Chapter 40: "Plants vs. Zombies" Version Planning

After posting the job advertisement, Alex Parker decided to check the applications in the evening.

Now, Alex needed to plan the version updates for "Plants vs. Zombies."

In his previous life, "Plants vs. Zombies" had sequels, but their reputation was terrible. Despite being profitable, they were poorly received by players.

Therefore, Alex didn't plan to develop "Plants vs. Zombies 2." If it was just about making money and getting criticized, why not make a typical money-grabbing game? At least he could preserve the reputation and brand of "Plants vs. Zombies."

This version update would likely be the first and last update for "Plants vs. Zombies," so Alex's goal was to maximize player engagement, allow them to develop new gameplay within the existing framework, and enable fans of the game to enjoy it continuously.

After all, Alex was about to start developing a new game and didn't have the time to maintain "Plants vs. Zombies."

Alex considered the following elements for the new version.

1. Game Content: Adding a Developer Tool

Anyone can use this developer tool to experiment within the "Plants vs. Zombies" framework.

Adjust values for plants, zombies, environments, and maps.

Upload new art assets to create new plant and zombie types.

Use existing art assets to create new maps, levels, and gameplay.

These newly created mods (modifications or enhancements) would have a dedicated entry in the "Plants vs. Zombies" game. Players could browse and download these mods to play.

Players could also rate and comment on each mod. The mod feature would include a default algorithm to rank mods based on download count, ratings, playtime, and other factors, and mods would be regularly recommended to players.

2. Building Online and Community Features

Alex's "Plants vs. Zombies" had simple online and ranking features, which only met players' needs to show off and compete but didn't fulfill deeper social needs.

With new online and community features, players could add friends or join the same community (similar to a guild). Friends or community members could watch each other play, upload and share their level-clear videos and recommend fun mods.

3. Developing Simple Multiplayer Features

With the developer tool, players would eventually create multiplayer games. Alex just aimed to accelerate this process.

The multiplayer modes Alex planned were initially simple.

First Mode: Co-op Mode

Each player controls 3-5 lanes, supporting 2-5 players in total, meaning up to 25 lanes. The screen could scroll up and down to view other players' situations freely.

Each player's sunlight production is calculated separately but can help other players plant, defending against zombie invasions together.

In co-op mode, if a player dies, they can be revived with special plants, and players can collaborate to plant special plants.

Second Mode: Versus Mode

This could be 1V1, 2V2, or 3V3. Each player gains sunlight and moonlight over time—sunlight for plants, moonlight for zombies.

Zombie production is slightly faster than plant production.

Players must use plants to defend their lawns and use zombies to attack opponents' lawns. Once a player is defeated, they cannot revive.

The reason for having both sunlight and moonlight resources is to prevent everyone from just planting and not producing zombies, which would drag the game out.

If one side controlled plants and the other controlled zombies, maintaining balance would be difficult, so Alex didn't do that.

Alex was optimistic about the success of these multiplayer modes, as they followed the original's classic gameplay with beneficial changes that wouldn't disrupt the game's core fun.

Even if they failed, players would eventually create their own mods.

Alex estimated a two-week development cycle, which was generous considering the main features of "Plants vs. Zombies" were developed in just over a month.

After roughly finishing the design document, it was evening.

The experience store closed, and Alex went upstairs to check his designer email and start reviewing the applications.

Most applications were for the assistant position, with only four for the front desk.

Alex reviewed their resumes, none of which impressed him—either their understanding of games was too shallow, they hadn't played "Plants vs. Zombies," or their reviews were too superficial.

Mainly, these four girls didn't catch Alex's eye.

Alex wasn't superficial, but since this job offered good benefits, he had many choices and didn't need to settle.

A sweet-looking front desk attendant would make players visiting the experience store happier, so he preferred someone good-looking.

At least a bit cute.

Alex continued reviewing the assistant applications.

There were many, so he reviewed each, rejecting those that didn't meet his requirements. He only needed one assistant, so he could afford to be picky.

Too old? Rejected.

Older applicants tended to be conservative, less creative, lacking in innovation spirit, and had less growth potential. It would also be awkward to have an older assistant.

Long-term experience at other game companies? Rejected.

Alex's design philosophy was entirely different from that of other companies. Long-term employees from other companies would have set ideas that are hard to change.

Only plays games? Rejected.

Playing games and making games are entirely different. Playing requires reaction time, skills, and game IQ while making games requires logical thinking, detailed planning, a diligent work attitude, and a bit of creativity.

A pure player couldn't handle game design.

Next, he looked at their game reviews.

Reviews reflected a person's basic understanding of games. Alex couldn't choose someone with a philosophy opposite to his as an assistant.

For "Plants vs. Zombies," he looked for an understanding of the game's creativity, gameplay, systems, levels, or values. Mentioning 2-3 of these aspects positively was enough.

For other games, Alex wanted to see their preferred game types and tastes. Reviewing a relatively successful game and mentioning its highlights would suffice.

Prospects for the future of gaming was an optional question.

Those with a view that was too wrong on the future of gaming were rejected—too stupid to teach.