BRIAN HERSCH
General Partner, Hersch and Company
Brian Hersch has designed all types of games, including Internet games, apps, CD-ROM games, DVD games, and television game shows. He is best known for his blockbuster board games including Taboo, Outburst, Oodles, SongBurst, Malarkey, Trivial Pursuit DVD Pop Culture, Hilarium, ScrutinEyes, and Out of Context.
On getting into the game industry:
Trivial Pursuit unlocked my creative curiosity, and my business background led me to conduct a market research study of games in general, and the then-burgeoning adult game category. The interpretation of that research resulted in a recognition that a number of sociological imperatives were all coalescing at that time. A recession was impacting entertainment budgets. The baby boom was strapped with bills, had demonstrated a willingness to entertain at home, and had a predisposition to play board games. So the opportunity presented itself, and I jumped in. Happily, our interpretations were correct, and our creative efforts resonated with the public, and our games sold.
On favorite games:
• Taboo: Because it is one of my babies, and it really demonstrated how the simplest concept can be translated into fun.
• Carducci: Though it was never licensed, this was the game that I am proudest of. It has so many creative and fun elements, and people seem to really enjoy it when we play (even though no company can figure out a marketing strategy for it).
• Poker: Because I enjoy taking money from my friends.
• Trivial Pursuit: Because it was perfectly suited for my brain full of garbage, and it was the catalyst for my entry into this business.
• My most recent game: Because I really get enthused by my work and I never send a game out unless I really enjoy it and am proud to have my name on it.
On inspiration:
I am not sure that my design instincts are inspired as much by games as by outside influences. I happen to design games. And, obviously, I have an understanding of play patterns and compelling entertainments. But I think purely from a design standpoint, I am often more stimulated and inspired by non-game products: art, photography, architecture, edgy commercial products, and innovations. I think I fear being over influenced by other game designers’ works, and I worry about the impact on my own desire for originality. one. That’s the art.
On prototypes:
I am a big believer in prototypes. Like the game itself, they start off simplistic and a bit rough, and eventually they refine into parts that support and heighten the game experience. Judging the gameplay really requires that test players are not distracted by the “idea” of components rather than having examples of the component to work with. Cards can be hand drawn, but they need to be cards (as opposed to a list of material on a sheet of paper, for example). Often the specialness of the game is found in a single unique component. My best example would be the buzzer in Taboo. The original prototype was made from my garage door opener. But players at least had the chance to push a button and react to that bzzzzzz. That single component supported the game play, added fun, had a tactile feel, and allowed people to be free of structure.
Implementing test results:
There is a natural inclination to interpret testing results as misunderstandings, or misrepresentations, or anything but evidence of flaws that need to be addressed. It is critical to accept the possibility that you miscalculated in your thinking or design. Maybe it can be corrected. Maybe it is just fundamentally not an attractive entertainment. It is what it is. If you aren’t honest about the test feedback, then you will be wasting the time of the folks you would like to license it from you, and if you do that too often, you will wear out your welcome. Fix it if you can. But if it isn’t, move on to your next attempt.
We once had a game that tested really well. Interesting theme. Good engagement. Played for just the right amount of time. Etc. After the test plays, everyone on our end was thrilled. And then we shelved the game. Buried it and moved on. The test results were accurate. We saw all the good things with our own eyes. But the most telling recognition was that not a single one of the test players would have walked across to the mall and bought the game. Even on sale. They played it. They enjoyed it. But they were never going to become evangelists for the game—going forth and showing it off and spreading the gospel of its greatness. Now that is a very shortened version of the facts and process, but it is a perfect example of taking the time to allow the truth of the test process to marinate and impact our efforts.
Advice to designers:
Gamble. Try and do new things. Be original in your thinking. Remember that you are attempting to put entertainment in a box. If you can engage people, make them laugh, spend a compelling hour, then you have succeeded. But it will always feel more satisfying if it is not derivative. Be original—the only thing you have to fear is rejection. And you’re going to get plenty of that anyhow.