Decide what size of cover you want, and then add at least 3 inches on either side. When you finish the traditional art, upload it onto a computer and then shrink it to one inch more on each side than the cover you want. Check and make sure it looks the way you want it, make any edits, and then shrink it to the appropriate size for digital cover.
PREPTOBER FOR THE WIN!
See that’s what I thought too!
Right, that was the word.
But it’s not like I don’t wish I could paint in A2-A0 size, I just don’t have room, or the means to digitize it beyond my phone’s camera for that matter. Which would give big enough resolution, but not necessarily quality.
Honestly it doesn’t need to be that big IMO. Most people are only going to use at most a computer sized screen to view it. What can really mess you up though is the different sizes required by COG. Have you got the size list? Some are portrait and some are landscape. One of the reasons why I haven’t 100% traditionally made my covers is I find I need to move stuff around to fit. In saying that raishall’s stuff was done with traditional lineart then digital colour (but the digital colour did still allow me to move the background around a bit as required), but I had to make two completely different lineart versions so I could have one for landscape and another for the portrait ones. If you want to avoid that, make sure you have something that can be cropped in adequately and still look good from all sizes.
Edit- Raishall’s lineart was done in A6 (which was because I was silly and did them when away and forgot to bring my larger pad with me.) I wouldn’t recommend it though as I had to do some digital fiddling about to get the canvas size larger. If going full traditional I reckon A4 minimum, A3 would be better. I don’t think you really need something A0 size! (That’s huge!)
It’s a want, not a need. I’m more comfortable when I can shrink it.
As far as moving stuff around goes, one can always do different “layers” on different papers…
Don’t the price points vary depending on word count?
I know I’ve posted about this before, but high word counts intimidate me—not just as a writer but as a reader. I realize there are some who prefer super high word counts, but I don’t think that’s necessary for every game (or even most games).
Perhaps I’m the odd one out by saying this, but I would do what seems best for the story. I understand writing to market but also think if you try to make something fit where it wasn’t intended to go it might not achieve the desired outcome. Then again, if you’re rewriting it to fit in with the other story you might make it even better! It all comes down to what feels right for you, imho.
I don’t see myself writing anything close to 300k words. My first two games both sit around 225k, which I feel is more than respectable. Players are absolutely allowed to have their preferences, but I think there’s a place for shorter games, so long as they feel satisfying, as @Eiwynn said.
I completely agree, including the part about very high wordcounts being intimidating sometimes. I’m not always in the mood for a doorstopper! And having just completed a very long game myself, it becomes so unwieldy to edit and bugfix. Next project, I am going to try to write a shorter game. (I said this about Honor Bound, though, so take that with a pinch of salt.)
There was some conversation about this on the HG subreddit recently which made me feel confident that most players, and probably many/most writers too, including me, don’t have a very clear perception of what either total game length or playthrough length means in terms of play experience. A playthrough length of 50,000 words will not feel anything like reading a 50,000 word novel, etc.
I think @Jacic was referring to the way game prices are curved. Games with higher word counts are more expensive, but generally give more word for the dollar… so in a sense, better value for money.
Like, my game is 170k words for $5. If I increased it to the upper bound of the $6 range, it would be 240k words for $6. So it would be a 41% increase in word count for a 20% increase in price… so in a sense, better value.
If I didn’t misunderstand things…
Yes, but per word shorter games work out more expensive which I think causes at least some of the feeling present that short games aren’t worth it given there is such high emphasis on the number of words dictating a game’s value.
Nope that’s what I meant 
Yeah I know. I’ll have a think about it and see what might work out best. Given the huge without expectations these days 100k either way may not be what makes or breaks the story anyhow
There a “baseline” overhead cost for publishing any kind of game, especially since the actual file size differences between a large game and a small one aren’t all that big unless images are involved.
Which makes me think that higher price points for longer games mostly serves to ensure that both the author and the editors get compensated for the additional work on top of that baseline.
Oh no I get that from a business POV, but from a consumer POV many don’t know this, or if they do, they don’t care since from what they are receiving they get more words for their buck if they go for the high wordcount games since with COG there has been a big emphysis towards more = better (that’s why wordcount is put on the storefront, it’s something their customers value a lot). I’m not blaming anyone on either side, it is what it is.
Do a lot of players phrase it terms of pure words per penny? IME, when people have discussed why they want longer games, it has to do with wanting more depth, more time with characters, more branching, more stuff, essentially. None of which would be addressed by having entirely separate games in one game.
Like, if someone hypothetically went to one of the players who leave reviews like “this game is way too short” and said, “what if this game was $3 more expensive but included The Last Monster Master as well — would it be long enough then? Would you be satisfied then?” I think most reviewers would say they’re missing the point.
I could well be wrong. But I don’t think most complaints about length are truly purely about word count.
I’d be down for a game that’s an anthology of short games, but being completely honest, two 200k-ish (a perfectly respectable stand-alone length) word works in the same game feels less like an anthology and more like a marketing ploy that’s hard not to see cynically.
Is the consumer best served by not being able to play the games simultaneously/having to reset both games when restarting (barring a fancy save system)? By having to buy both or neither since they’re a package deal? Are the games best served by having to share achievements, store blurbs/marketing/Omnibus tags, cover art?
Now, the answer might well be an enthusiastic “yes”. In which case, rock and roll. But if it’s just to try to win over players who skip short games, I’m highly skeptical that’s going work.
Presumably, a 2 in 1 game is going to advertise it’s a 2 in 1 set up. (If it doesn’t, woe betide that author in the reviews/comments). Will players who bounce off “short games” not just as readily bounce off a game that advertises itself as two short games (that have to be bought together)?
While I think it’s foolish to complain after purchasing things without reading the description/playing the demo, this seems like a great way to attract irate reviews by the contingent of players who don’t look at anything but word count before clicking “Buy.”
Unless there’s real artistic merit to selling two unrelated stories in one package, I think merging them into one single story or releasing them separately is a much safer play.
Those are just my thoughts as a single, unrepresentative consumer, however.
Great point. The writer’s of yesteryear, such as Charles Dickinson, were infamous for adding more words just to meet expectations and value goals. While perhaps CD is a poor example as his stories were also imaginative and immersive and memorable, this was probably not the case for many of the poor penny dreadful writers out there.
For me, while I DO like longer games, the immersive, resonating elements are the most key thing - I guess that’s true value. To get it back to the original question, I guess the question of merging the two then could be analyzed in that aspect, if it would really make a more immersive, gripping narrative if the two stories were somehow combined, or if they were kept seperate?
I’ve definitely heard this sentiment many times yeah. It’s not the only reason but I have definitely heard many people between here and reddit voice that it’s better value to buy the longer games and it’s a factor in whether they choose to purchase or not.
Right. So it’s not a standalone price = won’t/will buy, but it is a factor. I’d actually disagree about the “more branching” though. It’s one of the reasons why I’m on the fence. What I’d be adding would essentially be more branching. You’d get to explore a lot more of the world, but it requires playthroughs. At the moment I’ve got 2 major deviations in paths (which is already a bad idea). If I added in the other content it would diverge to 4 largely different paths. Considering many people only play CSGs 1-2 times, would adding a minimum 4 playthroughs (more if you want to get all the more minor branching options within scenes) actually make most players happy? Or just cranky that they don’t feel like they got their playthrough’s worth before leaving a negative review?
I actually do want to make people happy here 
I realised it might have come across as trying to “trick” people into picking up a game with more words. That’s actually not it. Obviously I’d love people not to discount what I’m writing on word count alone, but I was kinda wondering if giving better “value per word” (ironically as an author I’d earn more per game releasing 2 x 200 word games than 1 x 400 word one) in what they were paying might make things better. But yeah, lots of pros and cons and probably not an answer that would be right or wrong for everyone.
That was bought up by chance earlier and was actually something I didn’t consider (but definitely should have given the headaches it caused me trying to work around it with raishall). You can work around it, but it’s a pain in the neck and causes all sorts of potential glitches due to bypassing the “restart game” section and essentially looping with a selective reset and bypassing controls that prevent limited selection of scenes and choices. You can do it, but for a game with as many variables as this one has it’d be a pain in the neck to get right.
I’ve actually already got one extra “mini game” in with Phantas. If it’s simple you can use achievements to check and set variables when switching between games on a small scale if anyone is thinking of doing this. For large scale games though it’s not really viable.
The two games could easily be written in as a prequel and sequel and could share things like cover art and blurbs. There’s a story behind why they share similar concepts (which I won’t bore everyone with) but they are at their heart inspired by the same source. The Oneiroi is basically riding along with your MC in both cases through a greek inspired mythology setting. Buuuut no, they’d need their own achievements as they’re two related but completely separate adventures. If I kept them separate rather than rewriting and merging you’d look at them as two stories in the same universe if that makes sense.
I’m probably biased. I kinda often like those collections that come out from time to time from authors or as collabs with multiple stories in the same world boxed together in the same volume so you can dip into a few different stories rather than a single long one. It’s just something different.
I would be extremely clear if I did that. (But it’s sounding like it’s probably not a great idea from the feedback here.) I have contemplated doing collections of much shorter games in the past and I’d be sure to make sure that this was in the game’s info. (And probably try to work it into a title or the game art if possible.)
I have no idea how long my current project will be, but I don’t see it being a big game, so this is reassuring to hear.
My friend bought me a Pusheen the cat calendar for 2024 and it’s great. Calendars have only been helpful for me the past two years (2023 was a space calendar) because before, I kept forgetting about it, but now I’m actually putting it on the wall where 1) I can see it frequently and 2) it’s not too much effort to cross out dates or add stuff, I just have to get up a little bit from my chair. Also it’s nice when I can look forward to a nice new picture every month.
Writing is hard with ADHD, a chore backlog, and a consistent need to sleep earlier, dammit! I’m a sleepy one. Today was a dang productive day, though, so that’s nice.
I think the word count thing can also be a two-edged sword. I have read some that were 1million+ and I had to put it down after like 20 pages because the story was just choked with filler text and literally nothing happened. So… just do what you feel, I think? Listen to your beta testers too. If they want more branching and more choices, give them. If they say please get to the point with the story… then do it lol.
I’d think “play experience” would be super subjective anyway. Anyway, just quoting you specifically because I read this and for a moment thought “oh, playthrough length would make a great store stat!” Then I realized that it’d just end up a victim to the same type of inflation word count is now.
From that perspective, I wonder if it’s even something you should worry about at all as a writer, especially when it comes to the longevity of your total body of work. Yes, a monster volume will attract a certain audience. But do we even have stats from writers who wrote more than 1 monster volume? Did the audience carry over? Because I would expect burnout to be a thing on both ends of the medium, especially if you start padding.
Much better to have a story take its natural course and leaving the audience wanting more, instead of having them meme-ing on Reddit about how many words it took you to describe a flowerpot or whatever.
That said: I’ve always bought like a book a week, so price per word is quite the alien concept to me. But even the traditional big book series consist of +/- 300k word instalments and take their authors decades to finish. Trying to do emulate them in one go for each of your titles feels unsustainable in the long run.
Yeah, I think that it’s best not to think too much about wordcount when writing, and concentrate more on whether the scenes feel like the pace is right (whether that means slower or faster). Doing that will mean it feels right for the game/chapter/scene in question.
I wish be able to do that. But for me now Word count is like a grim ripper. This forum has becomed me obsessed with it.
I am a short stories writer y prefer them. However, here I have no place and 99% people directly tell you in your face Oh, if it is less 250k I wont ever look at it.
So what a new writer can do without a fan base?
Well bloat the story and add stuff that dont like to add, that has no plot value and is only there to reach a number high enough players give you a slim chance
It’s easy to let this kind of thing get to you. And some here do this professionally and will have to make different calculations, but in the end it’s your art. Would you prefer readers who appreciate its intricacies or who distill it down to a number?
For what it’s worth, you’ve got the fans here already As Dory said, just got to keep writing. That’s what she said right? I forget…
There was a reddit thread recently where when asked at what point it would be preferred to first release a demo, the most popular answer was 200k+ words. Just let that sink in for a second, the initial demo should first be released once it is at least 200k words long. Not the whole game, the demo. Yeah I know it was just one reddit thread, but the expectation that only worthy games will be super duper long is definitely gaining momentum and will become the norm.
Normally I’d agree, but in CSGs that just gets you “too short” 1* reviews.
Yeah I’ve commented on this a few times now. It has become better NOT to heavily edit work and have a game where there is a lot of not strictly essential scenes and have pacing that meanders at times, than to edit heavily and shorten the game. I find this a hard concept to grasp and personally games that meander too much initially without getting to the point can cause me to put them down, but again you hear people talking about how long and slow the first installment of some games are, but how they’re great anyway and the next game will be even better. So yeah, I kind of think what in a book medium might be considered “padding” is working in author’s favour, or at worst case isn’t hurting them for a lot of games. It seems to be something a lot of people don’t mind at all and doesn’t classify as one of the major “strikes” against a work. I think this also answers the question about carry over audiences unless there is a real issue with the game.
I don’t think I’ve ever had someone tell me to take stuff out of a CSG that I can remember 