A year ago we released the second hit of Beresnev Games — Gallery: coloring book & decor. This unique project, which combines the mechanics of renovation and painting, never ceases to delight millions of players with cool art and stories of Mia and Leo, and the BG team — with its metrics. Ivan Tensin, one of those who led the project through pre-production until the very release, recalls how the “Gallery” was created.
BG:Hello! Tell us a little about yourself, what role did you play on the project?
IVAN: It is difficult to single out any specific role, since at the time of development the team was not fully formed and I had to deal with everything from game design to backlog maintenance and painting testing, so I would call myself a jack of all trades. Then, when the project was already deep in release, I mainly performed the tasks of the project and product manager.
BG: Why, after Flippy Knife, who staked out the status of hyper-casual guru for Beresnev Games, did you decide not to concentrate on this genre, but to try yourself in others?
IVAN:Flippy knife later grew from a hyper-casual into a kind of soft-casual, with in-app monetization and even a subscription system, which can hardly be called a small project, but it was not “big enough” for us. The company had a goal to do something really big, with good long-term retention, aimed at in-app monetization. We also wanted to use the powerful studio’s visual background and everything related to design, that is, the strengths of Beresnev Games. All these factors gave us the idea to combine core activity in the form of coloring book with the metagame in the form of home renovation. We had an understanding that there are two audiences who love both, and so the idea of Gallery came about.
“Gallery” presentation
BG:Which USPs of the project were initially planned and which ones were eventually implemented?
IVAN:The main USP is that mixture of coloring book and decoration / renovation meta. From the very beginning, we saw a lot of reviews in the store as soon as we launched the game, which sounded something like this: “Cool! Finally I found a coloring book with a story! ” Or “I can renovate the house and not move those horrible balls to make them three in a row!!!” The coloring book games at that time could not offer anything with a rich meta, and when we rolled out our product, in fact, the players got what they wanted. Meanwhile, the audiences of these two mechanics (match-3 and decoration) are actually quite similar.
BG:In the match-3 genre, there are many limiting and constraining factors that are not found in our Gallery: timers, turn limits, etc. How were these factors taken into account? Why did you decide not to use them?
IVAN:At the time when the game was being created, there was not much experience, it was not completely clear what metrics such a game should have. If we compare it with match-3, then the main factor of monetization for them is losing. People lose, and if they lose, they are willing to make a payment to complete the level.
In our game, we initially assumed that players would pay for the same thing, but how well it would work we did not understand…
We tested several options at the soft launch:
- a hybrid version, where the levels alternated in difficulty (some of them were levels with a timer, some were without);
- a hardcore version, where all the levels were with a timer (some of them were with a larger amount of time per level, some with a smaller);
- and the current version where there was no loss at all. One simply can’t lose.
In those versions where there was a possibility to fail, the income was really higher, but the retention was two times lower, the main metric that shows the health of the product. The timer on the levels contradicted the basic principle of coloring — “relaxation”. People entered the game to relax, but instead saw a timer and were forced to paint over segments in a panic. In addition, it was very difficult to balance the levels, because in some pictures the number of segments can be more than 1000+. Someone can complete a picture in 3 minutes, and someone in 20, and it is extremely difficult to find a balanced solution.
We made a decision that retention is a priority and it is better to tighten up monetization in other ways.
Launching of “Gallery”
BG:Another question about monetization: is there a feeling that with a different core gameplay, the game’s income could be higher?
IVAN:The match-3 pattern has already been proven over the years, many studios create match-3 games to this day and are feeling okay. But from the very beginning we wanted to create a unique product that had no analogues. In terms of income alone, current retention and match-3 core would probably generate more income. But it is also important to understand that by implementing a match-3 game, we would be on the same line with hundreds of competitors, and, perhaps, it would be more difficult for us to break through to the player. It is very expensive and difficult to attract users to such a game.
BG:How would you rate the development of the game? What difficulties did you face during the preproduction stage?
IVAN:We have all perfectionists in our studio, people with a cool artistic background and a lot of experience, who are very much concerned about the quality of every illustration, every technical moment. At the preproduction stage, it was necessary to launch the game as quickly as possible and test the main hypotheses, and there were many funny moments back then.
I remember how the guys were very worried and there were many discussions about visual quality. There was talk about compressing textures or, for example, they discussed whether users would notice that we have three actual suns [lightening the scene], and other talks about the fact that after seeing any flaws, players will leave the game…
Among the technical challenges there were also interesting moments. For example, we were not afraid to make a game with an unconventional camera layout. In renovation games, isometric standards are usually used, which allows you to easily scale the playing field and introduce new areas in the future. We had a rail camera that moved horizontally along only one axis, which created a scaling problem. We made this decision from the beginning, realizing all the risks. There was a desire to be different, I remember one of the players noted this in his review.
BG:How do you assess the prospects of the project?
IVAN:The Gallery game turned out to be very successful, we received a huge amount of knowledge and are now ready to apply this experience in new projects. However, the game continues to evolve rapidly. I would say that the project is still at the very beginning, and the project team is developing it in all directions.
BG:Will the company continue to experiment with genres, custom cameras, etc.? What is, in principle, more important — innovation and discovery, or stable profit and compliance with market expectations?
IVAN:You need to find your balance in everything. We are not afraid to experiment and strive to create a unique experience for the players, but making a game for the sake of the game is pretty silly. I would say that we strive to create interesting products that will be not only unique but also commercially successful.