give players the scales

While playing Blur the other day with a friend, we got to wondering what stats and behaviors the game tweaks to adjust difficulty. Then we thought, "Wouldn't it be great if games allowed players to mix and match the stats how we please?"

For example, the settings which affect difficulty in Blur (regardless of which the developers coded into the Easy, Medium and Hard options) include vehicle speed, vehicle durability, collision damage, powerup strength, powerup frequency, mod availability, and number of laps.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems a fairly simple system of checkboxes and sliders (ala Oblivion's difficulty slider) would enable players to tailor gameplay to exactly their preferences.

Some players would turn off collision damage. Some would create endurance races with many laps or quick one-lap competitions. Others might make powerups available but scarce.

What's wrong with this scenario? I'm basically describing a detailed cheat mode... the sort that was extremely popular in Goldeneye 64. Such options do not eliminate appreciation for the developers careful balancing. They simply add further ways to play the game at very little developer expense.

Almost any style of game can benefit from such options which exponentially expand gameplay customization. This feature would simultaneously open the game up to more playstyles (potential consumers) and encourage players to keep their games for replay (discouraging trade-ins).

It's a no-brainer.

leave it open

I just finished Mass Effect 2. Excellent. Bioware fixed problems, introduced some cool new dynamics, and cranked everything up a notch. A very memorable game, and one I'm anxious to play again with different choices.

But (an observation, rather than a complaint) I again ran into situations in which the "right answer" I hoped to choose was not among the dialog options. And, this time around, that situation came right at the end... at the most important decision my character makes in the game.

It wasn't the choice of action that disappointed me, but the reason behind it. Sometimes it's good to leave characters' motivations unstated so that the audience can inject his or her own. This is a game, afterall, so the player should have as much control as possible over the protagonist's implied thoughts.


If you're curious how I was disappointed at the end of Mass Effect 2, the explanation is below.


**SPOILER INCOMING**


Shepard has the options of destroying the Collector space-station or keeping it for research. Research could provide valuable insights into Reaper technology and play a pivotal role in defeating them. But that research could also be used by the Illusive Man, apparently devoted to protecting and advancing the human species, to gain power for Cerberus alone and either act as dictator over everyone or aid only humans so that other species becomes subordinates.

I chose to destroy the station. And all my crew, whose loyalties I had earned, agreed with me. They all recited the above reasoning back to me... that the Illusive Man lacked the wisdom to wield such power generously or that other species would suffer, and so on.

But that's not why I chose to destroy the station. Whatever the dangers of giving the Illusive Man that much power, I agreed that researching Reaper tech could prove vital. I thought saving the station was worth the risk; better to ensure survival and fight for justice later. But I chose to destroy it because I thought the danger of the Reapers still holding sway with their indoctrination ability, despite the Illusive Man's proposed radiation sweep, was too much to risk.

In other words, I would have given Cerberus the power if I was certain its researchers would be beyond the Reapers' mind control. Unfortunately (but understandably), I wasn't given the option of that motivation for Shepard.

Oh well. I actually think the dialog options, on a whole, were much improved in the sequel.


I'd say Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games on the 360 now.

It will be interesting to see next time through if I can earn my crew's loyalties and complete every mission using the neutral dialog choices, as opposed to paragon or renegade choices. I'm a pretty even-keeled person, but it is fun to shoot a criminal in the foot now and then. :)

It will also be interesting fighting without the soldier's ability to slow time. That plus the Viper sniper rifle plus cryo ammo was a lot of fun.

freedom

What makes Mercenaries 2 awesome is that options are always present -- not just before a mission, not just out in the open world, but at any and all times. And what your best options are is always subjective. There are so many ways for an encounter to turn out. Options and dynamics are a powerful combination.

For example:


One common mission in the game is to "Verify" a person, which means to either capture that person or kill him and take a picture of the body. Once, I tried to sneak up and scout a camp with a sniper rifle before entering. But I was spotted! So I immediately rushed in with my assault rifle. If an enemy was close enough, I bashed him with the butt of my rifle.

Someone sounded the alarm, so now all the barracks are alerted and guys are shooting at me through windows with rocket launchers. Someone outside is shooting an RPG as well. I shoot him and rush over to replace my sniper rifle with his RPG (only a couple shots left). I kill some of the men in the barracks, but more show up at the windows. So I throw some C4 on a barracks, run away and hit the detonator. Boom! Now there's rubble of a building to hide behind as I regain a bit of health.

Meanwhile, more enemies are showing up in SUVs with mounted guns. Ouch! Those turrets hurt. Rather than blow them up with my grenades or C4, I strafe and shoot the men on the mounted guns to conserve my explosives. When a man on the turret goes down, the driver gets out, so I immediately rush over to bash him in the head. I exchanged my assault rifle for his LMG (light machine gun) -- shorter range, but tougher.

Someone's called for reinforcements. There was a warning that he was doing so, but I couldn't get to him in time to stop the transmission. Now there's an enemy helicopter shooting at me. I don't have an anti-air missile launcher with me. What I do have is a grappling hook. I duck behind a building and the chopper comes closer to get a better angle on me. Once it's close enough, I rush out from behind the structure, launch my hook, grapple up to the helicopter and pull the driver out. Now I'm flying around the camp. I pick off a couple soldiers with the machine gun, but a series of RPGs bring the chopper crashing to the ground. I survive.

It's time to lay down the hammer! I decided to call in my own support. I have a choice of vehicles, munitions or airstrikes to call in. I call for a tank... one of five tank models available to me, which I purchased with some of my money earlier. It's a light tank, but all I need to finish the job. A helicopter flies in as I shoot the RPG-bearing enemies who try to take it down. The tank drops, I hop in... and everybody dies. :)

I've thinned the resistance, so I make my way to the target. He's holed himself up in a bunker. I run inside and knock him down, then hit the Y button to subdue him (tie his hands behind his back). I still have to carry him to open ground where I can call an ally helicopter to extract him. There are still enemies around shooting at me. And again they call for reinforcements.

I get my man to some flat ground behind the bunker as enemies continue to shoot and call for extraction. A pirate chopper (my allies) land down and I throw the target in. The chopper immediately returns to the air. Normally, I just throw the target inside and fight my way out. This time, I jump in the chopper myself as it's already moving. Guns fire from below. Enemy helicopters patrol nearby. But we escape, and I get paid.


Most battles in Mercenaries 2 aren't this long (more than you'd expect, though). But I wanted to offer a sense of how many options and dynamics are at play at any given moment.

At any point in that battle, I could have called in an airstrike or airdrop -- tanks, helicopters, boats, laser-guided missiles, cluster bombs, anti-chopper or anti-tank fire, RPGs, C4, shotguns, sniper rifles, etc. At any point, I could kill an enemy and tank his weapon or hijack any vehicle. I could hide behind buildings or I could blow them up. I could call for first aid kits or take my chances. I could fight up close or from afar. I could enter in any direction and leave in any direction.

Meanwhile, I was surrounded by variables.

It's not rare for a game to have plenty of options. It is rare for a game to make so many significant options available constantly, including during scripted missions.

The Mercs 2 mission that begins with an oil rig is one of the best missions I've played in any game. Epic, exhilirating and full of freedom.

goal sequencing

I started replaying Saints Row 2 the other day. One feature that stands out is the relation of Missions and Activities to each other. The order in which you tackle these challenges makes a big difference.

Completing Activities (Fight Club, Heli Assault, Drug Trafficking, etc) unlocks performance bonuses and adjusts gameplay. Finishing some makes rival gangs and cops forget about you quicker. Completing others increases melee damage, makes vehicles you drive tougher, or gives you discounts at particular stores.

On top of this, the player chooses the order in which weapons are acquired through purchase. Also, one's collection of vehicles affects how some missions and activities play out. Completing Missions gains one territories that generate money to buy these weapons and vehicle customizations, so tackling Activities before Missions isn't a no-brainer.

Offering so many choices and making the sequence of those choices really matter helps greatly to personalize gameplay, offering one player experiences which are different from another player's experiences. It's the combination of unique experiences and common references, resulting in something new but understandable, that makes people inclined to share their stories with others. The sequence of events can be a powerful dynamic.

choices

I've been playing Fallout 3 recently, and it strikes me how often missions and characters relate. A character from one city wants me to kill or capture a character in another city. I'm already on a mission from the second person, and I won't be able to finish it if I accept the new mission. I can only choose one mission or the other, one person or the other.

In that scenario, I can see the choice and at least vaguely know the possible consequences. That's different from choices in other games.

In this interview with Daniel Erickson and James Ohlen from Bioware's Star Wars: The Old Republic team, there's one point in which Erickson says this:

So you killed the captain. If you had spared the captain, you know the pods that come ripping through the walls? He knows about those. He’s not some junior officer. You don’t go down that path at all if you spare the captain.

As soon as those pods come, he’s like, “Oh those are terrible, get away from those, we’re going to do this…” the whole adventure goes on a different track.

But you can’t reload and find that out.

In that scenario, the player doesn't know the possible consequences of a choice. In fact, the player might not even realize a choice with significant consequences has been made. You might kill the captain, get hurt by the pods, and never consider that the captain could have been aware of the danger and warned you.

Is that a problem? If the player doesn't know a significant choice has been made, is there any thrill to be had from making that choice? Yes and no.

An invisible choice still acts as a dynamic... as a variable which improves replayability and offers the player a unique, personal adventure. And by not presenting possible consequences with a choice, that choice is more likely to be a natural act of personality (real or pretend) than a calculated attempt by the player to direct events. Think of it like acting versus directing in a film; you can either experience and respond to events or you can script them.

But there's certainly a thrill in knowing the choice you're about to make is important or realizing a past choice had a significant effect.

Of course, in online multiplayer games, a player might be made aware of any or all possible consequences by fellow players. It's important to recognize that such spoilers needn't be solicited to be received. MMO players are always dropping spoilers in public chat channels. Friends often drop spoilers in private conversations without realizing they've done so or realizing you didn't want them to. This, I believe, will be one of Bioware's major hurdles in their work on SW:TOR.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on choice in games? Do you prefer invisible choices, overt choices, or a mix? Is one type more appropriate in some games than others?

replay systems

I recently joined GameDev.net. Lots of good discussion there and good resources for new developers. The following's a carryover of my comments there.

Recordings of player moments (screenshots, video clips, etc) are great both in terms of player enjoyment and marketing. But a distinction should be made between planned and unplanned clips.

On the one hand, you have player-scripted events; machinima. Spore and The Sims 2 offer players in-game tools for this. Alternatively, World of Warcraft is commonly used but through external tools not provided by Blizzard. Such recordings are popular, but the planning and interface know-how required limits their user appeal.

On the other hand are unexpected events which the player discovers and wants to memorialize. Replay systems are more rare, but also, I think, more valuable. NCAA Football '08, for example, automatically records every play and allows players to select from those recordings events for permanent memory. That means that if something unintentional or unexpected excites the player, it can be recorded after-the-fact. The game also allows the player to view the event from different angles. Similar systems allowing cropping and editing, but the simplest systems have the broadest appeal.

Of the two kinds of recordings, planned and revisited, the latter appeals to more gamers. It is more useful for marketing as well, since the recorded events represent actual, unscripted gameplay which any player might hope for.

I wonder if there might also be occasional value in audio recordings. At this time, apart from music, audio in games is rarely worthy of memory. Undoubtedly, some game enthusiasts have favorite lines of dialog and such which they would happily preserve, but game audio is not dynamic enough to offer individual experiences -- the primary basis of personal recordings. How to make it so is worth consideration.

better quick-time events

When I heard that Dante's Inferno will be full of quick-time events (QTE), I sighed in disappointment. I later made a comment that QTE are often fake participation. I'll explain what I meant by that.

I'm not completely dismissing QTE as a viable game feature. How could I? One of the industry's most popular game series, God of War, has thrived on them. I've never played God of War, since I never owned a Sony console (due to limited money -- not that I've never wanted one). I can't comment on that game. I've only experienced QTE in other games, and those experiences haven't been fun.

What I object to isn't the basic idea of simple actions that facilitate a cinematic experience, like climbing a gigantic monster. What I object to is purely reactive button-mashing... a complete disconnect between what the player is doing and what is happening on screen.


There's a great scene in one of my favorite movies, Fierce Creatures, where a zoo's manager leads his zookeepers to a large cage with a panda sitting amid the bamboo. The zookeepers coo and smile... until they realize it's an animatronic panda! It's in a cage for viewing as if it were a real animal, but it's really just a robot. The ensuing conversation goes something like this:

Staff: "You can't put an animatronic animal in a zoo!"
Manager: "Why not? It gave you a thrill."
Staff: "But it's not a real thrill, is it? It's artificial!"
Manager: "Having pandas in England is artificial."

The zoo manager clearly has a good point. We could fill our zoos with fake-but-convincing robots and there would still be a thrill to be had by audiences. So why don't we? First, because we value truth, and people shouldn't be intentionally fooled unless they want to be (like with magic shows). And second, because real animals can offer a grander, better experience.


Quick-time events, like any other design concept, can take many forms. The QTE that I've seen is basically like that robotic panda in the zoo. By making the player react to a series of random button requests ("Press X! Press Y! Press X!") to unlock parts of a scripted animation, these games are faking participation, in a sense. The player's button combos have no real relationship to the character's actions. Players are just jumping through hoops.

In such games, participation isn't really a significant source of enjoyment. The player's thrill isn't from the whack-a-mole action... it's from whatever epic event that action unlocks. Seeing my character climb on the back of a huge beast and stab it in the eye -- that's awesome. But while I'm concentrating on reacting to random button prompts, I'm not watching the monster. The experience is schizophrenic. The player is distanced from the action, rather than given opportunities for true engagement.

So how would I do it? What's a better way?

One example of making quick-time events truly participatory would be to mimic Assassin's Creed's acrobatic system and place the grapple points on live enemies, rather than on structures. In Assassin's Creed, every building has been strategically covered by the designers with edges and objects which the player's character can grab onto. If monsters and such were designed with grappling points like this, then gameplay could be designed to let players climb them in a dynamic, intuitive, and player-directed way.

That sort of use of QTE means each player can have a unique and personal experience based on individual decisions and circumstances.

One player might go up the giant's arm, another up the back, another latching onto its weapon or facial horn when it attacks, etc. The enemies could be capable of shaking the player off, grabbing him, or crushing him against a wall... thereby making the player's anticipation of these actions and scenarios part of the gameplay.

For example, the player's character might climb on a monster's back. The monster responds by trying to slam its back against some rocks. The player sees this coming and quickly shifts the monster's head or arm. He stabs the monster in the neck. The monster howls in pain and reaches to grab the player, but the player shifts again to the monster's back and stabs it again there.

The game might even get really crazy and allow another, smaller monster to see the player on the giant's back and climb onto the giant's back as well, trying to bite the player.

Anyway, that's just one way quick-time events could be implemented that would allow players to truly participate in the events and never lose focus on the real experience: the enemies and setting. Hopefully, Dante's Inferno will surprise me with something like that.

fill those buildings!

I was thinking of games like The Godfather II, Saints Row 2, and GTA IV... about how the cities are so big but also full of empty buildings. For every two-story structure you can enter and enjoy, there are dozens of shops, homes, and skyrises that are locked and might as well be stage paintings. That's understandable. Open world games like those already offer a lot of content, and a huge world with limited content placed amid stage props is often more fun than the alternative.

But perhaps there's a way to have our cake and eat it too.

Bioware forever changed the gaming landscape by including their Aurora toolkit with Neverwinter Nights. The intuitive software Bioware used to create the Neverwinter campaign was given to players so that anyone could design further adventures using the same assets. To date, literally hundreds, if not thousands, of adventures have been crafted by amateur designers with the Aurora toolkit. And while much of that content is basic and shallow, a community has arisen that recognizes the best designs and encourages quality contributions.

A long and deep, but ultimately finite game, was made infinite and ever new by enabling players to design additional content using developer-provided assets and tools.

Why can't games like GTA and Saints Row do that?

In the case of these games, players could expand not only out but also in. It's time to fill all those empty buildings. That can be accomplished by sharing the load with creative players. Design your big city or vast countryside. Polish it. Complete it. But then let players fill in the gaps.



Bioware has already demonstrated how this can be done efficiently -- create and maintain a player community that weeds out the bad input and sublimates the good stuff. So what if the game is for the 360 or PS3? The professionals designed it on PCs, right? Is there any reason content created by players in a PC community can't be transferred to the consoles as DLC?

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about MMOs. I'm talking about single-player and limited-mulitplayer games being fleshed out by a player community, ala The Sims 2. The idea has been out there for years. I'm just wondering why is hasn't been applied to some genres of games.

Spore: Galactic Adventures trailer

I haven't played Spore in months now, but the recent trailer for the Galactic Adventures add-on has me thinking it might be time to play again.



My main complaint about Spore has been that it's more toymaker than game. The creation tools are excellent and offer so much variety. Unfortunately, there's little you can do with them until you reach the Space stage. Actual gameplay is so sparse and shallow (though there are a few fun dynamics in the Creature stage).

Judging from the Galactic Adventures trailer, EA seems to have listened to feedback like that and has offered players something more like an actual game with rules, goals, and progression.

Still, there's another reason Spore quickly lost its shine for me. By the time you reach the Space stage, your design decisions no longer affect anything other than visuals. Gameplay is still personalized to a degree by the order in which you do things like terraform, conquer, and form alliances. But spaceships all work the same regardless of design, and your creature is just a talking picture in the dialogue screens. The Space stage would be more compelling if design decisions really mattered and led to unique experiences.

Spore players would share their stories, and not just their designs, more often and with more enthusiasm if each player had experiences which are truly unique and personal. It's not much fun telling someone a story they already know.

personal integration

I downloaded a jigsaw puzzle game the other day called Puzzle Arcade. I haven't spent much time with it yet, but I know I will... especially since it's something my non-gaming family can enjoy when we get together during the holidays. One of the game's cooler features (which I can't use yet, since I don't own an Xbox Live Vision Camera) is being able to upload your own images for puzzles. Apparently, you can't save those custom puzzles if left unfinished, but it's still cool.

I love the idea of players introducing unique, personal content in such a simple way.

I've said before that MMO designers should move screenshot viewing in-game.

Audio integration, such as enabling players with mics to record brief clips for character use (warcries, taunts, jokes, etc), is another possibility.

Another example is linking game audio to a gamer's mp3 library so that particular player-selected mp3s are triggered by particular events. It could be as general as this song for combat and that playlist for driving. Or it could be as specific as playing this song when I equip my two-handed maul, playing another song when I equip my bow-and-arrows, another song when I hop on my horse, another when the sun sets, etc.

Face-mapping isn't easy, but seems possible. Allow players to upload a photo of their own faces from a particular perspective. Software finds certain points on the face (nose tip, bridge width, eye spacing, etc), and then recreates the same characteristics in the character creation system. Note that I'm not talking about overlaying a character model with the actual photograph. I'm talking about using a photo as reference for a virtual representation using a creation system like that of Everquest 2 and Saints Row 2.

These personalizations require minimal effort from the player and don't require active input or feedback from developers (past initial production, I mean). What are some other possibilities?

gear on the fly

I picked up Call of Duty: World at War yesterday. After only an hour or so of playing, I joined a friend in the multiplayer mode that involves fighting zombies from a boarded up house. There are a number of things that make it a lot of fun with friends, but one element in particular has me wondering if it could be applied to campaign gameplay.

The player gains points for killing zombies and repairing defenses. Headshots and melee kills award more points than regular kills. You spend these points on weapons during gameplay.

It struck me as a relatively novel system. First, you're purchasing aid while enemies are still coming at you, during brief moments of respite between attacks. Unlike in Bioshock or in other games, events are not paused as you purchase help. And second, you're earning the credits for these purchases constantly and automatically (not in the form of pick-ups or something similar). Combined, this makes for a fun and unique experience.

I'd love to see a similar system used in single-player or co-op campaigns. It could make a game wonderfully dynamic.

exponential design

Someone emailed me a link to a flash program for creating virtual snowflakes. If you've ever made a paper snowflake ornament, then you know how this works. You fold a piece of paper five or six times, then cut out shapes with scissors or a knife. When you unfold the paper, the removed spots have been multiplied into symmetrical patterns.



It's ironic that in this virtual version, the unsteadiness of your cursor movements often contribute to the uniqueness and surprise of your designs.

Anyway, I think this snowflake program can be a metaphor for good game design. The best design is exponential. By that I mean that the player gets out of the game more than what the designer puts in.

A few examples:

• The ability to throw a person in Saints Row 2. Some content in the game is designed specifically for this feature, but as much or more related content is emergent. The player can throw someone against a wall, in front of a train, onto a car, off a building, over a rail, into breakable furniture, into another person, into the ocean, down a stairway, etc.

• The ability to change spell order in Fable 2. Though there are only a dozen or so spells in the game, the ordering and charge up of those spells, and their combination with melee and ranged skills, enable good variety. When abilities can be combined or linked somehow, those abilities often gain far greater affective power.

• The encouragement of trade in Monopoly and Settlers of Catan. Because trade in those games relies mostly on human intelligence (individual, dynamic, reactive, etc) more than fixed rules, players are free to adapt gameplay to suit their own preferences and momentary desires.

true pets are personal

A repost of my response to Brian's latest challenge, on pets:

I'm very interested to see how the dog in Fable 2 plays out. It's a combination of both combat and show, and has uses well beyond those... such as pointing out hidden treasures and reacting to NPCs.

What I loved most about the Creature Handler system in Star Wars: Galaxies was the variety in pet types and ways of acquiring them. By making wild creatures open to taming, the designers provided a huge assortment of potential pets without having to design a lot of pet-only creatures (the wild creatures could be fought and skinned, thereby providing PvE content).

A pet is much more meaningful when it clearly represents a personal choice, individualizing the player. In real life, people show off the individuality of their pets, not the common features. They might describe their pets from afar as "a black lab" or "a beagle", but they always point out the pet's individual personality and appearance when we actually meet it. And the individual characteristics are what we take the most joy in, even when watching wild animals.

Fable 2 allows individual players to train their dogs differently. That's a good example of making pets both personal and meaningful.

creative customization

While reading George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series and Martin's many descriptions of elaborate armor sets and weapons, I had to wonder why fantasy RPGs still don't offer gear customization like that. Many games allow customization via selection, but how many offer creative customization?

Certainly, there are good reasons that games which focus on the winning or discovery of items don't favor player creativity. But there are plenty of RPGs in which gear takes a backseat to other thrills. Neverwinter Nights, for example, adhered to D&D's bland item system (Halberd +1, Halberd +2, etc), but was still a fun and bestselling game. Oblivion had plenty of items, but also seems to focus on other goals.

I think games like Spore and The Sims have shown how popular creative customization can be. The outfit editor in Spore's tribal stage offers ideas for RPG gear editors, as do the clothing and tattoo stores of Saints Row and its sequel. And as those games show, creativity needn't exclude achievement. You can offer players new options as they advance through challenges or earn wealth in the game.

Why not? Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't seen this in RPGs.

chance

I have a great appreciation for chance/luck in games. I played a lot of boardgames and poker growing up, and those games tend to involve as much or more chance than skill. Monopoly, Sorry!, Chutes and Ladders, Scrabble, Life... countless boardgames have proven that there's a massive market for games in which the roll or the draw is king.

Complete randomness is not good. Spinnerbox, one of Fable 2's three pub games, is a terrible game. It's basically a slot machine. Slot machines can probably be found in nearly every casino in America, if not the world. The game is certainly popular, but I don't think that's because it's fun. It's addictive -- that's not the same as fun. If the reward was not monetary, I doubt anyone would play the game. It's the concept of money for nothing that's attractive. The anxious anticipation of winning quickly fades for most as the game is replayed. People stay for the money, not the game. I could be wrong, though.

So anyway, 100% chance is bad. But chance doesn't have to be a small part of gameplay. Luck can be the heart of a very popular (profitable) game.

And chance doesn't exclude choice. One thing Monopoly and Diablo 2 have in common is that player choice occurs mostly in reaction to uncontrolled events (dice rolls and loot "rolls"). The same happens in epic literary adventures; characters respond to, rather than cause, major events.

classes vs roles (response to Warhammer news)

If you're interested in Warhammer Online at all, you've probably read about Mythic's decision to drop four classes before their imminent launch. I respect that they're willing to abandon or postpone so much content for the sake of quality, but I'm not sure yet if this specific move was a smart idea.

Questions arise only because they removed the tank of two factions and the barbarian (melee DPS) of two factions... while leaving other factions with both tanks and barbarians. Jacobs has said they don't expect a balance issue, despite the uneven role distribution. I think whether or not they're right depends on the fundamental nature of classes in Warhammer Online.

It's possible for the removal of classes (on one side but not the other) to not upset balance... but only if the classes are designed more in the style of Diablo 2 than in the style of typical MMOs.

• In a typical MMO, each class is designed primarily to fulfill a specific role in group combat. The class's efficiency outside a group or outside that specific role in the group is secondary and generally suffers in some way(s).
• In Diablo 2, on the other hand, each class is designed to be a damage-dealing powerhouse in itself, and any class can be tailored to a variety of roles in group combat. The specific skills, open skill selection and upgrade system, open stat selection, and mostly-open item system make this possible. Even the barbarian can be made into a ranged support role through skill and stat selection.

I prefer Diablo 2's system. There was no need to nerf one class and empower another after release, because every character is so unique and optimization is subjective in that game. Also, it's possible to have a very effective group comprised of any class combination... including all characters of one or two classes. Any choice can be both fun and efficient in that game.

I know that WAR is abandoning many ridiculous MMO traditions. And I know they want every class to be capable of soloing. So it's possible that Jacobs is right, and there's really not a severe balance issue caused by this recent move by Mythic. We'll just have to wait and see, right?

In any case, I recommend Diablo 2 as a model for anyone working on a skill or class system.

can MMOs learn from GTA?

A long time ago, I told Bildo I'd explore what MMOs could learn from the GTA series. Well, here it is, finally.


Satire
The GTA games certainly contain more than their share of escapism. That's why kind-hearted, conscientious people laugh giddily while stealing cars and beating characters over the heads with baseball bats. It doesn't feel real.

On the other hand, GTA regularly alludes to the real world and participates in satire. Satire is about confronting real issues in entertaining ways. The most common form of satire is reduction to absurdity. A humorous spin can get considerations past people's natural defenses, and works much like myth in encouraging depthful thinking by providing only the right questions and the foundations of greater problems.

The point is: GTA alludes to real and controversial issues, but does so in a way that even people like me, who generally disagree with Rockstar's political and cultural views, still enjoy the games. MMOs don't have to avoid reality or serious issues. It's possible for reality and escapism to exist within the same game, with neither negating the other.

That said, there is such a thing as bad satire. Good satire presents things thoughtfully and without animosity, if also playfully kidding ("It's exactly the ethos our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, and then changed it [emphasis is mine]... which is what makes it sacred now"). Bad satire attacks a viewpoint without respect or honest and just consideration (like some of GTA's other jokes), thereby accomplishing nothing more than preaching to the choir and promoting disdain.


Humor
Of course, not all humor has to be satirical. Some game settings (like Warhammer) are more conducive to humor than others (World of Darkness), but humor has a place in all games.

The most memorable MMO quests I've ever experienced were two funny quests in EQ2. One had me running all over Freeport, passing along nonsensical messages because my character was mistaken for someone else and the quest-giver thought I was speaking in code and misdirections. It was hilarious. The other, at the Crossroads of the Commonlands, had me follow an NPC who claimed to hear ghosts so that the quest-giver could denounce her as crazy. When I reported that I, too, had heard the ghost, the guard thought I was crazy as well.

The wonder of humor is that it's the human way of finding joy in the most mundane and unattractive activities and situations. We're wired to search for happiness. The jokes and humorous situations that developers include are not just valuable in their own right. They promote that search for happiness and the use of imagination in players. If you make humor a significant part of your game (even dark humor, as might fit World of Darkness), then players will be encouraged to view game flaws with a smile and turn the least interesting activities into joyful occasions.


Quick, simple kills can be fun
In general, no, it's not fun when every encounter is quick and simple. But there are countless games that prove that gamers can take pleasure from one-hit kills and swarms of lesser enemies.

Some of the most enjoyable combat I ever experienced in MMOs was managing large groups of weaker opponents in Everquest 2 and City of Heroes. Soloing necromancers on rooftops was how I experienced tactical positioning and strategic knockbacks in CoH (knocking one or two enemies off the rooftop to even the odds until those enemies made their way back up). Fighting EQ2 thugs in The Sprawl, I was nearly overwhelmed by the challenge of tactically shifting my focus between enemies (kill the toughest or weakest first? which is blocking my escape route? which was weakened most by that last area-effect attack?).

As server technology improves, it's increasingly feasible to face players with bigger groups of lesser enemies. Experiment.


Toys vs games
A game has defined rules and goals. If you use the board and pieces included in a Monopoly box but change the rules and goal, then you're not playing Monopoly.

A playground merely provides objects which can be made into instruments of fun (toys) through a little imagination. A sandbox is the quintessential playground, because sand can be shaped into anything and the player might not be provided any ideas with which to begin.

The difference between toys and games often blurs, as it does with billiards. MMOs are games, but there are great advantages to including playgrounds in their design, as GTA does:

• Expansions unnecessary. In a playground, players expect to entertain themselves. Imagination is limitless, and is in need only of fellow playmates to inspire and approve ideas. Provide interesting settings, feed your player's imagination, and you'll have considerably less pressure to expand content through major additions. Carjacking in GTA never gets old.

• Being is doing. Character customization palettes (ala CoH), class/skill variables, and expansive loot tables will never match the potential breadth of variety and felt individuality that accompanies imaginative and discoverable action. Players feel like individuals when they are capable of unique actions. One of the things that turns GTA players into GTA fanatics is that they can tell their friends about gameplay experiences that aren't common, despite the millions of players. The more dynamics, the more potential for personal stories... and some dynamics are better than others. The single inclusion of sticky grenades in the Halo series has enabled countless personal and enthusiastic stories. To sum up: playgrounds offer more bang for your buck (are more cost-effective).

• Word-of-mouth is the best advertising. And the enthusiastic sharing of personal game experiences is word-of-mouth advertising. Look at the immense number of player-made videos that have popped up around Halo 3. What pictures are MMO players constantly posting on their websites? Character shots and guild raids (i.e, individually relevant experiences). The more you loosen the reins to allow players to "pause" the game to enjoy its sandbox content, the more you're encouraging personal exploration and the creation of shareable experiences. Just be sure to make the capturing and labeling of experience (screenshots, videos, etc) as simple and accessible as possible.

Give up the reins

Sorry for the late blog today. I'm still getting situated after moving out of my apartment.

Today, I just want to expand on something I said over at Cuppy's. It basically goes back to the design element I always talk about: dynamics.


DYNAMICS AND SURPRISE
The point of including dynamics is often to provide surprises and a sense of discovery to the gameplay.

That's not always the case. Some dynamics aren't about surprise. The field choice in a football or soccer game (home field or the opponent's field) affects the gameplay, but nobody arrives at the field shocked at what they're walking into. In this case, the setting dynamic is mainly intended to alternate certain advantages between teams.

But dynamics are often included to deter predictability and enable discovery. In old boardgames like Monopoly and Sorry, even in PnP games like Dungeons & Dragons, the primary factor in success or failure was the roll of the dice. The player has at least a vague sense of the odds and exercises some control of his or her experience through other actions, but chance/luck is pivotal to gameplay -- and that's at the very heart of what makes such games appealing.

In Mario Kart, much of the fun was in not knowing what weapon would be awarded for crossing a weapon tile (meaningfully designated by a big question-mark). Where a player could find a weapon tile that hadn't yet been used was also generally luck. In Diablo 2, another title with blockbuster sales, loot was acquired from heavily-randomized loot tables, special "named" or "hero" enemies spawned randomly, and levels were rearranged for each replay to encourage some wandering.

Dynamics for discovery/surprise don't have to be so random as that game's, but a larger pool of potentials generally equals a stronger sense of surprise.


IN MMOs
I've always known that any MMO design of mine would generally take a radical step away from the predictability of current MMOs.

Rewarding effort
Current MMOs are primarily concerned with rewarding effort: "Here's the goal. Here's the path. Here's your playbook. Now, go do it!"

This model is essentially linear. It generally promotes active performance but passive imagination and limited character involvement. Non-character skills, like coordination and strategic planning, are rewarded. Character personalization and empathy are deterred by ideal skillsets, ideal gearsets, ideal group configurations, and such.

Discovery is subjugated to efficiency. Most players of these MMOs appreciate explorative gameplay, but the implicit direction of the games is funneled achievement; and players usually go where the game directs them.

Rewarding discovery
My MMO would be primarily concerned with rewarding discovery: "It's a dangerous business going out your door. You step onto the road... and there's no telling where you might be swept off to." -- Bilbo Baggins.

This model is essentially open. Performance takes a backseat to reception; to absorbing, experimenting with and playing with (rather than merely employing/expending) the wonders of the world. It rewards tactics (reactionary planning) over strategy (planning before the experience begins). Characters are unique and personal because the majority of their gear, skills, and so forth were acquired unexpectedly. Unique characters reflect unique experiences... experiences which were chosen only indirectly (like encountering a grizzly bear because you chose to wander through the woods, though you were just as likely to pass through that forest without even seeing a bear).

In the words of Will Wright (who I respect more than perhaps any other game designer):

"By far, the most interesting stories I've heard from computer gamers are always the stories that they tell me about what they did in the game."

Rewarding both, but favoring discovery
Please note that I have no intention of completely shirking linear and achievement-based experiences in my game design. What I'm saying is that I would place the emphasis on the opposite end.

I believe the most rewarding affection of any game is a child-like sense of wonder and awe.

It happens when a Halo player sees his character go flying through the air as a rocket explodes beneath him. It happens when an Oblivion player climbs over a hill to be presented with an incredible view of distant ruins or a lush field of wildflowers. It happens when a Mario Kart player watches her green turtle-shell bounce off a dozen walls before finally smacking into her own vehicle. It happens when a Battle for Middle Earth 2 player watches the troll he just killed take out a few of his men in its death throes.

That's the sort of gameplay I want to design... the sort that makes your eyes go wide as you breath the words "Oh, cool." =)

Crafting reboot: Part 1

I've tried crafting in every MMO I've played, but I've never found one I really enjoyed. There have been elements in various games that seemed to be aimed in the right direction, like customization in SWG, but ultimately they all fell flat.

In trying to come up with a better system, it seems best to begin with goals, rather than mechanics. So here are my goals (which would change somewhat, depending on the particular game):

• Creativity: Players aren't merely following set instructions. They are able to discover and combine elements in fresh ways; discoveries involve logic, rather than just trial-and-error.
• Customization: Crafts can be personal. They reflect personal ownership, influence, circumstances, and/or experiences.
• Activity: Crafting requires thoughtful action; not simply following instructions or reacting mindlessly in a sort of whack-a-mole mini-game.
• Utility: Ideally, crafted goods should offer something besides convenience. Control through customization is a good example (i.e., "I could fight through the dungeons to loot a better sword than what I have, but I'd rather commision a sword with that looks and plays exactly as I want").
• Dynamic Trade: Prices and resource availability will vary with changes in the marketplace and supply dynamics. Markets are regional, with some areas offering items that are cheaper and/or different than those elsewhere.

Now for specific mechanics to reach those goals.

COMPONENT VARIATION
Diablo 2 did something like this with its gems and sockets.

The player could choose whether to upgrade a weapon with fire, lightning, cold, or poison damage -- each balanced with weaknesses and strengths -- by adding a particular type of gemstone. Fire damage is capped low, but the minimum is high, (ex: 3-4 pts) for predictability. Shock damage is capped higher, but has less predictability (1-6 pts). Poison damage isn't instant, but can accrue to massive totals when combined.

Also, each gem would offer different benefits depending on how it was used. A ruby adds fire damage to weapons, but it aids accuracy when placed in a helm, and fire resistance when placed in a shield.

I would love to see an expansive system like this in an MMO. Each type of ore, mineral, plant, animal part, fluid, gas, magic scroll/item/spell, or other component offers a particular property when crafted into an item -- the property dependent on the class of item. Instead of "To craft [x], you'll need gold", you can choose whether gold or another metal better suits your goals for the particular item. If CustomerA wants to enchant his scimitar, silver might offer the highest likelihood of success or the strongest enchantment capacity. If CustomerB wants his scimitar to smash through anything, including locked chests (ala Neverwinter Nights) and golems, you might craft the blade from diamond (with difficulty, perhaps).

The more expansive and diverse the palette of potential components, the more creative, personal, and dynamic items and trade become.

Such a system also allows room for expansions in crafting gameplay. The developer might patch new components into the game from time to time.

Components can vary in basic effect, strength, availability, region, and in a number of other ways. An imp's tongue might offer stronger fire damage than phoenix feather, which in turn is stronger than a particular pepper. But the imp's tongue might be hard to acquire. Phoenixes might be common, but appear in unpredictable locations. If travel is not instaneous (but is also adventurous -- the key to slow but fun travel systems), then component availability and prices might be segmented largely by region.

Note that I listed some crafting components that aren't found in fantasy MMOs yet (to my knowledge), like gases and liquids. By expanding the set of component classes, balancing does become more complex, but the overall system can be made far more interesting and replayable.


Activity and utility are the harder goals to satisfy. For brevity's sake (and so I can think about it), I'll try to tackle those aspects in another blog.

Gradual backstory

I've been toying with the idea of a system that would offer the player backstory options based on the player's previous actions. This way, the backstory would develop gradually over the course of weeks, or even months.

Honestly, I'm not sure yet if I like the idea myself, but it seems worth consideration. A good and individual backstory helps significantly to attach players to their characters. Blank slates, however, like the empty chat box in SWG, are just as likely to intimidate players as to help them. Even an experienced, professional writer will probably give you a questioning stare if you give him nothing more than a blank sheet of paper and say "write something." People generally need more guidance than that. So I've been thinking...

How can the developer guide players toward backstories that feel truly personal, but without expecting the players to write the stories themselves?


DEV-WRITTEN, PLAYER-CHOSEN
Backstory quests would be placed on the server, but not assigned to any particular NPC. The game would categorize player actions over time, and occcasionally offer the player a backstory quest (or other type of experience) related to those player actions.

For example, if the player demonstrates a fondness for bandits, an NPC might inquire if the player has any experience with police duty and (if the player confirms interest in the subject) offer that player a chance to retrace his law roots through some sort of quest.

Which NPCs can offer which backstory quests would be determined by relevance (a humble sailor's not likely to be familiar with your royal upbringing), but many NPCs would be capable of offering each such quest. That way, the player is likely to run into it, no matter which city or which part of town his adventure passes through.

The gist is: (1) the developer offers a quality backstory through NPC dialogue or similar content; (2) the player determines his or her own backstory options -- indirectly through natural gameplay choices, rather than being faced with a mess of stories at the character creation stage that the player may or may not be interested in at all; and (3) the player has the final say, accepting the screened and personalized story offered or holding out until the next story offering.


OR LET THE PLAYERS WRITE IT
All of this, of course, isn't meant to exclude the possibility of the developer guiding players to stories which they write themselves. Certainly, more could be done toward that end.

And I've learned to expect admirable creativity from just about any person, given the right guidance and a little luck; even if that person is certain he or she is completely incapable. Years ago, I read a very interesting and inspiring book in which an elementary school teacher had his students write their own poems after reading famous, complex works (including Shakespeare)... poetry everyone thought only adults could truly appreciate. The results are astounding. As I'm sure anyone with children knows, "out of the mouths of babes..." doesn't just refer to faux paus. Some of these child-written poems are profound.

Anyway, that book is one reason I'm confident that MMO players are capable of writing good stories for their characters, if developers could only figure out how best to inspire them.