Budget, Focus and UX : why less may mean more in video games.

While writing my previous post, one thing jumped out at me: Expedition 33 is also a UX success… because it doesn’t spread itself too thin.

And why doesn’t it spread itself too thin? Because the studio behind the game simply didn’t have the means. Human means, above all. A 30-person studio can’t afford the same extravagances as a 150-person one. And if the team is small, it’s often because the budget is too.

But is that really a problem?

Are games better under constraint?

A big budget guarantees nothing

One might think that the more money you put in, the better your chances of producing a good game. And yet…

A big budget means big resources: technical, human, marketing…

But does that mean a big budget guarantees a good game? You already suspect the answer is no.

There are many big-budget games that are outright failures. Let’s take a very telling example: Skull and Bones. A game that was even called “AAAA” (yes, with four A’s, according to Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot). The result? Fewer than a million players, a Metacritic score of 59%, and a critical flop.

Less money, more intention

On the other hand, there are dozens of modest games that achieve massive critical and commercial success. One of the best recent examples: Animal Well.

Animal Well is the project of a single man: Billy Basso. He developed the game in his spare time over 7 years, before gathering a micro-team to finalize the project.

Result: over 650,000 units sold, 90% on Metacritic, 95% positive reviews on Steam. A real hit.

UX is not a line of code

So what did Animal Well do better than Skull and Bones?

It’s impossible to compare the two directly — they’re not the same genre — but we can analyze the intention.

And you can guess I’m going to talk about user experience.

I haven’t played either of these games, so I’m not going to dwell on their menus or technical details.

But while those elements matter, they’re not everything.

A good UX is:

– a smooth experience

– intuitive actions

– immediate enjoyment (and even then… more on that in future articles)

It’s not:

– overly complex menus

– unclear intentions

– soulless mechanics

Who do we think about when we create a game?

This is where intention becomes everything.

Skull and Bones is a textbook case of what not to do. A game designed to reassure shareholders: season pass, live service, maximum profitability… Sure, it had mitigating circumstances: developed by a new studio in Singapore, forced by an agreement between Ubisoft and the local government, rebooted several times, with a final budget over 200 million euros.

And at no point do you feel the player was placed at the center of the project.

It was the wallet that was targeted. Not the enjoyment.

Animal Well, on the other hand, is a game designed to entertain.

Maybe Billy wanted to do more, maybe he was limited.

But in the end, we get a coherent, appreciated game that focuses on the essentials: a responsive, free, fun experience.

The game you feel before the perfect game

And that brings us back to Expedition 33. A game made by a player for players.

A good game doesn’t need to be technically perfect. (Even though technically, it only has minor flaws.)

It must first and foremost be felt, understood, and lived.

We’ll always forgive a few bugs in a fun game.

But a game with no joy? Impossible to redeem, even with 8K textures or a powerhouse engine.

And I sincerely believe the secret to a good game is simply this:

Think of your experience as a player, and aim to please the players above all else.

If you want to support me you can via the following link to purchase your games on Humble Bundle Store : humblebundleinc.sjv.io/qzNAJj