currently trying to relaunch and redesign this thing. Until it’s finished, you’ll probably see a few incomplete pages crop up, and other things disappear, change, turn upside-down, inside-out, etc — just put it down to a glitch in the Matrix.
This is a pretty neat game that’s doing the rounds on the Alan Wake and 3dr forums. You just create a ‘brute’ and then watch it duke it out with other people’s brutes. The more fights you win, the more neat stuff you unlock. It’s pretty addictive.
The race to get to level 10 is on — whoever gets there first gets to start the official Alan Wake forum clan.
As a competitor, I don’t need to be sold the OS, I need to be sold the market strategies that will overcome the entrenched titan.
This means don’t respond to me with lofty theories and vague action plans filled with wordsmithing. I already know I have to be able to offer something cheaper, stronger, quicker, and without a system shock changeover. No shit, Sherlock. Tell me how I can do any of this better than Microsoft without referring to more dictionary terms or vague statements. Best of all, and really the only pertinent thing: Show me who has done it before given similar, analogous circumstances.
I’ve been wanting to respond to this comment since it was posted; but every time I try, the post mushrooms into business and marketing rhetoric, and I know Raveness has a strong intolerance for bullshit. Sadly this attempt ended up in the same way, but screw it, I’m posting it this time. Like it or lump it.
Short answer – if you’re gonna take on the leader of any business, you have to do the opposite of what they’re doing. Do what Nintendo did with the Wii, and laugh as Sony and MS blatantly struggle to catch up. Otherwise you’re a follower, and by definition, followers do not lead. Whoops, it’s already begun…
Okay what the hell, here’s the loooong answer:
Find a future
Look at the trends with technology and the internet. Everything is done on the internet these days and not locally — webmail (Gmail), pictures (flickr), music and video streaming (lastfm, youtube, etc), gaming, and more. Everyone has a website, or a myspace profile, or a facebook page, or a blog — a lot of people have all of those and more. What I’m getting at here is that if you’re going to take on Microsoft, you have to be prepared to take a leap and do something no one else is willing to do.
My idea is simple but a little scary — integrate the operating system with the Internet. So instead of using firefox, or chrome, the entire OS is the browser. I don’t mean like that crappy active desktop feature in windows, I mean 100% full integration.
Now, I’m not a hardware expert, so you’ll have to humour me on the technical side of things. I’m not interested in whether it’s possible now, with current technology and architectures. That’s the wrong approach. I’m interested in whether it’s conceptually possible in the future – ten, twenty, even thirty years on from now, and what steps would we have to take to make it happen. Even if it means building a new computer to support it.
So to flesh it out a bit. Instead of a main hardrive, all of your data is stored on separate severs (like how gmail works) [it would be necessary to have a small disk drive for the basic OS to work with, but the core idea is that 90% of data is streamed from and stored online]. For example, instead of opening a ‘My Pictures’ folder, you open a window which plugs directly into your flickr account. Instead of a music or video directory, you would just be plugged automatically into last fm, itunes, youtube, amazon, or whatever else you fancy. Likewise, software would be run server side — you’d have a licence for photoshop, and it runs via the net, like SumoPaint. Same goes for games (the technology is nearly there). Lastly, instead of web pages, you’d just have windows (that can be tabbed, scrolled, etc, like you’d expect). ‘Bookmarks’ would be accessed from icons on the desktop, and from the equivalent of the windows’ start menu.
One of the main advantages of this setup is that your operating system and files would be independent from the physical computer you’re using. So whether you’re using a desktop, laptop, palm, or mobile phone (I said this was in the future, right?), you’d have direct access to the same content. Facebook is along these lines — you have a home page, and you can ‘install’ applications into it (like poker, for example). You can then run them on any computer that gives you access to facebook. That’s similar to what I’m getting at, but on a much grander scale.
Now, I realise that the technology is no where near ready to take this kind of strain. But we’re already seeing steps towards this future, and who knows maybe 10-20 years we’ll see something like this happen. There’s also the whole Big Brother thing which is a serious concern, but that’s another argument for another day.
Make the competition obsolete
Whether you like the above idea or not, my main point is that to take on Microsoft, you have to do something radical and a bit crazy. Above all, you have to do something different. I can’t stress that enough. If your gut reaction was “Ick, I don’t like the sound of that, where will I hide my porn…” then I say GOOD. If everyone, especially Microsoft, are saying “That’s insane, it’ll never work” you’re probably onto a good thing. Because you can’t beat them point-for-point on stability and features alone — it doesn’t work that way. Most people expect quality and reliability as standard.
Lou Gerstner of IBM once said about Microsoft:
“Our biggest competitor in software is not a very good technical company. But it’s one of the best marketing companies I’ve seen, and I’ve spent twenty years in marketing.”
Everyone knows that Linux and Mac are more stable, and have a better design & features than Windows. I know this because every time I speak to a Mac or Linux user, they insist on telling me about it. Everyone still uses Windows regardless. Why? Because Microsoft introduced the concept of windows to the world — not the OS — I mean the idea of having resizeable boxes that can display and store content in them. Even now, right now, you are reading this text inside of a window! The genius of this is that we take them for granted. It’s ingrained in us. Even on Mac and Linux, we still call them Windows. Children are taught at school how to use Windows. No matter what you think about marketing, this is powerful psychology at work here.
So to beat Microsoft at their own game, you have to do two things, simply put. The first thing is that you have to envision a future that embraces technological, cultural, and business trends, and presents it in a way that fundamentally rejects the entire concept of windows.
“Windows..? ” your marking slogans should run, “Are a two-dimensional concept from the 1980s. We invite you to step outside of Windows, into the sunshine, and embrace the future. We believe that future is…” whatever.
“A world without Windows? Are you nuts!?” The clue is in the username, but let me elaborate. This is exactly what Microsoft did to the precursor of Windows — DOS. DOS was a command-line OS, which Windows made obsolete by introducing a graphical interface and the concept of windows, icons, menus, and scroll bars. It also introduced a new input device — the mouse. What Windows did to DOS, we have to do to Windows. Now, I realise that I’m not offering a concrete answer here (if I had the answer I wouldn’t be writing this, I’d be out making my fortune), but lets look at the Nintendo Wii as an example.
A success story – The Nintendo Wii
After the Snes era, Nintendo got trounced by backstabbers Sony and their new Playstation generation. Nintendo’s audience had grown up, and wanted something a little more adult — like Metal Gear Solid, Lara Croft, Tekken, Resident Evil, and Grand Theft Auto. Unfortunately, Nintendo were divided on this and weren’t able to adapt quickly enough to the market. Before they knew it, their old time rival Sega had been replaced by none other than Microsoft. Nintendo limp-in with the Gamecube and get eaten alive. Game over for Nintendo? No – the situation is now reversed. Ignoring Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony became so preoccupied with out-doing each other on the hardcore market, that they never saw the monster curve ball coming around the corner…. “A console that isn’t graphically superior to its peers? That uses a remote control as its primary input? Are they nuts!?”
And the result? As of December 2008, the Wii has almost sold more units worldwide than the Xbox360 and PS3 combined. Moreover, unlike it’s competitors, the Wii doesn’t lose money on its hardware production costs (that would normally be recouped in software sales). Nintendo realised that the future wasn’t with the hardcore demographic, but the rest of the world. Being the Disney of the games industry, it was no problem for them to cater to this market, which is what they’re also doing with the DS (you can laugh at those cooking book ‘games’, but they’re selling like hotcakes). In other words, Nintendo rejected two fundamental norms about the games industry — that the primary audience are males, 15-30, who like games about sex and violence; and that graphics and raw processing power are the driving force of the industry (as opposed to creative and innovative use of technology; which is fundamentally what videogames are all about).
Save the cheerleader Destroy the brand, save the world
To beat Microsoft, like Nintendo did, you have to reject the norms they’ve ingrained into everyone. You have to make the notion of windows conceptually obsolete so that Microsoft can’t just integrate your new ideas into their own OS model (e.g. tabbed browsing, desktop widgets, etc). So not only would they be forced to redesign their operating system from the ground up, but they would also have to consider renaming it as well, because the word ‘Windows’ itself becomes obsolete. Basically what I’m saying is that to beat Microsoft, you can’t just beat the product, you have to destroy the Windows brand as well.
Of course that’s easier said than done. The problem is that windows is such a damn good idea that it’s hard to imagine anything else (my own OS idea above, clearly uses it as a frame of reference). It’s like trying to imagine a car without wheels. Maybe a 3D OS with portals instead of windows? A few attempts have been made, but we need a revolution, not a gimmick. That’s why, as a stopgap, I’m moving for the internet integration as the primary hook, rather than the interface itself. But again, let me repeat: to beat Microsoft, you need to kill the windows brand. Portals, Doors, and TV channels are all effectively the same as windows (if it looks like a duck…) so they’re hardly the knockout punch we’re looking for.
Finally
Assuming you do figure out your brilliant, revolutionary concept, you’ve got to deliver it — when they least expect it and when it’ll do the most damage. Given that Vista is faltering, to the extent where it’s starting to parallel the epic disaster of New Coke (Hilariously, Microsoft are even doing blind taste-tests, called the mojave experiment); and Microsoft are distracted in the games industry; NOW would have been a really good time to launch a brand new, arse kicking, all singing, all dancing, Operating System from a fresh, hip, and unknown software company (I was going to say ‘think of microsoft in the 80s…’ but they weren’t). For now, lets call it OS Awsome.
Microsoft maintain this “Anything you can do, we can do better” attitude which can be clearly seen in the thinking behind Silverlight (Flash) and XBL avatars (Miis). So the second thing you have to do to beat Microsoft, is you have to bring your vision of the future to the mass-market before anyone else does. You have to be “Firstest with the mostest”. Otherwise forget it. After Neil and Buzz, do you know the names of the other men who walked on the moon? (without looking it up). History remembers leaders, not followers. Also, if you’re the leader, you have an edge, because you’re the one making the moves, while everyone else reacts.
Apple iPod is the textbook example these days. There are plenty of rival MP3 players out there (I myself use a creative zen stone – quality audio on a budget ), but Apple are the most successful because they were the first to bring their iPod brand to the mass-market. Not only that, but they followed through with iTunes, making mp3s popular and kick-starting the whole legal mp3 download trends (getting backing from the major record labels in the process). They lead the market because they saw a growing trend (rising popularity of mp3s) and they went in for the kill with the marketing equivalent of guns, tanks, and missiles. Firstest with the mostest. It’s a horrible violation of the English language, but there’s no better way of putting it.
And that’s exactly what you have to do — be different and be first. If the competition is going left, go right. If the competition going right, go forwards, or inside out, or daffodil, or meringue. Yes, Microsoft are a large and powerful corporation. No question. But they’re getting to that complacent stage where they’ve got loads of money and don’t know what to do with it — expanding into new markets that have nothing to do with pc software or operating systems. This will make them vulnerable — like IBM in the late 80s, and GM today. So if you want to take a Goliath like Microsoft down with a single stone, wait until he turns his back, or trips up, or starts to juggle too many balls — and then aim for his nuts and throw as hard as you can!
And that’s it. Easy huh? Think I’ll start working on OS AWESOME tonight…
Oh and I don’t think it’s going to be Google that does it (although for many Google = The Internet, so who better to launch an internet based operating system like I suggested).
Incidentally, I’d like to just neuter this entire post by saying I’ve got nothing against Microsoft, Windows, or Games, or the people that work there. They’re a great company and they make good software. I’ve met some of the guys at MGS, and they’re cool guys – very engaging and open minded. So for me, this is merely an interesting thought exercise…. /trademarks OS AWESOME
Glad I got that off my chest.
Sidenote
(For those that bothered to actually read all this)
It’s also worth noting that iPod wasn’t the first portable MP3 player on the market. The MPMan was. The lesson here is that you don’t win a race by being the first to cross the finish line. Races are won by being seen to cross the finish line first. Christopher Columbus wasn’t the first to discover America, but he’s the one we all remember. Likewise, when Google release the worlds first Internet driven OS, do you think I’ll get any credit? No.
Why hasn’t Apple repeated their success with iPod? Lets see… iMac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone… What’s next? iDunno? iWalk? iTalk? iLaugh? iLove? iThink therefore iAm? iPod was a success because it came at the right time, captured the imagination of a generation, and it took off. Not because Apple are wizards at marketing.
Apple Macs aren’t sufficiently unique compared to PCs and Windows. Sure iMacs look chic, but under the bonnet, there’s no real surprises. Nothing revolutionary. And certainly nothing that could dent the windows brand (like I said earlier, we still call those boxes windows). If they can’t be the leaders, then they need to be ‘the alternative’, not ’second best’.
I honestly don’t rate the iPhone either, but that’s another story.
Oh and Macs only have one mouse button – so annoying.
Further reading
Most of the marketing side of this is based on Ries & Ries ideas; so credit where credit is due:
Here are the tentative chapter headings for my long overdue Katana postmortem.
Introduction
All good things start with a concept and a prototype
The Early days – Katana2.0 R&D (messing about)
Enter StratonAce
Raising our game – the first trailer and the impact of Kung Fu 3
Focusing on Production
Post-Production (the last 6 months) (aka Running a Marathon)
PR, Release, and Critical Reception, Legacy
What went right
What went wrong
Conclusion and closing remarks
There’s no ETA on this yet. It wont be a book or anything, but I hope to shed some light on how two guys who barely knew each other, dedicated their lives for almost 2.5 years on this (then) ambitious mod project. It also parallels my personal journey as an unknown hobbyist modder, to someone seriously moving towards games production as a career.
With that in mind, it’ll probably take a production focus, looking at the things that went right, and the things that, in retrospect, didn’t work out so well. This is not about dwelling the past — the goal here is to give other people thinking about starting similar projects an idea of how this thing mushroomed from a modest demo; the work it required; and the problems that arose.
It will also give me a chance to reflect back on this project, which I believe is probably my most successful, in terms of quality, scope, and production method. Sometimes I find myself moving forward too quickly, that you forget where you came from. While Polar Paradise edges it on production (we had a schedule!!! and documentation!!!) the workload was (intentionally) MUCH smaller. It’s also too recent — so I’ll save that one for another day.
I’ve not spoken to Shane in a while, so I’ve no idea yet if it’ll represent his side of the story or not.
Shocked about Rockstar’s announcement yesterday? He’s left New York? Grown a beard!? Shaved his head!!? Is this really the same Max Payne we know and love? The man with a monster body count and nothing to lose?
The answer is …yes, actually.
In case you had any doubts, I’ve prepared several images to illustrate (conclusively, I hope) that Timothy Gibbs is still playing Max Payne. At least, his likeness is used in the original Max Payne 3 poster that hit the news yesterday.
There was already some kind of suspicion that it looked a bit like him (as these two images demonstrate – click for larger versions), but it wasn’t until I started rooting around the original Max Payne 2 photoshoot looking for similar images, that I hit the jackpot.
Something struck me about this photo, but it wasn’t until I flipped it around and superimposed the Max Payne 3 image over, that it jumped out at me. And standing there, facing the pure horrifying precision, I came to realise the obviousness of the truth. It’s the same image.
To the trained eye, I think the images speak for themselves, but as a personal exercise, and to eliminate any doubts lets look a bit closer…
Real facial analysis can get quite complicated, especially if the two faces are looking in different directions, or there’s little source material available, like in Vanity Fair’s recently rediscovered photo of Robert Johnson. You have to map structural points on the skull (e.g. the brow, cheekbones, etc) which should remain consistent regardless of the direction of the head and type of facial expression. However, I didn’t have to worry about this, because I was already 95% confident that they were the same image — I just wanted to prove it. And if they were, it should be a simple case of making sure the proportions and facial features (eyes, noes, mouth, ears,…) are the same. Click on the black and white images for details.
As you can see, the proportions are roughly the same; the features are the same; and so is the lighting. And that concludes a rather over-exhaustive analysis that I think proves something most people had already figured out for themselves. Well, I hope someone found it interesting. o_O
Please bear in mind that I’m working on the assumption that Rockstar’s artist has likely either painted directly over the photo in Photoshop, or eyeballed it, so there will be some minor differences, and not to mention artistic license (like the beard! and him possibly being bald). Also, I had to scale the photo up to match the painted one, so it might not be 100% exact.
What I find curious is why Rockstar used a photo from Max Payne 2 as a template for promoting the third game, and not a brand new image. Perhaps they thought Max’s new look would go down better if, at an unconscious level, it was familiar. Or maybe the graphic novel photoshoots are still in production. Your guess is as good as mine.
I’d also like to say at this point that while I’ve read a lot of mixed feedback regarding Max’s new look and Remedy not being involved; I’m trying to keep an open mind on this. I’m apprehensive about the sequel as everyone is, but so far all we’ve seen is one image of Max and a very vague overview, and already people are jumping to conclusions and casting judgements. Remember, the series was always designed to support several follow-up titles, with or without Remedy.
It’s T2/Rockstar’s series now, and I think it’s important that they take the opportunity to shape it into their own game now, and not just make a poor imitation of Remedy’s own unique style. Of course, the catch is to do this without completely alienating the original fanbase. Crystal Dynamics have proven that it’s possible for another studio to pick up the torch and resurrect a series without destroying the magic of the original, so why not give Rockstar Vancouver the benefit of the doubt? That is… at least until a screenshot or video is posted (then it’s fair game).
UPDATE 01/07/2009
Okay, time for a quick update now that the first batch of screenshots are out. Is Timothy Gibbs still Max Payne? Is Max Payne 3 still Max Payne? Honestly I’m not sure anymore. However, I still stand by my original image/facial analysis. That is: I still think that the image above is based on the photo of Gibbs from Max Payne 2 (regardless of the proportions, the individual facial features, expression, and highlights/shadows are too similar). Whether or not the actual 3d model used in the game and subsequent pr images are based on Gibbs’ likeness or someone else is another matter entirely.
Given how they’ve drastically altered the look of the game, it makes sense to me that Rockstar would opt to use Gibb’s likeness for the first pr image simply to avoid completely alienating the existing Max Payne fanbase (especially now that James McCaffery isn’t voicing Max either). As for the rest of the game… I just don’t know. To me it looks like they’re shooting for a City of God vibe, which could work I suppose.
Now that I’m finished with university, I’ve been talking to a few people lately about the ‘good old days’ of modding — how we first met, etc. Anyway, while searching gaming magazines for my portfolio, I stumbled on the original article which got me interested in the Max Payne modding scene in the first place. The contents shouldn’t be of any great surprise – Kung fu and The Matrix (Dodge This to be precise).
(click to enlarge)
It’s hard to explain the effect this article had on me. I’d vaugely heard of Max Payne from friends at college (according to them, it wasn’t very good ), and I was a big Matrix fan. So the idea of making Matrix style levels with Bullet Time and now ‘Kung Fu’ sounded too good to be true. Bear in mind, my previous game design experience was tile-based Qbasic games (simple RPGs, etc), and very basic Duke3d maps — all on a 486 (I only got my ‘new’ pc a few months before this article).
I guess that screenshot of Morpheus jumping across the rooftops (bottom left) just ‘did it’ for me. Within a month I had bought the game, torn my hair out trying it working, run through the MaxED & milkshape tutorials, and joined MPHQ and 3drealms.
[I don't want to end on a cliché, so I won't say "and the rest is history." ]
Just a quick post today: if you’ve already read about positioning, this is probably preaching to the converted, but otherwise, from the man himself, Al Ries:
It should be pretty obvious now why Katana was renamed from the generic: “Katana v2 [K2]: Cold Steel” (I still cringe when I hear it), to just ‘Katana‘. Simple, meaningful names are the most effective.
Where the two views differ slightly is on descriptive/meaningful names vs. unique ’shocking’ brand names. Good descriptive game names would probably include Doom, Tomb Raider, SimCity, and Prey; whereas good (semi) abstract names might include Quake, Half-Life, Unreal, Grand Theft Auto, and Wii. On the one hand you could argue that the first kind are more effective because they’re already meaningful; but on the other hand, as Al Ries points out, words by themselves don’t have meaning until you add one (Google, Kleenex, eBay, etc). In the context of games, I’d lean towards more meaningful names, but clearly good judgement and common sense is required. I went for Katana because a) it was obvious, and b) it’s the key gameplay mechanic of the mod – so much so, the hero practically has the Katana grafted to his hand.
The other (perhaps most effective) strategy is to name your game after the central character(s) – e.g. Duke Nukem, Max Payne, Alan Wake, Super Mario Bros., Phoenix Wright, Lara Croft, etc. This is ideal if your character has a clever name like Max Payne (maximum pain), Alan Wake (awake), and Duke Nukem, which hints at the kind of game it is, thus giving it some meaning. Again, this goes back to the whole Marion Morrison / John Wayne idea — if you give your character a strong name, appropriate to their genre/brand, it can be an extremely powerful marketing tool; whereas if your name isn’t appropriate (Ralph Lifschitz?) you headed for trouble. The trick is not to slip into generic city with “The adventures of…”, which is why Polar Paradise isn’t called “Dinky’s Christmas Adventure”. Unfortunately at the time of release, the hero of Katana didn’t have a name; and now that he does (’Tao’), I don’t think it would have worked as well.
Did Katana benefit from its name? I like to think so. Next to ‘Kung Fu’ (another great name, except that its real name is: Max Payne: Kung Fu Edition version 3) Katana is regarded as one of the top Max Payne 1 mods ever created. And it can’t have been worse than the utterly generic ‘K2′ – what was I thinking?
Another benefit was that it kept the mod focused. When the mod was called ‘K2…’, a lot of different bladed weapons were being considered – steel fans, scythes, broadswords, nun-chucks, — even the Gunblade from FF8. So, when the mod was renamed back to Katana, it became pretty obvious that making amazing Katana combat was my number 1 priority.
It’s taken me the better part of a year to get my head around it, and in spite of that, I’m still not crystal clear on some parts.
” your marking slogans should run, “Are a two-dimensional concept from the 1980s. We invite you to step outside of Windows, into the sunshine, and embrace the future. We believe that future is…” whatever.
This is exactly what Microsoft did to the precursor of Windows — DOS. DOS was a command-line OS, which Windows made obsolete by introducing a graphical interface and the concept of windows, icons, menus, and scroll bars. It also introduced a new input device — the mouse. What Windows did to DOS, we have to do to Windows. Now, I realise that I’m not offering a concrete answer here (if I had the answer I wouldn’t be writing this, I’d be out making my fortune), but lets look at the Nintendo Wii as an example.
The problem is that windows is such a damn good idea that it’s hard to imagine anything else (my own OS idea above, clearly uses it as a frame of reference). It’s like trying to imagine a car without wheels. Maybe a 3D OS with portals instead of windows? A few attempts have been made, but we need a revolution, not a gimmick. That’s why, as a stopgap, I’m moving for the internet integration as the primary hook, rather than the interface itself. But again, let me repeat: to beat Microsoft, you need to kill the windows brand. Portals, Doors, and TV channels are all effectively the same as windows (if it looks like a duck…) so they’re hardly the knockout punch we’re looking for.
); and Microsoft are distracted in the games industry; NOW would have been a really good time to launch a brand new, arse kicking, all singing, all dancing, Operating System from a fresh, hip, and unknown software company (I was going to say ‘think of microsoft in the 80s…’ 
iPod was a success because it came at the right time, captured the imagination of a generation, and it took off. Not because Apple are wizards at marketing.
), and I was a big Matrix fan. So the idea of making Matrix style levels with Bullet Time and now ‘Kung Fu’ sounded too good to be true. Bear in mind, my previous game design experience was tile-based Qbasic games (simple RPGs, etc), and very basic Duke3d maps — all on a 486 (I only got my ‘new’ pc a few months before this article).
